It has recently been shown by Vargas, (4) that the passive coordinate transformations that enter the Robertson test theory of special relativity have to be considered as coordinate transformations in a seven-dimensional space with degenerate metric. It has also been shown by Vargas that the corresponding active coordinate transformations are not equal in general to the passive ones and that the composite active-passive transformations act on a space whose number of dimensions is ten (one-particle case) or larger (more than one (...) particle).In this paper, two different (families of) electrodynamics are constructed in ten-dimensional space upon the coordinate free form of the Maxwell and Lorentz equations. The two possibilities arise from the two different assumptions that one can naturally make with respect to the acceleration fields of charges, when these fields are related to their relativistic counterparts. Both theories present unattractive features, which indicates that the Maxwell-Lorentz framework is unsuitable for the construction of an electrodynamics for the Robertson test theory of the Lorentz transformations. It is argued that this construction would first require the formulation of Maxwell-Lorentz electrodynamics in the form of a connection in Finsler space. If such formulation is possible, the sought generalization would consist in simply changing bases in the tangent spaces of the manifold that supports the connection. In addition, the number of dimensions of the space of the Robertson transformations would be ten, but not greater than ten. (shrink)

Although Trautman (1966) appears to give a unified‐field treatment of electrodynamics in Newtonian spacetime, there are difficulties in cogently interpreting it as such in relation to the facts of electromagnetic and magneto‐electric induction. Presented here is a covariant, nonunified field treatment of the Maxwell‐Lorentz theory with absolute space. This dispels a worry in Earman (1989) as to whether there are any historically realistic examples in which absolute space plays an indispensable role. It also shows how Trautman's formulation (...) can be rendered coherent, albeit at the cost of deunification, by reinterpreting the Maxwell tensor as a composite object involving, in part, elements from Newtonian spacetime. (shrink)

It is shown that an approach to quantum phenomena in which charged particles are treated as macroscopically extended periodic disturbances in a nonlinear c-number field, interacting with each other via massless excitations of that field, leads almost uniquely to the five basic equations of classical electrodynamics: the Lorentz force law and Maxwell's equations. The fundamental electromagnetic quantity in this approach is the 4-vector potential Aα—interpreted absolutely as a measure of the local shift of each particle off its (...) mass shell—rather than theE andB fields, and it thus provides a new viewpoint on the questions of Aharonov-Bohm phase shifts, the existence of magnetic monopoles, and the role of gauge invariance. (shrink)

Maxwell accounted for the apparent elastic behavior of the electromagnetic field by augmenting Ampere’s law with the so-called displacement current, in much the same way that he treated the viscoelasticity of gases. Maxwell’s original constitutive relations for both electrodynamics and fluid dynamics were not material invariant. In the theory of viscoelastic fluids, the situation was later corrected by Oldroyd, who introduced the upper-convective derivative. Assuming that the electromagnetic field should follow the general requirements for a material field, (...) we show that if the upper convected derivative is used in place of the partial time derivative in the displacement current term, Maxwell’s electrodynamics becomes material invariant. Note, that the material invariance of Faraday’s law is automatically established if the Lorentz force is admitted as an integral part of the model. The new formulation ensures that the equation for conservation of charge is also material invariant in vacuo. The viscoelastic medium whose apparent manifestation are the known phenomena of electrodynamics is called here the metacontinuum. (shrink)

We present a mechanical model of a quasi-elastic body which reproduces Maxwell’s equations with charges and currents. Major criticism against mechanical models of electrodynamics is that any presence of charges in the known models appears to violate the continuity equation of the aether and it remains a mystery as to where the aether goes and whence it comes. We propose a solution to the mystery—in the present model the aether is always conserved. Interestingly it turns out that the (...) charge velocity coincides with the aether velocity. In other words, the charges appear to be part of the aether itself. We interpret the electric field as the flux of the aether and the magnetic field as the torque per unit volume. In addition we show that the model is consistent with the theory of relativity, provided that we use Lorentz–Poincare interpretation of relativity theory. We make a statistical-mechanical interpretation of the Lorentz transformations. It turns out that the length of a body is contracted by the electromagnetic field which the molecules of this same body produce. This self-interaction causes also delay of all the processes and clock-dilation results. We prove this by investigating the probability distribution for a gas of self-interacting particles. We can easily extend this analysis even to elementary particles. (shrink)

I will present a refutation of 6 and 7 inconsistency claim. Using the proof by Kiessling, I will show that Classical Electrodynamics can be applied consistently and can preserve energy conservation to the problem of charged, accelerated particles. This refutes the core of Frisch's inconsistency claim. Additionally, I will argue that Frisch's proof and the resulting debate is based on a comparison of different, approximate, explicit solutions to the Maxwell–Lorentz equations. However, in order to be informative on (...) the foundations of CED, an analysis would have to be focussed on the Maxwell–Lorentz equations as coupled system of equations. (shrink)

We show that in the Maxwell–Lorentz theory of classical electrodynamics most initial values for fields and particles lead to an ill-defined dynamics, as they exhibit singularities or discontinuities along light-cones. This phenomenon suggests that the Maxwell equations and the Lorentz force law ought rather to be read as a system of delay differential equations, that is, differential equations that relate a function and its derivatives at different times. This mathematical reformulation, however, leads to physical and (...) philosophical consequences for the ontological status of the electromagnetic field. In particular, fields cannot be taken as independent degrees of freedom, which suggests that one should not add them to the ontology. (shrink)

