P. 1
Some Methodological problems of the electrodynamics o moving bodies

Some Methodological problems of the electrodynamics o moving bodies

|Views: 1.125|Likes:
Publicado poruvlight1

More info:

Published by: uvlight1 on Mar 08, 2011
Copyright:Attribution Non-commercial


Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.
download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
See more
See less







Dragan Redˇi´ zc
University of Belgrade


Table of contents 1. Recurrent topics in special relativity 1.1. Temptations 1.2. Miracles 1.3. Path toward understanding? 1.4. Relativity without Maxwell’s electrodynamics? Notes 2. Electrodynamics of moving bodies and the Wilson-Wilson experiment 2.1. Einstein, Minkowski 2.2. Einstein and Laub, the Wilson-Wilson experiment 2.3. Review of recent reexaminations of the classical interpretation of the Wilson-Wilson experiment 2.4. Electrodynamics of bodies in slow motion: with or without special relativity? Notes 3. A problem in electrodynamics of slowly moving bodies: Maxwell’s theory versus relativistic electrodynamics 3.1. Setup of the problem 3.2. Solution in the framework of Maxwell’s theory 3.3. Solution in the framework of relativistic electrodynamics 3.4. Experiments Notes



Recurrent Topics in Special Relativity

That Einstein’s special relativity - from its advent until today - continues to be a live source of stupefaction and wonders for both laymen and professional physicists is well known.1 One of the reasons for a rather emotional, almost passionate attitude toward that physical theory certainly lies in the fact that its basic concepts (time, length, mass) are fundamentally different from the corresponding concepts that have been used with enormous success and without a trace of doubt by numerous generations of pre-relativistic physicists (and laymen). Unfortunately, these different concepts have been labeled with the same terms and so, thanks to the power of habit, created an environment conducive to implanting the connotation of the old concepts within that of the new ones. As a rule, that happens: terminological confusion leads to confusion in sense. It is clear that new concepts need new terms, but in addition to the fact that physicists too are doomed to a life-long use of meta-language of everyday speech, the problem with physical concepts is that they constantly evolve. We remind the reader of a relatively benign but long-lived terminological problem concerning relativistic mass depending on speed (Okun 1989, 1998, Strnad 1991, Sandin 1991, Redˇi´ 1990a, 2002), zc which, according to the present author, can be simply eliminated by using Occam’s razor.2 Another less-known (and a lot less benign) terminological and conceptual problem concerns relativistic tri-force and quadri-force with differentiating “pure” and “impure” forces (cf Rindler 1991, Møller 1972, Leiboviz 1969, Carini 1965, Kalman 1961, Redˇi´ 1996). It is indicative, zc one can say, that Rindler, in his rightly acclaimed book on special relativity, as the general form of the transformation law of relativistic tri-forces presents equations in which, figuratively speaking, “monkeys and donkeys” are mixed. To be a bit more precise, in the transformation law of quantities 3

more dangerous temptations lurk. without rotation and without relative motion. Then (as reckoned by an observer in A) the ships will have at 4 . in Rindler appears also a time dependence of the relativistic mass. to brood over them for several years and even to use them in everyday work.3 The result is. On reception of these signals the motors of B and C are ignited and they accelerate gently along the straight line connecting them (Figure 2). Let the ships B and C be identical. a little riddle with pictures suitable to a primer on relativity.that represent a ratio of spatial components of a quadri-vector in Minkowski space and the corresponding relativistic factor gamma (i. a conceptual mess. and have identical acceleration programmes. just like in fairy tales. Three small spaceships A. it turns out that it is not sufficient to know of the FitzGeraldLorentz contraction and time dilatation. As an illustration for this state of affairs might serve the following simple problem. we all are groping our path toward understanding basic concepts. with B and C equidistant from A (Figure 1). B and C drift freely in a region of space remote from other matter. in purely geometric and kinematic relations).e. When a traveler through relativity somehow escapes from the quicksand of terminology. for both “pure” and “impure” forces. obtained from the quadri-vector equation of motion (a purely dynamic quantity). Figure 1 In one moment two identical signals from A are emitted toward B and C.4 Namely. as Bridgman (1963) put it in A Sophisticate’s Primer on Relativity. of course.

Will the thread break when the ships B and C reach a sufficiently high speed? B B C C Figure 2 Figure 3 According to the testimony of a distinguished physicist John Bell (1976). testifies Bell. goes as follows: “If the thread is just long enough to span the required distance initially. a polemic over this old problem that was started once between him and a distinguished experimental physicist in the CERN canteen was eventually passed on to a significantly broader forum for arbitration: the CERN Theory Division. in Bell’s formulation. Elementary explication. was eventually reached: the thread would not break. The answer is none the less wrong. (Cf also Dewan and Beran 1959. Let us suppose that a fragile thread connects two identical projections placed exactly at the midpoints of the ships B and C before the motors were started (Figure 3).) Here. A clear consensus. we shall briefly paraphrase Bell’s remarkable comment on the described situation which refers to the method of teaching special relativity. it will become too short. then as the ships accelerate the thread travels with them. Evett 1972. Evett and Wangsness 1960.) It is observed that the setup of the problem has been altered for several years. Dewan 1963. 5 . because of its need to FitzGerald contract. the artificial prevention of the natural contraction imposes intolerable stress”. It must break when.every moment the same velocity. and always be at the same distance from one another. and must finally break. then as the rockets speed up. at a sufficiently high velocity. If the thread with no stress is just long enough to span the initial distance in question.

However. We neglect the fact that the chain of thought of the old pioneerswise men. which is uniformly moving with velocity perpendicular to the mirror’s plane.2 Miracles It is time to mention a few of the host of small and big wonders of special relativity. but as a natural offspring of earlier physical ideas. as is the case in Einstein’s approach. whereas Einstein (1905a) used only three pages for the same thing in his epoch-making paper (honestly. The result is often the complete destruction of the student’s trust in perfectly safe and useful concepts acquired earlier. achieved from logically entangled postulates. classical road. but in a tedious and complicated way. The small wonders are the methodological ones. One of famous such problems belongs to optics of perfect mirror in motion: what is the radiation pressure of a monochromatic plane linearly polarized electromagnetic wave on a planar perfect mirror. Lorentz and Poincar´. have a stronger and more reliable intuition.5 It appeared to Bell that students who follow this longer. unexpected qualities of rigid (in relativistic sense. by “switching off” one inertial frame of reference and “switching on” another. factually carried out e and freed from the “weak link” of Newton’s concepts of time and space. Max Abraham (1904) needed forty pages of text for the solution of this problem. the scientific problems that have been solved earlier. predicts both time dilatation and length contraction and leads eventually to the same conclusions as the Einstein’s theory. the radical breakup with the primitive concepts of space and time. 1. before relativity. FitzGerald. rather concise three pages. as pointed out by Arthur Miller (1981) in his rich and 6 . merely by “pushing the button”. Larmor. cf Rindler 1991) sticks and clocks that move do not appear as a dry consequence of certain abstract mathematical transformations. and that can be solved by using special relativity simply and elegantly.It is customary to emphasize the discontinuity.

b). It is well known that an isolated charged conducting sphere of radius R at rest in laboratory (an inertial frame of reference). Thomson and Oliver Heaviside. undoubted authorities in the field of Maxwell’s electrodynamics. as measured in laboratory?7 Famous J. and men able to recognize the essence. However. J.) Another case of “methodological wonders” appears in electrodynamics of moving bodies. this point charge may be called the image of the conducting sphere. a little cliff-hanger that takes place in London. but has read the Einstein’s. (The present author admits that he has not read the Abraham’s article. Following Maxwell (1891). A simple and elegant solution based on the recipe of special relativity has been recently published (Redˇi´ 1992a. Cambridge and Dublin in late 19th century. Lorrain et al 2000). (The quest for the image of a moving sphere. 2003.) In his article Searle uses the contemporary scientific language (the sphere moves with respect to the ether). produces in space outside the sphere the same electrostatic field as the corresponding point charge at rest at the centre of the sphere. He doesn’t yet know (and how could he?) that the bodies in uniform motion with respect to the ether do not have the same shape as when at rest.8 In the historical perspective. Searle (1897) was the first to find the correct solution: the image of a charged conducting sphere in motion is a uniformly charged line.detailed monograph wherein Einstein’s Relativity Paper was analyzed sentence by sentence). a small group of eccentrics that will give much pain to historians of science (cf Brown 2001. Heavy reading. zc 7 . The main characters are Maxwellians. What is the image of a conducting body moving uniformly at speed v and at the same time having the shape and size of the sphere of radius R. the ratio of the length of the line and the diameter of the sphere is v/c. dealt with this problem as well. Searle’s cumbersome and complicated solution to the problem arouses admiration. has been sketched in an excellent monograph by Max Jammer (1961). very meticulously.

can include dependence on time in another IFR. notorious but not any less miracle over miracles: the period of a clock that is uniformly moving with respect to an IFR is longer than the period of identical clocks that are at rest with respect to the IFR.10 And the miracles are numerous. disbelief and insecurity. unexpected and amazing physical conclusions (“leaps ahead of the empirical frontier”) . if the clocks 8 . and a perennial question if it is possible that everything could be really so. the fundamental prediction of special relativity. the following distances are not of the same kind: a) the distance between two unconnected material points that are moving at the same time with the same velocity (which can be time-dependent) along the same line with respect to some IFR. These new. a certain quality which is in an IFR purely spatial and timeindependent. For example. the disbelief and insecurity stay. on such a heroic scale as in the case of special relativity. Also. Such is the case with the distance between the spaceships B and C in the problem discussed above (Dewan 1963). Even when this new concept of time is somehow ”swallowed” and the student of relativity yielded to his destiny expects new relativistic wonders.11 On the other hand. a pure thought has the power to leap ahead of the empirical frontier . but rarely. Einstein’s (1905a) definition of time and the principle of constancy of the velocity of light.these true and great wonders of special relativity . b) the distance between the ends of a rigid (in a relativistic sense!) stick moving along its own direction. in combination with the principle of relativity always give rise to the same dramatic effect: the feeling of losing ground under one’s feet. Rindler. Rindler emphasizes. and sometimes rather inconspicuous.9 on its own completely benign.a feature of all good physical theories.12 Also.all have the same powerful source: the concept of time. Time as a measurable physical quantity in inertial frames of reference has exactly those peculiar traits as predicted by the Einstein’s theory.According to a nice metaphor by W.

Even the creator himself of the theory of relativity that will soon become the special one pointed out this fundamental limitation of “the principle of relativity. their purely instrumental character.at rest are Einstein-synchronized. 1. The fact that this conclusion is not just a casual intellectual game with Lorentz transformations (almost always with an implicit assumption that the clock’s own time doesn’t depend on its acceleration) is proven by a famous experiment in 1971.3 Path toward understanding? It seems that the feeling of discomfort that accompanies physicists (and laymen) about the slowing down of the clock in motion is a consequence of the opacity of the usual relativistic method of inferring. that is. while mutually identical.g. with macroscopic caesium clocks (Hafele and Keating 1972. but from the Lorentz transformations that connect the two IFRs. the laboratory frame and the clock’s rest frame. Is one reference frame (the laboratory) not quite sufficient? The Lorentz transformations appear as “the Fates” whose power over destiny of all physical systems (our moving clock included) is indubitable (as proven by experiments). a specific moving clock) are derived not from the structure of that system described in the inertial frame with respect to which the clock is in motion (“the laboratory”).13 Finally. with all of its Einstein-synchronized clocks (which. but quite puzzling. when measured by the clocks at rest. a clock that travels around the globe in a commercial airplane and comes back to the initial point is “younger” than an identical clock that has not moved from that same point. A natural question arises of what is the role of the clock’s rest frame. together with the principle of constancy of the velocity of light” (Einstein 1907). Cornille 1988). Namely. may of course be different from the observed “clock in motion”). features of a certain physical system (e. 9 .