It is common in the literature on electrodynamics and relativity theory that the transformation rules for the basic electrodynamical quantities are derived from the hypothesis that the relativity principle (RP) applies for Maxwell’s electrodynamics. As it will turn out from our analysis, these derivations raise several problems, and certain steps are logically questionable. This is, however, not our main concern in this paper. Even if these derivations were completely correct, they leave open the following questions: (1) Is (...) (RP) a true law of nature for electrodynamical phenomena? (2) Are, at least, the transformation rules of the fundamental electrodynamical quantities, derived from (RP), true? (3) Is (RP) consistent with the laws of electrodynamics in one single inertial frame of reference? (4) Are, at least, the derived transformation rules consistent with the laws of electrodynamics in one single frame of reference? Obviously, (1) and (2) are empirical questions. In this paper, we will investigate problems (3) and (4). First we will give a general mathematical formulation of (RP). In the second part, we will deal with the operational definitions of the fundamental electrodynamical quantities. As we will see, these semantic issues are not as trivial as one might think. In the third part of the paper, applying what J. S. Bell calls “Lorentzian pedagogy”—according to which the laws of physics in any one reference frame account for all physical phenomena— we will show that the transformation rules of the electrodynamical quantities are identical with the ones obtained by presuming the covariance of the coupled Maxwell–Lorentz equations, and that the covariance is indeed satisfied. As to problem (3), the situation is much more complex. As we will see, the relativity principle is actually not a matter of the covariance of the physical equations, but it is a matter of the details of the solutions of the equations, which describe the behavior of moving objects.. (shrink)

It is assumed that the coupling of the field quantities Dμv (x) and F αβ (x) is nonlocal. This hypothesis leads to a theory of an electromagnetic field that has the following properties.(1) The source of the field F αβ (x) exhibits a center of charge and a center of mass that do not coincide, in general.(2) The field componentF 0i=−c2Ei is regular at the origin.(3) In the first-order approximation the new field equations are equivalent to the conventional Maxwell (...) field equations.(4) The conventional cutoff procedure in momentum space as practiced in the Maxwell-Lorentz theory is equivalent to the first-order approximation in terms of an invariant length ξ2.(5) The gyromagnetic ratio of the source of F αβ (x) is equal toc/mc for a quantum of chargee and massm. (shrink)

Abstract.Einstein learned from the magnet and conductor thought experiment how to use field transformation laws to extend the covariance of Maxwell’s electrodynamics. If he persisted in his use of this device, he would have found that the theory cleaves into two Galilean covariant parts, each with different field transformation laws. The tension between the two parts reflects a failure not mentioned by Einstein: that the relativity of motion manifested by observables in the magnet and conductor thought experiment does (...) not extend to all observables in electrodynamics. An examination of Ritz’s work shows that Einstein’s early view could not have coincided with Ritz’s on an emission theory of light, but only with that of a conveniently reconstructed Ritz. One Ritz-like emission theory, attributed by Pauli to Ritz, proves to be a natural extension of the Galilean covariant part of Maxwell’s theory that happens also to accommodate the magnet and conductor thought experiment. Einstein’s famous chasing a light beam thought experiment fails as an objection to an ether-based, electrodynamical theory of light. However it would allow Einstein to formulate his general objections to all emission theories of light in a very sharp form. Einstein found two well known experimental results of 18th and 19th century optics compelling (Fizeau’s experiment, stellar aberration), while the accomplished Michelson-Morley experiment played no memorable role. I suggest they owe their importance to their providing a direct experimental grounding for Lorentz‘ local time, the precursor of Einstein’s relativity of simultaneity, and doing it essentially independently of electrodynamical theory. I attribute Einstein’s success to his determination to implement a principle of relativity in electrodynamics, but I urge that we not invest this stubbornness with any mystical prescience. (shrink)

Although Maxwell theory is O(3,1)-covariant, electrodynamics only transforms invariantly between Lorentz frames for special forms of the field, and the generator of Lorentz transformations is not generally conserved. Bérard, Grandati, Lages, and Mohrbach have studied the O(3) subgroup, for which they found an extension of the rotation generator that satisfies the canonical angular momentum algebra in the presence of certain Maxwell fields, and is conserved by the classical motion. The extended generator depends on the field (...) strength, but not the potential, and so is manifestly gauge invariant. The conditions imposed on the Maxwell field by the algebra lead to a Dirac monopole solution.In this paper, we study the generalization of the Bérard, Grandati, Lages and Mohrbach construction to the full Lorentz group in N dimensions. The requirements can be maximally satisfied in a three-dimensional subspace of the full Minkowski space; this subspace can be chosen to describe either an O(3)-invariant space sector, or an O(2,1)-invariant restriction of spacetime. The field solution reduces to the Dirac monopole found in the nonrelativistic case when the O(3)-invariant subspace is selected. When an O(2,1)-invariant subspace is chosen, the field strength can be associated with a Coulomb-like potential of the type A μ(x) = n μ/ρ, where ρ = (x μ x μ)1/2, similar to that used by Horwitz and Arshansky to obtain a covariant generalization of the hydrogen-like bound state. In the presence of these fields, which are determined entirely by symmetry considerations, without reference to a source equation, the extended generator is conserved under classical relativistic system evolution. (shrink)

While mechanics was developed under the idea of reciprocal action (interactions), electromagnetism, as we know it today, takes a form more akin to unilateral action. Interactions call for spatial relations, unilateral action calls for space, just one reference centre. In contrast, interactions are matters of relations that require at least two centres. The development of the relational electromagnetism encouraged by Gauss appears to stop around 1870 for reasons that are not completely clear but are certainly not solely scientific. By the (...) same time, Maxwell recognised the equivalence in formulae of his electromagnetism and the one advocated by Gauss and called for an explanation of why such theories so differently conceived have such a large part in common. In this work we reconstruct and update the relational electromagnetism up to the contributions of Lorentz guided by the non-arbitrariness principle (NAP) that requests arbitrary choices to be accompanied by groups of symmetries. We show that a-priori there must be two more symmetries in electromagnetism, one related to the breaking (in the description) of the relation source/detector and one relating all the perceptions of the same source by detectors moving with different (constant) relative velocities. We show that the idea of electromagnetic waves put forward in concept by Lorenz (1861-1863) before Maxwell (1865) and in formulae (1867) just after Maxwell, together with the ``least action principle'' proposed by Lorentz are enough to derive Maxwell's equations, the continuity equation and the Lorentz' force, and that there is a dual formulation in terms of fields of the receiver (as opposed to fields of the source). While Galilean transformations are associated with removing the arbitrariness implied in the election of a reference space, they will not explicitly appear in a formulation based upon a relational space although we occasionally mention their usefulness. In contrast, Lorentz' transformations will emerge in this formulation involving the relations between the perceived fields of different receivers. Moreover, the role of the full Poincaré-Lorentz group as a group of transformations of the perceived actions is elucidated. In summary, we answer Maxwell's philosophical question showing how the same theory in formulae can be abduced using different inferred entities. Each form of abduction implies as well an interpretation and a facilitation of the theoretical construction. This work relies heavily on logical concepts as abduction put forward by C. Peirce, needed for the construction of theories. (shrink)