z and t. and that an electron rotates uniformly around it on a circular trajectory of radius a under the action of the proton’s electrostatic field. and applying this equation of motion on the electron and the proton that form our hydrogen atom. (Since Maxwell’s equations imply the principle of constancy of the velocity of light. we arrive at some unexpected conclusions. in a way e suggested by Bell (1976. Let us suppose that natural laws known as Maxwell’s equations hold in some inertial frame of reference (“the laboratory”). Somehow the electron manages to maintain its own energy constant. if Einstein’s method were supplemented. with t we denote the reading of the synchronized clocks that are at rest with respect to the laboratory.15 Let us now suppose that a proton is at rest in laboratory. mutatis mutandis. Poincar´. After turning off the external field. Here is a short sketch of Bell’s approach. Say that x. or even completely removed. always appear in the formulation of all natural laws. y. it is above all necessary to define the meaning of these fundamental quantities. this hydrogen atom partly follows the Bohr model. y. the entire system will accelerate in the direction of the field.Maybe the previously described feelings of unease and powerlessness that follow the understanding of basic results of special relativity could be attenuated. parallel to the plane of trajectory of the electron. and after dying out of transient effects. maybe vacuum?) In short. (Electron makes up for the energy lost as electromagnetic radiation by absorbing the needed amount from some infinite reservoir of energy. Taking into account that experiments show that the equation of motion of a charged particle in the electromagnetic field has precisely the form suggested by Lorentz. Lorentz. z and t have their usual meaning in the laboratory. For example. with reasonings of FitzGerald. 1987). Since the coordinates of position and time. such as x. If we now expose this hydrogen atom to a constant and weak electrostatic field. Einsteinsynchronization of an arbitrary number of clocks at rest with respect to the laboratory is a trivially possible procedure. the proton 10 .14.

now it is more acceptable that for the “observer” moving with same velocity v as the proton. the trajectory of the electron around the stationary (for that “observer”) proton is a circle of radius a (because his meters sticks are contracted by ￿ the same factor 1 − v 2 /c2 as well in the direction of motion). it is perhaps worthwhile to make a small digression about the relationship between special relativity. thus. Although both light and 11 .moves with constant velocity v . Also. before entering electrodynamics of moving bodies. circular trajectory and a normal period are real for the “observer in motion”. that length contraction in the direction of motion and time dilatation occur in this simple physical model due to acceleration! Now.16 The period of motion of the electron on the ellipse around the proton in uniform translational motion is ￿ 1/ 1 − v 2 /c2 times larger than the period of motion of the electron on the circle of radius a centered at the proton at rest.17 The preceding analysis of the “hydrogen atom” in motion. it seems. the electron moves with respect to the proton (expressed. of course. and the period of the electron’s rotation is the same as in the case when the proton was at rest in the laboratory (because the seconds of the clock belonging to ￿ the “observer in motion” are 1/ 1 − v 2 /c2 times larger than the laboratory seconds). through the laboratory coordinates x.18 1. carried out completely in the laboratory frame. which will take place in every “stick” and “clock” in uniform motion with respect to the laboratory. reveals. Elliptical trajectory and a longer period are real for the “observer in laboratory”. light and Maxwell’s electrodynamics. z and t ) on an elliptical trajectory that is oblate in the direction of motion of the ￿ system. it is easier to accept that these are universal phenomena.4 Relativity without Maxwell’s electrodynamics? At this place. Since in physics real is what is reached by measuring instruments. both “observers” are perfectly right. with semi-axes a 1 − v 2 /c2 and a. y.

Thus.electrodynamics have played a central part in the historical development of special relativity. In addition to that. Mermin’s method of synchronization of distant clocks by their “symmetric transport” (cf footnote 5 of his article) contains. which are indispensable for Rindler’s argumentation. cannot be in accord with the principle of relativity. The possibility that the particles considered massless according to contemporary opinion (photons. neutrinos. the speed c can but does not have to be reachable by any physical object. which served Einstein (1905b) 12 . in itself has nothing to do with Maxwell’s equations (Einstein 1935). Feigenbaum and Mermin (1988) analyzed a mechanical version of the famous 1905 Gedankenexperiment. In this context. If the transformations are Lorentz’s. based on electrodynamic concepts (Einstein’s Lichtkomplex). the real basis of that theory. a recent demonstration of the power of relativistic kinematics should be mentioned. that the alternative methods of clock synchronization. The same objection goes with a similar Mermin’s (1984) attempt to get the second postulate from the principle of relativity. the principle of constancy of the velocity of light has to be dethroned as one of the pillars of special relativity. the constant c in the Lorentz transformations would play the same role as the absolute zero of temperature. without light. however. nor “freed” from circular reasoning. Starting from the principle of relativity and the invariability of causality. Rindler’s (1991) opinion is indicative in this connection: special relativity would exist even if light and electromagnetism were somehow eliminated from the nature.19 It seems. according to some authors. gravitons) may have a nonzero mass was opened in this way (cf Vigier 1990). Rindler proves that all inertial frames are related by either Galileo’s or Lorentz’s transformations. the role of an inaccessible boundary. the Lorentz transformations. At the same time. then the constant c which appears in them represents the smallest upper boundary (the supremum) for the speed of particles in any inertial frame. it seems. a hidden circular argument.

These authors reached the same fundamental conclusion. unlike Einstein who postulated it. which Einstein (1905b) “solved” by introducing the principle of equivalence between inertial mass and rest energy. by using solely relativistic kinematics and the laws of conservation of energy and momentum in their most general form. Of course. as in Einstein. without Maxwell’s electrodynamics. as well as the relativistic expressions for energy and momentum of a free particle in the most general form.to get to the equivalence between inertial mass and rest energy. (It is well known that Einstein was satisfied neither with that solution nor with the fact that the mass-energy equivalence was obtained by using Maxwell’s theory (Einstein 1935). but Feigenbaum and Mermin get the exact limit by calculating it. Here. they revitalized the problem of the integration constant in the expression for the rest energy. Feigenbaum and Mermin showed that in the relativistic expressions for momentum and kinetic energy of a free particle the same mass-Lorentz scalar m appears. e. i.) Furthermore. This is an important result for which Einstein could find only a partial justification (Einstein 1935). almighty.20 13 . it would be hasty to conclude from the above discussion that the relativistic kinematics is free of Maxwell’s electrodynamics (cf Jammer 2000. the mass (the rest mass) appears in the non-relativistic limit of kinetic energy. chapter 3). Moreover.

￿ fx = law of the x-component of the relativistic tri-force. Eriksen and Vøyenly (1976) state that the classical and the relativistic concepts of mass are “incommensurable” (cf Jammer 2000.Notes [1] A fresh example are. For example. taking into account that the relativistic tri-force is not identically equal the time derivative of the relativistic momentum of the particle. it is clear that the transformation law of the x-component of the relativistic tri-force must have the form ￿ fx = 2 f fx − v[f · u /c2 + (1/γu /c2 )F α Uα ] 1 − ux v/c2 f fx − vdm/dt fx − v[f · u /c2 + (1/γu )dm0 /dt] = 1 − ux v/c2 1 − ux v/c2 14 . This introductory chapter contains the inventory of some recurrent topics in special relativity. circus attractions of special relativity such as length dilatation and time contraction (Field 2000). But here we refer primarily to prosaic situations such as the one in which Zapolsky (1988) found himself: “not less than five” referees negated his conclusions paraphrased in the present note [12]. m0u γu . f = d(m0u γu )/dt. uz ). and for a particle with rest mass m0 and instantaneous velocity in the S frame u = (ux . uy . where m ≡ m0 γu and γu ≡ (1 − u2 /c2 )−1/2 . so to say. reads. pp 57-61). Zigman 1997)) is not generally accepted. the transformation according to Rindler. [2] It is perhaps worthwhile to mention that the usual formulation of the relation between the rest mass and the Newtonian mass (“in all relativistic equations the mass (the rest mass) is the usual Newtonian mass” (Okun ˇ 1998. However. [3] For two inertial frames of reference S and S ￿ in the standard configuration (S ￿ is uniformly moving with respect to S along the common positive e x − x￿ axis with velocity ve x ).

i. when it is moving. the last equation is obtained from the quadri-vector equation of motion. Larmor. Some of the conclusions of special relativity touch the archetypal dreams of humanity. e. Møller 1972. that the dependence of the particle’s rest mass on time is in the general case given by c2 γu dm0 /dt = F α Uα . It should be mentioned that Bell’s seminal essay gives only a sketch of the approach to special relativity through ideas of FitzGerald. after many years of interstellar journey. γuf ) is the corresponding quadri-force. (Here. in a similar way as statistical mechanics can offer a much broader view than phenomenological thermodynamics. As his only predecessor. we use the standard metrics (1. Rindler 1991). u ) is the quadri-velocity of the particle on which the force is acting. “based on special assumptions on the structure of matter”. of course. note how language is a problem). [4] Perhaps the mentioning of fairy tales in this context is not completely devoid of sense. can lead to a fuller insight.) We remind the reader that. less economic reasoning. using classical electrodynamics (which is a relativistic theory par excellence without knowing that). Bell mentions a monograph by L. -1). both the FitzGerald-Lorentz contraction and time dilatation occur. a quadri-force does not comply with the condition F α Uα ≡ 0. en fran¸ais) comes home young (biologically young. e Yanossy (1975). According to Bell (1976). making use of the orthogonality of the particle’s quadri-velocity and quadri-acceleration (Rosser 1964. -1. in the general case. Bell has shown that in that simple system.where F α = (F 0 . -1. contra-variant components of these quadri-vectors appear. 15 . not just c young looking. [5] Analyzing a simple model of the hydrogen atom. the essence of his argument is not at all that Einstein was wrong in his 1905 “kinematic” analysis. Lorentz and Poincar´. and U α = γu (c. Langevin’s (1911) Traveler (La Voyageuse de Langevin. but instead that a more cumbersome.

located at its centre (Searle 1897). a solution to the same problem in the case of a uniformly accelerated perfect planar mirror is published (Van Meter et al 2001). Einstein occasionally used the verb to observe (“betrachten”) instead of the verb to measure. Analyzing in 1905 how the shape of a body depends on reference frame in which it is measured. of course. [7] The conducting body has the shape of a prolate spheroid with semi￿ axes R/ 1 − v 2 /c2 . as predicted by the theory of special relativity. he recognized that the electromagnetic field outside a charged conducting body in uniform motion at the speed v which has the shape of a Heaviside ellipsoid (an oblate spheroid whose semi-axes bear the ra￿ tio 1 − v 2 /c2 : 1 : 1. or photographed by a camera) of a body whose speed is comparable to that of light does not coincide with its measured shape. It is a constant proper acceleration in question. “cube” is a body that has the shape of a cube when at rest. Many years after. R. Weinstein 1959. if one calculated the dimensions of the cube allowing for the finite time of flight of the light quanta from the various parts of the cube. then. post festum. [8] Today. physicists (Terrell 1959. the shorter semi-axis being parallel to the direction of motion) is identical to the field of a point charge in uniform motion at the same speed as the ellipsoid. as measured in the body’s proper frame.” (Here. the body is a sphere of radius R.) The moral of the story seems to have been known to Democritus: things are not found therein where their picture is. (The 16 to the FitzGerald-Lorentz contraction. cf also Rosser 1964) realized that a visible shape (the one that can be seen by the eye. it seems that Searle almost touched that discovery. We remind our reader of the traps of language in special relativity. R. Namely. as .[6] Recently. “If one saw an undistorted but rotated picture of a moving cube. one would deduce that the length contraction had taken place. Due measured in the laboratory. if we do not take into account completely ignored Lampa (1924).