We introduce here a new “neoclassical” electromagnetic (EM) theory in which elementary charges are represented by wave functions and individual EM fields to account for their EM interactions. We call so defined charges balanced or “b-charges”. We construct the EM theory of b-charges (BEM) based on a relativistic field Lagrangian and show that: (i) the elementary EM fields satisfy the Maxwell equations; (ii) the Newton equations with the Lorentz forces hold approximately when b-charges are well separated and move (...) with non-relativistic velocities. When the BEM theory is applied to atomic scales it yields a hydrogen atom model with a frequency spectrum matching the Schrodinger model with desired accuracy. An important feature of the theory is a mechanism of elementary EM energy absorption established for retarded potentials. (shrink)

The history of the luminiferous ether is sketched with a view to ascertaining what factors may have kept this idea alive until 1905, when Einstein declared it superfluous.

The Lagrangian and Hamiltonian properties of classical electrodynamics models and their associated Dirac quantizations are studied. Using the vacuum field theory approach developed in (Prykarpatsky et al. Theor. Math. Phys. 160(2): 1079–1095, 2009 and The field structure of a vacuum, Maxwell equations and relativity theory aspects. Preprint ICTP) consistent canonical Hamiltonian reformulations of some alternative classical electrodynamics models are devised, and these formulations include the Lorentz condition in a natural way. The Dirac quantization procedure corresponding to (...) the Hamiltonian formulations is developed. The crucial importance of the rest reference systems, with respect to which the dynamics of charged point particles is framed, is explained and emphasized. A concise expression for the Lorentz force is derived by suitably taking into account the duality of electromagnetic field and charged particle interactions. Finally, a physical explanation of the vacuum field medium and its relativistic properties fitting the mathematical framework developed is formulated and discussed. (shrink)

This paper develops the conjecture that the electromagnetic interaction is the manifestation of the torsion Ωμ of spacetime. This conjecture is made feasible by the natural separation of the connection ω μ v into “gravitational” and “electromagnetic” parts α μ v and β μ v , respectively, related to the metric and to the torsion. When α μ v is neglected in front of β μ v , the affine geodesics are shown to become the equations of motion of charged (...) particles with Lorentz force, for an appropriate choice of Ωμ. Since β μ v contains the factor q/m, neutral particles do not see the torsional part of the connection and behave as if Ωμ were zero, i.e., as in Einstein's theory of gravity (the same effect is obviously obtained for charged particles when β μ v 《 α μ v ).In addition to the factor q/m, the velocity of the test particle appears in Ωμ. This indicates that the appropriate context for this problem is to be found in velocity-dependent connections. The velocities are now coordinates and become the actual velocities of the test particles only in the system of equations that one solves for obtaining the affine geodesics in connections of this type.When written with differential forms, the combination of Maxwell's equations and of the pertinent form of the torsion suggests geometric field equations for electrodynamics. As for the gravitational part of the connection, it can be made to obey equations similar in form to the Einstein field equations. A unified geometric theory of electrodynamics and gravitation spontaneously emerges. The present state of the theory does not yet permit us to ascertain whether the right-hand side of the fully geometric, gravitational field equations corresponds to the energy-momentum tensor. (shrink)

Different approaches to special relativity (SR) are discussed. The first approach is an invariant approach, which we call the “true transformations (TT) relativity.” In this approach a physical quantity in the four-dimensional spacetime is mathematically represented either by a true tensor (when no basis has been introduced) or equivalently by a coordinate-based geometric quantity comprising both components and a basis (when some basis has been introduced). This invariant approach is compared with the usual covariant approach, which mainly deals with the (...) basis components of tensors in a specific, i.e., Einstein's coordinatization of the chosen inertial frame of reference. The third approach is the usual noncovariant approach to SR in which some quantities are not tensor quantities, but rather quantities from “3+1” space and time, e.g., the synchronously determined spatial length. This formulation is called the “apparent transformations (AT) relativity.” It is shown that the principal difference between these approaches arises from the difference in the concept of sameness of a physical quantity for different observers. This difference is investigated considering the spacetime length in the “TT relativity” and spatial and temporal distances in the “AT relativity.” It is also found that the usual transformations of the three-vectors (3-vectors) of the electric and magnetic fields E and B are the AT. Furthermore it is proved that the Maxwell equations with the electromagnetic field tensor Fab and the usual Maxwell equations with E and B are not equivalent, and that the Maxwell equations with E and B do not remain unchanged in form when the Lorentz transformations of the ordinary derivative operators and the AT of E and B are used. The Maxwell equations with Fab are written in terms of the 4-vectors of the electric Ea and magnetic Ba fields. The covariant Majorana electromagnetic field 4-vector Ψa is constructed by means of 4-vectors Ea and Ba and the covariant Majorana formulation of electrodynamics is presented. A Dirac like relativistic wave equation for the free photon is obtained. (shrink)