In the view 17 . and without special relativity. and even terrifying for pre-relativistic physicists (excluding the brave FitzGerald whose 1889 speculations about deformation of bodies in motion through the ether were immediately recognized by his English contemporaries as “the brilliant baseless guess of an Irish genius” (cf Brown 2001)). Definitio ne fiat in orbem (A definition must not be circular). Herein is light path . without the Li´nard e . which is independent of whether the light ray was emitted by a resting or by a moving body. the field outside a conducting sphere at rest is identical to the field of a point charge at rest. “time interval” is defined in Einstein’s §1 just by means of the velocity of light. Namely. and thus one of the basic rules of valid definition is violated: of the present author. From the preceding considerations. applying the principle of relativity to Maxwell’s electrodynamics we infer (cf Redˇi´ 2004a): a conducting body that has the shape zc of a Heaviside ellipsoid when in motion is obtained by the motion of the same conducting body which is a sphere when at rest (Figure 4)! Inference too strange. the circularity problem can be simply solved by reformulating the principle of constancy of the velocity of light (cf the note 15 below). unexpected. located at the centre of the sphere.” velocity = A lot of paper was consumed in clarifying this formulation of Einstein’s.Wiechert potentials.) On the other hand. time interval where time interval is to be understood in the sense of the definition in §1.electric and magnetic fields of a point charge in uniform motion through the ether were derived by Heaviside as early as 1888. [9] Einstein’s original formulation of the principle of constancy of the velocity of light reads: “Any light ray moves in the ‘resting’ coordinate system with the definite velocity c.

[12] Differentiating of these distances is essential in the explanation of dis18 .y R E E* n E v´B O R/2 Q z Q x Figure 4 A conducting sphere of radius R and with total charge Q at rest in the laboratory frame creates the same field as a point charge Q at rest. The electromagnetic field of a point charge Q in uniform motion with e velocity v = ve x is identical to the field of a conducting body having the shape of a Heaviside ellipsoid which is moving with the same velocity. The √ figure corresponds to the value v = 3c/2. somewhat more difficult to imagine that there is such a feature at all. when γ = (1 − v 2 /c2 )−1/2 = 2. [11] It is not difficult to verify immediately that the statement is true by using the corresponding Minkowski diagram. located at the centre of the sphere. It is. zc [10] Perhaps the best illustration of this psychological situation is the existence of the journal Galilean Electrodynamics. The field E ∗ = E + v × B is perpendicular to the surface of the Heaviside ellipsoid at a point arbitrarily close to the surface (Redˇi´ 1992a). due to our pre-relativistic instincts. Applying the principle of relativity to Maxwell’s electrodynamics we infer (Redˇi´ 2004a): a charged zc conducting body in motion having the shape of a Heaviside ellipsoid is obtained by the motion of the same conducting body which is a sphere when at rest. however.

(A version of this problem. This means that the stick would tend to extend itself as measured by two observers “standing” at its ends. In what follows we briefly paraphrase Zapolsky’s argument. If the internal forces can do that no more. It is not difficult to show that this kind of acceleration 19 . if the two material points are being uniformly accelerated with respect to the laboratory.) It should be noted that the motion of the stick we discuss here is not “a rigid body acceleration”.appearance of the electric field of steady currents in the framework of an elementary but non-trivial model (Zapolsky 1988). was nicely presented by Bell (1976). is a system of bound atoms. in the beginning they would tend to behave in the same way as two unconnected material points. say along the line connecting them. Insisting here on symmetry would be equally irrational as in the much better known “twin paradox”. On the other hand. which is usually defined in special relativity as the acceleration that causes no internal stress (cf Rindler 1991). The distance between two unconnected material points that are at rest with respect to an IFR (the laboratory) is always Lorentz-contracted when it is measured by an accelerated observer (in his co-moving IFR). The conclusion is that restitutive forces in the stick will oppose the forces causing that the ends of the stick move with same acceleration. is always one and the same. The result of measurement depends essentially on who is accelerated with respect to the lab: the material points or the observer. however. Each observer “sees” (at any instant of his time) that the other observer is going away from him. A meter stick. starting at the same moment of time from the state of rest with the same acceleration. If we try to accelerate its two ends with the same acceleration. and are completely ignorant of one another. One might wonder does this prove that an accelerated meter stick would also not be contracted. the distance between the two points. the stick breaks. The answer is an emphatic “no!”. reminds Zapolsky. The two material points are not connected. as measured in the lab.

the correct relativistic argumentation reads: One ￿ k-second of a clock at rest in the k frame equals 1/ 1 − v 2 /c2 K-seconds as measured by the system of Einstein-synchronized clocks at rest in the K ￿ frame. where ξ = γv (x − vt).According to Dingle. Overall conclusion: special relativity is not to Professor Born to defend “the integrity of scientist” by replying to the challenge. τ = γv (t − vx/c2 ). Born’s counter-argument runs as follows. and a compound event that takes place at one spatial point of the K frame and has a duration ￿ of 1/ 1 − v 2 /c2 K-seconds must not be identified. Dingle addressed that one k. (In the present note. however. it is not the kind of acceleration appearing in case of two independent material points (cf also Nikoli´ 1999). It follows k-seconds of the same clock. those are two distinct 20 a valid scientific theory since it contains a contradiction. special relativity permits the following argumentation.).second of a clock at rest in the k frame equals 1/(1 − v 2 /c2 ) .(in which the proper acceleration continuously changes from end to end of the stick) leads to the Lorentz contraction. One K-second of a clock at rest in the K frame equals 1/ 1 − v 2 /c2 k-seconds. t) is the “resting” reference frame. k(ξ. One K-second of the clock at rest in the K frame ￿ equals 1/ 1 − v 2 /c2 k-seconds of the clock at rest in the k frame. c [13] The problem of reciprocity of the feature of the clock in motion was the issue of the famous “duel” between Herbert Dingle (1962) and Max Born (1963). Dingle falsifies special relativity. (A compound event that takes place at various spatial points of the ￿ K frame and has a duration of 1/ 1 − v 2 /c2 K-seconds. One k-second of ￿ a clock at rest in the k frame equals 1/ 1 − v 2 /c2 K-seconds of a clock at rest in the K frame. etc. According to Born. as measured by the system of Einstein-synchronized clocks at rest in the k frame. Dingle’s inference does not follows from special relativity. the same notation as Dingle and Born’s will be used: K(x. τ ) is the one “in motion”.

OA. Dingle has made the same kind of error the student usually makes: two different quantities are denoted by one and the same symbol. C. The issue provoked a prolonged polemic in the Nature that lasted several years. by convention. conjugate diameters = axes in K. time calibration hyperbola. ￿ The “middle frame” is moving at the speed v/(1 + 1 − v 2 /c2 ) to the right with respect to K (and at the same speed to the left with respect to k). those axes are mutually orthogonal. (ξ. cτ ). for obvious reason. SH. ct. section of light cone.ct b C a SH A B ct TH C SH x O x TH Figure 5 C. space calibration hyperbola. x. Numerous participants “accused” each other for elementary misunderstanding of basic concepts of special relativity. A consensus was never 21 . the axes of the “middle frame” for K and k are not represented. straight lines in Minkowski space (Figure 5). T H. conjugate diameters = axis in k. represents the same time interval in K as OB in k: ￿ OA ∼ ct Oa > OB The clock at rest in K Oa ∼ cτ τ ￿ ￿ OB ∼ cτ Ob > OA The clock at rest ink Ob ∼ ct t ￿ OA ∼ OB ∼ OA > t ∼ OB > τ On this Born’s figure.

Fortunately. i. primordial principle that conceptually precedes the principle of relativity. the meaning of time as a measurable physical quantity is postulated. as measurements reveal. the physical laws apply 22 . It is perhaps worthwhile to mention that Maxwell’s equations are a sufficient but not a necessary condition for the validity of the principle. The fact that Maxwell’s equations are consistent with both principles is an excellent recommendation for the equations. The present author pointed out the episode in the life of special relativity just for illustrating the thesis that time dilatation also belongs to relativistic miracles. A definition of the space and time coordinates must precede the quest for the laws of nature. always equals one clock-two way velocity of light which is a measurable quantity and. In this way. an immeasurable quantity. Bartocci and Mamone Capria 1991a). a universal constant. e. states that in an IFR one way-two clock velocity of light. In this sense the principle of constancy of the velocity of light (also known as Einstein’s second postulate) is essentially the first. which were discovered before physicists began to deal with the problem of clock synchronization. [14] The statement that the principle of constancy of the velocity of light is already contained in Maxwell’s equations appears occasionally in the literature (Einstein 1905b.reached. cleaned up from the circular argument. The fact that there exist physical laws (Maxwell’s equations) consistent with the second postulate. fundamental. is of course a good recommendation for that postulate. Therefore any definition of the time coordinate based on a previously discovered law of nature is nothing but a circulus vitiosus. but nothing else. [15] Einstein’s second postulate (1905a). The assumption that Maxwell’s equations apply in the lab takes for granted the validity of the principle of constancy of the velocity of light or some other equivalent method of clock-synchronization. it is postulated that Einstein synchronization is a realizable procedure.

This is clearly seen by passing from a passive to an active interpretation of the Lorentz transformations (Bohm and Hiley 1985). e [16] If v = vex . Einstein would begin his answer to the last question by the query: real with respect to what?) Physical realities of various inertial “observers” may be almost comically different. cf also Dewan 1963). and different physical realities of different “observers” are a necessary consequence of different initial conditions. by a suitable choice of the initial moment t = 0 the equation ￿ 2 of the ellipse reads (xe − vt)2 /(a 1 − v 2 /c2 )2 + ye /a2 = 1. this then means that the principle of relativity does not apply. A vivid illustration of the various physical realities provides Rindler’s length contraction paradox (Rindler 1991. on the basis of classical electrodynamics. for the same “events”. since “physical realities” of the same events corresponding to different “observers” are not identical. By the way. one could infer that.in the pseudo-inertial reference frame tied for the Earth regardless of the season. The laws according to which the states of physical systems undergo changes do really have the same form in all inertial frames of reference (the principle of relativity does apply!). The inference would be false. [17] A few examples for time dilatation of a moving clock in the same spirit. where xe and ye denote the electron’s coordinates. were presented by Jefimenko (1996b). the final outcomes must be one and the same for all the “observers”. Of course. (In the same way as the question whether the FitzGerald-Lorentz contraction is real has no physical sense. the thesis that both the FitzGerald-Lorentz contraction and time dilatation are nothing but subjective phenomena was a continuing subject of lively discussion among physicists and philosophers. On the basis of the preceding considerations. The thesis is 23 . [18] This implies that physical reality independent of the frame of reference (“observer”) has no physical sense.