In the course of his work on optics and electrodynamics in systems moving through the ether, the 19th-century medium for light waves and electric and magnetic fields, Lorentz discovered and exploited the invariance of the free-field Maxwell equations under what Poincaré later proposed to call Lorentz transformations. To account for the negative results of optical experiments aimed at detecting the earth’s motion through the ether, Lorentz, in effect, assumed that the laws governing matter interacting with (...) light waves are Lorentz invariant as well. Like Lorentz, Einstein first encountered the Lorentz transformations in electrodynamics. Unlike Lorentz, for whom the transformation merely provided convenient mathematical substitutions, but like Poincaré, Einstein recognized that the Lorentz-transformed quantities are the measured quantities for the moving observer. More importantly, Einstein recognized that the Lorentz invariance of all physical laws had nothing to do with electrodynamics per se, but reflected the kinematics in a new relativistic space-time, to be named after Minkowski who worked out its geometry a few years later. (shrink)

One of the most debated problems in the foundations of the special relativity theory is the role of conventionality. A common belief is that the Lorentz transformation is correct but the Galilean transformation is wrong. It is another common belief that the Galilean transformation is incompatible with Maxwell equations. However, the “principle of general covariance” in general relativity makes any spacetime coordinate transformation equally valid. This includes the Galilean transformation as well. This renders a new paradox. This new (...) paradox is resolved with the argument that the Galilean transformation is equivalent to the Lorentz transformation. The resolution of this new paradox also provides the most straightforward resolution of an older paradox which is due to Selleri in. I also present a consistent electrodynamics formulation including Maxwell equations and electromagnetic wave equations under the Galilean transformation, in the exact form for any high speed, rather than in low speed approximation. Electrodynamics in rotating reference frames is rarely addressed in textbooks. The presented formulation of electrodynamics under the Galilean transformation even works well in rotating frames if we replace the constant velocity v\documentclass[12pt]{minimal} \usepackage{amsmath} \usepackage{wasysym} \usepackage{amsfonts} \usepackage{amssymb} \usepackage{amsbsy} \usepackage{mathrsfs} \usepackage{upgreek} \setlength{\oddsidemargin}{-69pt} \begin{document}$$\mathbf {v}$$\end{document} with v=ω×r\documentclass[12pt]{minimal} \usepackage{amsmath} \usepackage{wasysym} \usepackage{amsfonts} \usepackage{amssymb} \usepackage{amsbsy} \usepackage{mathrsfs} \usepackage{upgreek} \setlength{\oddsidemargin}{-69pt} \begin{document}$$\mathbf {v}=\varvec{\omega }\times \mathbf {r}$$\end{document}. This provides a practical tool for applications of electrodynamics in rotating frames. When electrodynamics is concerned, between two inertial reference frames, both Galilean and Lorentz transformations are equally valid, but the Lorentz transformation is more convenient. In rotating frames, although the Galilean electrodynamics does not seem convenient, it could be the most convenient formulation compared with other transformations, due to the intrinsic complex nature of the problem. (shrink)

A connection viewed from the perspective of integration has the Bianchi identities as constraints. It is shown that the removal of these constraints admits a natural solution on manifolds endowed with a metric and teleparallelism. In the process, the equations of structure and the Bianchi identities take standard forms of field equations and conservation laws.The Levi-Civita (part of the) connection ends up as the potential for the gravity sector, where the source is geometric and tensorial and contains an explicit gravitational (...) contribution.Nonlinear field equations for the torsion result. In a “low-energy” approximation (linearity andlow energy-momentumtransfer), the postulate that only charge and velocities contribute to the source transforms these equations into the Maxwell system. Moreover, the affine geodesics become the equations of motion of special relativity with Lorentz force in the same approximation [J. G. Vargas,Found. Phys. 21, 379 (1991)]. The field equations for the torsion must then be viewed as applying to an electromagnetic/strong interaction.A classical unified theory thus arises where the underlying geometry confers their contrasting characters to Maxwell-Lorentz electrodynamics and to an Einstein's-like theory of gravity. The highly compact field equations must, however, be developed in phase-spacetime, since the connection is velocity-dependent, i.e., Finsler-like.Further opportunities for similarities with present-day physics are discussed: (a) teleparallelism allows for the formulation of the torsion sector of the theory as a flat space theory with concomitant point-dependent transformations; (b) spinors should replace Lorentz frames in their role as the subjects to which the connection refers; (c) the Dirac equation consistent with the frame bundle for a velocity-dependent metric with Lorentz signature generates a weak-like interaction in the torsion sector. (shrink)

In an accompanying paper (I), it is shown that the basic equations of the theory of Lorentzian connections with teleparallelism (TP) acquire standard forms of physical field equations upon removal of the constraints represented by the Bianchi identities. A classical physical theory results that supersedes general relativity and Maxwell-Lorentz electrodynamics if the connection is viewed as Finslerian. The theory also encompasses a short-range, strong, classical interaction. It has, however, an open end, since the source side of the (...) torsion field equation is not geometric.In this paper, Kaehler's partial geometrization of the Dirac equation is taken as a starting point for the development of fully geometric Dirac equations via the correspondence principle given in I. For this purpose, Kaehler's calculus (where the spinors are differential forms) is generalized so that it also applies when the torsion is not zero. The point is then made that the forms can take values in tangent Clifford algebras rather than in tensor algebras. The basic “Eigenschaft” of the Kaehler calculus also is examined from the physical perspective of dimensional analysis.Geometric Dirac equations of great structural simplicity are finally inferred from the standard Dirac equation by using the aforementioned correspondence principle. The realm of application of the Dirac theory is thus enriched in principle, though only at an abstract level at this point: the standard spinors, which are scalar-valued forms in the Kaehler version of that theory, become Clifford-valued. In addition, the geometrization of the Dirac equation implies a geometrization of the Dirac current. When this current is replaced in the field equations for the torsion, the theory of Paper I becomes fully geometric. (shrink)

The Michelson-Morley result is described empirically by generalized Doppler equations. If the phase of a light wave is not invariant, in agreement with the quantum nature of light, special-relativistic kinematics need not be assumed. Einstein particle dynamics and Maxwell-Lorentz electrodynamics in a moving system are derived without assuming special-relativistic kinematics. An alternative explanation for the decay rate of moving radioactive particles is presented. The observation of a third-order Doppler effect may yield the velocity of the closed laboratory.

The equations of electrodynamics for the interactions between magnetic moments are written on R×S3 topology rather than on Minkowskian space-time manifold of ordinary Maxwell's equations. The new field equations are an extension of the previously obtained Klein-Gordon-type, Schrödinger-type, Weyl-type, and Dirac-type equations. The concept of the magnetic moment in our case takes over that of the charge in ordinary electrodynamics as the fundamental entity. The new equations have R×S3 invariance as compared to the Lorentz invariance of (...) Maxwell's equations. The solutions of the new field equations are given. In this theory the divergence of the electric field vanishes whereas that of the magnetic field does not. (shrink)

The experimental testing of the Lorentz transformations is based on a family of sets of coordinate transformations that do not comply in general with the principle of equivalence of the inertial frames. The Lorentz and Galilean sets of transformations are the only member sets of the family that satisfy this principle. In the neighborhood of regular points of space-time, all members in the family are assumed to comply with local homogeneity of space-time and isotropy of space in at (...) least one free-falling elevator, to be denoted as Robertson'sab initio rest frame [H. P. Robertson,Rev. Mod. Phys. 21, 378 (1949)].Without any further assumptions, it is shown that Robertson's rest frame becomes a preferred frame for all member sets of the Robertson family except for, again, Galilean and Einstein's relativities. If one now assumes the validity of Maxwell-Lorentz electrodynamics in the preferred frame, a different electrodynamics spontaneously emerges for each set of transformations. The flat space-time of relativity retains its relevance, which permits an obvious generalization, in a Robertson context, of Dirac's theory of the electron and Einstein's gravitation. The family of theories thus obtained constitutes a covering theory of relativistic physics.A technique is developed to move back and forth between Einstein's relativity and the different members of the family of theories. It permits great simplifications in the analysis of relativistic experiments with relevant “Robertson's subfamilies.” It is shown how to adapt the Clifford algebra version of standard physics for use with the covering theory and, in particular, with the covering Dirac theory. (shrink)

This book is a stimulating and engaging discussion of philosophical issues in the foundations of classical electromagnetism. In the rst half, Frisch argues against the standard conception of the theory as consistent and local. The second half is devoted to the puzzle of the arrow of radiation: the fact that waves behave asymmetrically in time, though the laws governing their evolution are temporally symmetric. The book is worthwhile for anyone interested in understanding the physical theory of electromagnetism, as well for (...) the views it presents on philosophical issues such as causation, counterfactuals, laws, scienti c theories, models, and explanation. While philosophers of physics tend to focus on quantum mechanics and relativity, Frisch’s book shows that there are deep foundational issues in classical physics, equally worthy of attention. That said, let me lodge disagreement on some key points. Frisch argues from an alleged inconsistency in classical electromagnetism— that Maxwell’s equations, the Lorentz force law, and the conservation of energy cannot be jointly true—to the conclusion that the standard view of scienti c theories as a formalism plus an interpretation is incorrect. Consistency is a necessary condition of any view on which scienti c theories give us an account of “ways the world could be” (Frisch, , ). Since classical electromagnetism is successfully used by practicing physicists, consistency must be just one criterion of theory choice weighed equally among others. This is an intriguing idea, but I am not sure that consistency can be given up so easily. That road leads dangerously close to accepting orthodox ‘Copenhagen’ quantum mechanics. Surely the inconsistency of.. (shrink)

This paper is a review of the canonical proper-time approach to relativistic mechanics and classical electrodynamics. The purpose is to provide a physically complete classical background for a new approach to relativistic quantum theory. Here, we first show that there are two versions of Maxwell’s equations. The new version fixes the clock of the field source for all inertial observers. However now, the (natural definition of the effective) speed of light is no longer an invariant for all observers, (...) but depends on the motion of the source. This approach allows us to account for radiation reaction without the Lorentz-Dirac equation, self-energy (divergence), advanced potentials or any assumptions about the structure of the source. The theory provides a new invariance group which, in general, is a nonlinear and nonlocal representation of the Lorentz group. This approach also provides a natural (and unique) definition of simultaneity for all observers.The corresponding particle theory is independent of particle number, noninvariant under time reversal (arrow of time), compatible with quantum mechanics and has a corresponding positive definite canonical Hamiltonian associated with the clock of the source.We also provide a brief review of our work on the foundational aspects of the corresponding relativistic quantum theory. Here, we show that the standard square-root and Dirac equations are actually two distinct spin- $\frac{1}{2}$ particle equations. (shrink)

I discuss two case studies from classical electrodynamics challenging the distinction between laws that delineate physically possible words and initial conditions. First, for many reasonable initial conditions there exist no global solutions to the Maxwell‐Lorentz equations for continuous charge distributions. Second, in deriving an equation of motion for a charged point particle one needs to invoke an asymptotic condition that seems to express a physically contingent fact even though it is mathematically necessary for the derivation.