regardless of the velocity of uniform motion of the medium relative to the source or detector. The formula is derived under the assumption that the velocities of the source and detector are along the line connecting them. As a curiosity. if the phase velocity of the light exactly equals c. and only then. of course.presumably a consequence of the mess about the concept of time. Vladimir Vari´ak. because the time is in accord with Einstein’s theory. [19] Bachman (1982) derived a relativistic Doppler formula for waves whose phase velocity relative to the medium is u f = f0 ￿ The equation expresses the frequency f ￿ of the wave detected by the “observer” through the proper frequency of the source f0 . then the ether may but need not exist. Miller 1981). the whole cosmos. when the discussions about the subjective nature of time were most lively. That subjective feeling. also took part in them (cf Einstein c 1911. it seems that Newton’s absolute time is perfectly consistent with the illusive subjective feeling that thought “at one instant” can encompass everything. the velocity of the source toward the “observer” relative to the medium vs . we mention that in the first. heroic years of the special theory of relativity. is not consistent with the time as a measurable physical quantity. ￿ u + v0 u − vs ￿￿ 2 1 − vs /c2 2 1 − v0 /c2 ￿1/2 . the detected frequency f ￿ depends only on the velocity of the source as measured in the proper frame of the detector. and Occam’s razor solves the problem (Mirabelli 1985). the ether must exist. the phase velocity u. the relativistic limiting speed c. however. Overall conclusion: if the phase velocity of the light is less than c. a Yugoslavian physicist. 24 . and the velocity of the “observer” toward the source relative to the medium v0 . Namely. If the phase velocity of the wave exactly equals c. in inertial frames. then. unfortunately.

Redˇi´ 1990b).) The present author is o zc aware of only one attempt of an exact kinematical treatment of the Doppler effect (Rothenstein 2002).[20] For example. kinematic derivations of the Doppler effect (French 1968. 25 . in the case of the Doppler effect its power is limited. (These derivations lead to Einstein’s Doppler formula which deals with the plane wave approximation (for a different look at that formula see Schr¨dinger 1922. Peres 1987) are approximations. Namely.

however. Fermat’s principle).”2 Then he calculated the radiation pressure of a monochromatic plane linearly polarized wave on a perfect planar mirror in uniform motion and also the transformation law of the energy of a strange entity that he called the light complex (Lichtkomplex). The law states what could be a physical law but the principle is mute about which is a physical law (contrary to. Although the title of Einstein’s (1905a) epoch-making paper is “On the Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies”. for example.3 Only the last. electrodynamics of moving bodies is quite in second place. to the electrodynamics of moving bodies. in a certain sense. Einstein derived the correct equation of motion of a point charge in the electromagnetic field in the special case when the instantaneous velocity of the charge is parallel to one of the coordinate axes. Physical laws are reached slowly and painfully. he interpreted 26 . Applying the principle of relativity. Minkowski As it was hinted above.1 Electrodynamics of moving bodies and the Wilson-Wilson experiment Einstein. Like the well known biological principle that ontogeny is a short and quick repetition of phylogeny.and B . refers.1 In the electrodynamic part of the paper Einstein proved that the Maxwell-Hertz equations in vacuo are Lorentz-covariant. tenth paragraph of the paper. in that work.2 2. and then applied the derived transformation laws for the E . the principle of relativity is essentially a metaprinciple (the term is Rindler’s (1991)). as is well known. the principle of relativity as well determines nothing but the general condition that must be satisfied by “the laws according to which the states of physical systems change”. In this way he obtained the formulae expressing the Doppler principle and the light aberration “for arbitrary velocities.fields to the case of a monochromatic plane linearly polarized electromagnetic wave in vacuo. entitled “Dynamics of a (slowly accelerated) electron”.

J ￿ .the obtained equation in a cumbersome way. H B ￿ = µH ￿ . which transforms the primed system back into the original one of the laboratory. on the groundwork laid by Lorentz (1895) Poincar´ (1906) and Einstein. B ￿ . (AS 2). Eqs. to the primed system. ∂t￿ D divD ￿ = ￿￿ . (AS1) apply once more if all primes are omitted. since it knows nothing of its motion.” 27 . “Minkowski’s logic was simple: The Maxwell equations for a state of rest apply within the laboratory. Now the inverse Lorentz transformation is to be carried out. Let P be transformed to rest by the introduction of the coordinates x￿ .5 Fundamental equations of the phenomenological electrodynamics of moving bodies. However. H ￿ . Here we give how the essence of Minkowski’s method was formulated by the famous physics teacher Arnold Sommerfeld (1952). just like the time t￿ . z ￿ . H curlH ￿ = J ￿ + B divB = 0. were constructed e by Hermann Minkowski (1908). In this system Maxwell’s equations for a state of rest apply to the quantities E ￿ . Consider a point of space-time P of a body moving with respect to the laboratory at the laboratory time t. The operations curl and div in (AS1) refer of course.4. ￿￿ : E curlE ￿ = − B ∂B ￿ . t￿ for the description of the processes in the neighborhood of P. D￿ . take on a new form. y ￿ . ∂t￿ (AS1) with material constants differing from those for vacuum E D ￿ = εE ￿ . let it have the velocity v . ￿ D ∂D ￿ . t. whose ideas represent the starting point of all subsequent researches in the field. In the latter Eqs. in view of the basic property of covariance of the Maxwell equations with respect to the Lorentz transformations. transformed to the unprimed system. E J ￿ = σE ￿ (AS2) These constants have the same values as if the body were at rest with respect to the laboratory.