This paper uncovers the basic reason for the mysterious change of sign from plus to minus in the fourth coordinate of nature's Pythagorean law, usually accepted on empirical grounds, although it destroys the rational basis of a Riemannian geometry. Here we assume a genuine, positive-definite Riemannian space and an action principle which is quadratic in the curvature quantities (and thus scale invariant). The constant σ between the two basic invariants is equated to1/2. Then the matter tensor has the trace zero. (...) In consequence of the constancy of the scalar curvature and the divergence identity of the matter tensor, the perturbation metric has to satisfy a scalar and a vector condition, with a negative sign in the fourth coordinate. These conditions lead to the Lorentz condition and the wave equation for the vector potential. Thus the entire Maxwell-Lorentz type of electrodynamics becomes logically derivable, making no concession to any irrationality. (shrink)

In the framework of off-shell quantum electrodynamics—the quantum field theory of a covariant symplectic mechanics, in which events evolve according to a Poincaré-invariant parameter τ—we study the low-energy scattering of identical scalar particles. It is shown that exchange of mass is permitted in the formalism, and we calculate scattering cross-sections for this case. In these cross-sections, the usual forward pole of the standard scalar QED splits into two poles and a zero, slightly offset from the forward direction. As mass (...) exchange vanishes, a pole-zero pair cancel, the remaining pole moves to θ = 0, and the standard cross-section is recovered. (shrink)

A [1983] review, 'Relativity before Einstein' made no mention of the work of Joseph Larmor, whose early derivation of the Lorentz transformation seems to be less well known than those of Lorentz and Poincare. In 1897, Larmor, starting from a first-order transformation similar to Lorentz's first order version, presented the correct form of what is now known as the Lorentz transformation. In his presentation of the theory in 1900 Larmor saw the time dilation effect as a (...) consequence of Maxwell's electromagnetic theory. It was Lorentz who, in 1895, introduced the notion of the relativity of simultaneity (local time), without the time dilation effect. Poincare in 1900 discussed how Lorentz's local time would arise from the procedure of synchronizing moving clocks by exchanging light signals assumed to travel at the same speed in either direction. Lorentz presented the correct version of the transformation in 1899, and discussed the variation of mass with velocity arising from it. In 1902 Lorentz was aware of Larmor's 1897 work but apparently missed its significance. Nevertheless, the credit for the first presentation of the Lorentz transformation including the crucial time dilation belongs to Larmor. (shrink)

It is shown that the usual procedures of obtaining the macroscopic Maxwell equations from the microscopic Maxwell-Lorentz equations by performing averages contain an arbitrary choice of gauge. By a suitable different choice of the gauge the so-obtained Maxwell equations can be cast back to the form of the starting Maxwell-Lorentz equations. Therefore one cannot consider the Maxwell equations to be obtainable from the Maxwell-Lorentz equations by simply performing averages. The implication of (...) this result is that besides the electromagnetic fields produced by the moving electric charges, as given by the Maxwell-Lorentz equations, there may be some other agents that cannot be identified as some kind of motion of the electric charges and that participate in the production of the electromagnetic fields. (shrink)

It was shown in Dirac A117, 610; A118, 351, 1928) that the ultra-violet divergence in quantum electrodynamics is caused by a violation of the time-energy uncertainly relationship, due to the implicit assumption of infinitesimal time information. In Wheeler et al. it was shown that Einstein’s special theory of relativity and Maxwell’s field theory have mathematically equivalent dual versions. The dual versions arise from an identity relating observer time to proper time as a contact transformation on configuration space, which (...) leaves phase space invariant. The special theory has a dual version in the sense that, for any set of n particles, every observer has two unique sets of global variables \\) and \\) to describe the dynamics, where \ is the canonical center of mass. In the \\) variables, time is relative and the speed of light is unique, while in the \\) variables, time is unique and the speed of light is relative with no upper bound. In the Maxwell case, the two sets of particle wave equations are not equivalent. The dual version contains an additional longitudinal radiation term that appears instantaneously with acceleration, leading to the prediction that radiation from a cyclotron will not produce photoelectrons. A major outcome is the dual unification of Newtonian mechanics and classical electrodynamics with Einstein’s special theory of relativity, without the need for point particles, without a self-energy divergency and, without need for the problematic Lorentz–Dirac equation. The purpose of this paper is to introduce the dual theory of relativistic quantum mechanics. In our approach, we obtain three distinct dual relativistic wave equations that reduce to the Schrödinger equation when minimal coupling is turned off. We show that the dual Dirac equation provides a new formula for the anomalous magnetic moment of a charged particle. We can obtain the exact value for the electron g-factor and phenomenological values for the muon and proton g-factors. (shrink)

Newtonian and Machian aspects of the stationary gravitational field are brought into formal analogy with a stationary electromagnetic field. The electromagnetic vector potential equals (up to a factor) the timelike Killing vector field. The current density is given by the contraction of the Killing vector with the Ricci tensor. A coordinate-dependent split in electric and magnetic field vectors is given, and some results of classical electrodynamics are used to illustrate the analogy. In the linearized theory, the usual Maxwell (...) equations are obtained. The analogy also holds from the point of view of particle motion. The geodesic equation is brought into a special form that exhibits an analog to the Lorentz force. Two examples (which have played an important role in the theoretical discovery of Machian effects) are considered. (shrink)

In this paper, I argue that the recent discussion on the time - reversal invariance of classical electrodynamics (see (Albert 2000: ch.1), (Arntzenius 2004), (Earman 2002), (Malament 2004),(Horwich 1987: ch.3)) can be best understood assuming that the disagreement among the various authors is actually a disagreement about the metaphysics of classical electrodynamics. If so, the controversy will not be resolved until we have established which alternative is the most natural. It turns out that we have a paradox, namely (...) that the following three claims are incompatible: the electromagnetic fields are real, classical electrodynamics is time-reversal invariant, and the content of the state of affairs of the world does not depend on whether it belongs to a forward or a backward sequence of states of the world. (shrink)

We address to the Poynting theorem for the bound electromagnetic field, and demonstrate that the standard expressions for the electromagnetic energy flux and related field momentum, in general, come into the contradiction with the relativistic transformation of four-vector of total energy–momentum. We show that this inconsistency stems from the incorrect application of Poynting theorem to a system of discrete point-like charges, when the terms of self-interaction in the product \ and bound electric field \ are generated by the same source (...) charge) are exogenously omitted. Implementing a transformation of the Poynting theorem to the form, where the terms of self-interaction are eliminated via Maxwell equations and vector calculus in a mathematically rigorous way, we obtained a novel expression for field momentum, which is fully compatible with the Lorentz transformation for total energy–momentum. The results obtained are discussed along with the novel expression for the electromagnetic energy–momentum tensor. (shrink)

In this paper the Lorentz transformations (LT) and the standard transformations (ST) of the usual Maxwell equations (ME) with the three-dimensional (3D) vectors of the electric and magnetic fields, E and B, respectively, are examined using both the geometric algebra and tensor formalisms. Different 4D algebraic objects are used to represent the usual observer dependent and the new observer independent electric and magnetic fields. It is found that the ST of the ME differ from their LT and consequently (...) that the ME with the 3D E and B are not covariant upon the LT but upon the ST. The obtained results do not depend on the character of the 4D algebraic objects used to represent the electric and magnetic fields. The Lorentz invariant field equations are presented with 1-vectors E and B, bivectors EHv and BHv and the abstract tensors, the 4-vectors Ea and Ba. All these quantities are defined without reference frames, i.e., as absolute quantities. When some basis has been introduced, they are represented as coordinate-based geometric quantities comprising both components and a basis. It is explicitly shown that this geometric approach agrees with experiments, e.g., the Faraday disk, in all relatively moving inertial frames of reference, which is not the case with the usual approach with the 3D bf E and B and their ST. (shrink)

The vector product method developed in previous articles for space rotations and Lorentz transformations is extended to the cases of four-vectors, anti-symmetric tensors, and their transformations in Minkowski space. The electromagnetic fields are expressed in “six-vector” form using the notationH +iE, and this vector form is shown to be relativistically invariant. The wave equations of electromagnetism are derived using these vector products. The following three equations are deduced, which summarize electrodynamics in a compact form: (1) Maxwell's four (...) equations expressed as one, (2) the scalar and vector potential wave equations combined into one relation, and (3) the wave equations for the electric and magnetic fields and the continuity equation combined together. Space inversion, time reversal, and magnetic monopoles are also treated. (shrink)

Abstract We examine the construction of electromagnetism in its current form, and in an alternative form, from a point of view that combines a minimal realism with strict rational demands. We begin by discussing the requests of reason when constructing a theory and next, we follow the historical development as presented in the record of original publications, the underlying epistemology (often explained by the authors) and the mathematical constructions. The historical construction develops along socio-political disputes (mainly, the reunification of Germany (...) and the second industrial revolution), epistemic disputes (at least two demarcations of science in conflict) and several theories of electromagnetism. Such disputes resulted in the militant adoption of the ether by some, a position that expanded in parallel with the expansion of Prussia. This way of thinking was facilitated by the earlier adoption of a standpoint that required, as a condition for understanding, the use of physical hypothesis in the form of analogies; an attitude that is antithetic to Newton's “hypotheses non fingo”. While the material ether was finally abandoned, the epistemology survived in the form of “substantialism” and a metaphysical ether: the space. The militants of the ether attributed certainties regarding the ether to Faraday and Maxwell, when they only expressed doubts and curiosity. Thus, the official story is not the real history. This was achieved by the operation of detaching Maxwell's electromagnetism from its construction and introducing a new game of formulae and interpretations. Large and important parts of Maxwell work are today not known, as for example, the rules for the transformation of the electromagnetic potentials between moving systems. When experiments showed that all the theories based in the material ether were incorrect, a new interpretation was offered: Special Relativity (SR). At the end of the transformation period a pragmatic view of science, well adapted to the industrial society, had emerged, as well as a new protagonist: the theoretical physicist. The rival theory of delayed action at distance initiated under the influence of Gauss was forgotten in the midst of the intellectual warfare. The theory is indistinguishable in formulae from Maxwell's and its earlier versions are the departing point of Maxwell for the construction of his equations. We show in a mathematical appendix that such (relational) theory can incorporate Lorentz' contributions as well as Maxwell's transformations and C. Neumann's action, without resource to the ether. Demarcation criteria was further changed at the end of the period making room for habits and intuitions. When these intuited criteria are examined by critical reason (seeking for the fundaments) they can be sharpened with the use of the Non Arbitrariness Principle, which throws light over the arbitrariness in the construction of SR. Under a fully rational view SR is not acceptable, it requires to adopt a less demanding epistemology that detaches the concept from the conception, such as Einstein's own view in this respect, inherited from Hertz. In conclusion: we have shown in this relevant exercise how the reality we accept depends on earlier, irrational, decisions that are not offered for examination but rather are inherited from the culture. (shrink)

We give a precise and modern mathematical characterization of the Newtonian spacetime structure (ℕ). Our formulation clarifies the concepts of absolute space, Newton's relative spaces, and absolute time. The concept of reference frames (which are “timelike” vector fields on ℕ) plays a fundamental role in our approach, and the classification of all possible reference frames on ℕ is investigated in detail. We succeed in identifying a Lorentzian structure on ℕ and we study the classical electrodynamics of Maxwell and (...) Lorentz relative to this structure, obtaining the important result that there exists only one intrinsic generalization of the Lorentz force law which is compatible with Maxwell equations. This is at variance with other proposed intrinsic generalizations of the Lorentz force law appearing in the literature. We present also a formulation of Newtonian gravitational theory as a curve spacetime theory and discuss its meaning. (shrink)

In a rather old paper, Mario Liu described a hydrodynamic Maxwell equations. While he also discussed potential implications of these new approaches to superconductors, such a discussion of electrodynamics of superconductors is made only after Tajmar’s paper. Therefore, in this paper we present for the first time a derivation of fluidic Maxwell-Proca equations. The name of fluidic Maxwell-Proca is proposed because the equations were based on modifying Maxwell-Proca and Hirsch’s theory of electrodynamics of superconductor. (...) It is hoped that this paper may stimulate further investigations and experiments in superconductor. It may be expected to have some impact to cosmology modeling too, for instance we consider a hypothetical argument that photon mass can be origin of gravitation. Then, after combining with the so-called chiral modification of Maxwell equations (after Spröessig), then we consider chiral Maxwell-Proca equations as possible alternative of gravitation theory. Such a hypothesis has never considered in literature to the best of our knowledge. (shrink)

In the context of a covariant mechanics with Poincaré-invariant evolution parameter τ, Sa'ad, Horwitz, and Arshansky have argued that for the electromagnetic interaction to be well posed, the local gauge function of the field should include dependence on τ, as well as on the spacetime coordinates. This requirement of full gauge covariance leads to a theory of five τ-dependent gauge compensation fields, which differs in significant aspects from conventional electrodynamics, but whose zero modes coincide with the Maxwell theory. (...) The pre-Maxwell fields may exchange mass with charged particles, permitting pair annihilation even at the classical level. The total mass-energy-momentum tensor of the fields and particles is conserved. The Green's functions for the fields provide spacelike and timelike support for correlations, as well as lightlike propagation. A τ-integration of the fields—singling out the massless photons—recovers the standard Maxwell theory, which then has the character of an equilibrium limit of the underlying microscopic dynamics. The pre-Maxwell theory also turns out to be the solution of the inverse problem in variational mechanics: it is shown to be the most general local gauge theory consistent with unconstrained commutation relations in four dimensions. Posed in this framework, the extension to n-dimensions, curved background space, and non-abelian gauge symmetry becomes straightforward. (shrink)

James Clerk Maxwell’s 1865 paper, “A Dynamical Theory of the Electromagnetic Field,” is usually remembered as replacing the mechanical model that underpins his 1862 publication with abstract mathematics. Up to this point historians have considered Maxwell’s usage of Lagrangian dynamics as the sole important feature that guides Maxwell’s analysis of electromagnetic phenomena in his 1865 publication. This paper offers an account of the often ignored mechanical analogy that Maxwell used to guide him and his readers in (...) the construction of his new electromagnetic equations. The mechanical system consists of a weighted flywheel geared into two independently driven crank wheels in what amounts to a mechanical differential. I will demonstrate how Maxwell made use of the analogy between his flywheel system and electromagnetic induction to ground his study of electromagnetism in clear mechanical conceptions and to structure the derivation of the equations that together are now recognized as Maxwell’s equations for electrodynamics. By reconceiving specific components of his model in electromagnetic terms, while at the same time retaining many of the relations between concepts in the mechanical case, Maxwell gradually assembled increasingly generalized equations for electromotive force. Maxwell thus realized a much sought after balance between physical analogy and abstract mathematics in this, the last of his three seminal papers on electromagnetism. (shrink)

We explore certain difficulties in the covariant classical mechanics associated with off-shell electrodynamics, through an examination of the classical Coulomb problem. We present a straightforward solution of the classical equations of motion for a test event traversing the field induced by a “fixed” event (an event moving uniformly along the time axis at a fixed point in space). This solution reveals the essential difficulties in the formalism at the classical level. We then offer a new model of the particle, (...) as a certain distribution of events on the worldline, which eliminates these difficulties and permits comparison of classical off-shell electrodynamics with the standard Maxwell theory In this model, the “fixed” event induces a Yukawa-type potential, permitting a semiclassical identification of the pre-Maxwell time scale λ with the inverse mass of the intervening photon. Numerical solutions to the equations of motion are compared with the standard Maxwell solutions—they are seen to coincide when λ > 10–6 sec, providing an initial estimate of this parameter. (shrink)

It is discerned what light can bring the recent historical reconstructions of maxwellian optics and electromagnetism unification on the following philosophical/methodological questions. I. Why should one believe that Nature is ultimately simple and that unified theories are more likely to be true? II. What does it mean to say that a theory is unified? III. Why theory unification should be an epistemic virtue? To answer the questions posed genesis and development of Maxwellian electrodynamics are elucidated. It is enunciated that (...) the Maxwellian Revolution is a far more complicated phenomenon than it may be seen in the light of Kuhnian and Lakatosian epistemological models. Correspondingly it is maintained that maxwellian electrodynamics was elaborated in the course of the old pre-maxwellian programmes’ reconciliation: the electrodynamics of Ampére-Weber, the wave theory of Young-Fresnel and Faraday’s programme. To compare the different theoretical schemes springing from the different language games James Maxwell had constructed a peculiar neutral language. Initially it had encompassed the incompressible fluid models; eventually – the vortices ones. The three programmes’ encounter engendered the construction of the hybrid theory at first with an irregular set of theoretical schemes. However, step by step, on revealing and gradual eliminating the contradictions between the programmes involved, the hybrid set is “put into order” (Maxwell’s term). A hierarchy of theoretical schemes starting from ingenious crossbreeds (the displacement current) and up to usual hybrids is set up. After the displacement current construction the interpenetration of the pre-maxwellian programmes begins that marks the commencement of theoretical schemes of optics, electricity and magnetism real unification. Maxwell’s programme surpassed that of Ampére-Weber because it did absorb the ideas of the Ampére-Weber programme, as well as the presuppositions of the programmes of Young-Fresnel and Faraday properly co-ordinating them with each other. But the opposite statement is not true. The Ampére-Weber programme did not assimilate the propositions of the Maxwellian programme. Maxwell’s victory over his rivals became possible because the gist of Maxwell’s unification strategy was formed by Kantian epistemology looked in the light of William Whewell and such representatives of Scottish Enlightenment as Thomas Reid and Sir William Hamilton. Maxwell did put forward as basic synthetic principles the ideas that radically differed from that of Ampére-Weber approach by their open, flexible and contra-ontological, genuinly epistemological, Kantian character. For Maxwell, ether was not the ultimate building block of physical reality, from which all the charges and fields should be constructed. “Action at a distance”, “incompressible fluid”, “molecular vortices”, etc. were contrived analogies for Maxwell, capable only to direct the researcher at the “right” mathematical relations. Key words: J.C. Maxwell, unification of optics and electromagnetism, I. Kant, T. Reid, W. Hamilton . (shrink)