were unusual. 2. When a potential difference is applied between the 28 . put the authors. Instead. Møller (1972).7 Physicists were far away from acquiring the “tensorial mentality”. which is uniformly moving at a speed v through the plate condenser of infinite extent at rest. fundamental equations for the electromagnetic phenomena in moving bodies Minkowski expressed through tensors in a (pseudo-) Riemannian four-dimensional Minkowski space. now following Einstein’s “elementary path”. we find it useful to derive the fundamental equations in an elementary way which. Mathematical apparatus known today to every physics student was used then for the first time. Consider an infinite slab made of a linear. In the present chapter we shall deal with interpretations. that the work of Minkowski in the mathematical sense imposes too severe conditions before its reader. Einstein and Laub (1908a. their inferences. some old some new. Cullwick (1959). by using that theory we shall attempt in the following chapter to analyze a simple problem from a somewhat unusual perspective. as is usually the case with special relativity. Rosser (1964). In this work we shall not give an exposition of Minkowski’s theory which was presented in detail in the classical monographs by Pauli (1958). the Wilson-Wilson experiment Several months after the publication of the Minkowski paper. which was not at all the case with the mathematical “apparatus” he was using. homogeneous and isotropic dielectric of relative permittivity εr and relative permeability µr . Namely. essentially corresponds to Minkowski’s method.) Einstein and Laub immediately applied the new tool of theoretical physics to an exotic system.2 Einstein and Laub. (Taking into account.Minkowski’s physical ideas were simple indeed.b) derived the same fundamental electromagnetic equations for bodies in motion. where εr µr > 1. one of the crucial experiments of the electrodynamics of bodies in slow motion. of the Wilson-Wilson experiment. however.

after reading the above Einstein and Laub’s conclusion for the first time. and 29 .plates.) If a constant magnetic field. parallel to the plates and perpendicular to the velocity of the dielectric slab. despite the fact that the system considered is impracticable. then it would be possible to choose experimentally between the theories of Lorentz and Minkowski. did not exist. with εr = 6 and µr = 3. the surface charge density on the plate which is at a higher potential is positive when v < v∗ and negative when v > v∗. Einstein and Laub wrote. a different relationship between D and H for the same system. We remind our reader of the fact that the human race has learnt. D then a simple relationship between the electric displacement (D ) and the H magnetic field strength (H ) in the dielectric is obtained in the framework of Minkowski’s theory of the first order in v/c. (The present author still remembers that. Their recipe was as follows. filled the space between the plates of a cylindrical condenser. appears occasionally in the laboratories. They used small 1/8 in. however. made of brass. he had experienced a certain frisson mystique. The coated spheres were packed tightly and melted paraffin was poured into the empty spaces between them so as to form a solid mass. that one should respect theoretical physics. and if the plates are connected by a thin conducting wire. steel balls “and each one was coated thinly with sealing-wax. Whatever does not exist in the nature. is applied to the system considered. even when it deals with such a kind of problems. where v∗ ≡ c/ εr µr denotes the velocity of of the electromagnetic waves in the magnetic dielectric when it is at rest. a magnetic dielectric “with considerable magnetic permeability” was created by Wilson and Wilson (1913). from 1905 until today. Lorentz’s non-relativistic electron theory gives. however..8 If there existed. dielectric bodies with a considerable magnetic permeability. the length of the cylinder was 9 · 5 cm.” This magnetic dielectric. In order to check up the theory of Einstein and Laub. tending to infinity when √ v tends to v∗. Such bodies.

. inaccessible to experimental verification. the potential difference between the plates of the condenser was measured. cf Møller 1972). is that both length contraction and time dilatation are determined only by the relativistic factor γ.m. i. both the special and the general one. in the axial magnetizing field of a coaxial solenoid. as it is usually euphemistically said. Namely. somewhat modified the original “experimental set-up” of Einstein and Laub. The uniform translation of an infinite slab.9 That was a triumph of both special relativity and Minkowski’s phenomenological electrodynamics of moving media. was replaced by the uniform rotation of a long cylindrical tube made of magnetic insulator. e. From the viewpoint of Minkowski’s theory. the results of the experiment eliminated Lorentz’s theory.p. the substitution is perfectly legal: arbitrarily small neighborhood of any rotating point of the dielectric is at rest in the corresponding local IFR.10 The reader has certainly noted that Wilson and Wilson. An electrometer was connected by means of stationary leads to brushes which made contact with the inner and outer cylindrical plates of the rotating condenser. 30 . The condenser was uniformly rotated at a speed of about 6000 r. The fact that in the local frame the material point of the dielectric instantaneously at rest (its immediate neighborhood also being instantaneously at rest) has a non-zero acceleration should not represent a problem. they do not depend on instantaneous acceleration (the clock hypothesis and the stick hypothesis. In the experiment. (Cullwick (1959) gave a detailed analysis of the Wilson-Wilson experiment. one of the fundamental assumptions of Einstein’s theory of relativity.the inner and outer diameters of the solid dielectric tube were respectively 2 cm.) As it is well known. and 3 · 73 cm.

None of the critics found an error in the PS calculation.2. Griffiths 1999. Pauli 1958. instead. transforming back to the laboratory frame he obtained that. Pellegrini and Swift (PS) argued that a correct analysis must take into account the fact that a rotating frame is not an inertial frame. Their “corrected analysis” borrowed from the general theory of relativity necessary tools for dealing with electrodynamics in an accelerated frame of reference. starting from the corresponding constitutive equations for D and B in the Lorentz-covariant formulation (cf e. p 545). a fundamental conflict between theory and experiment. errors in defining basic physical quantities (e. p 103. Ridgely 1998). Ridgely (1999) analyzed in detail the constitutive equations for the polarization and magnetization in a uniformly rotating frame. claim Pellegrini and Swift.3 Review of recent reexaminations of the classical interpretation of the Wilson-Wilson experiment The conventional interpretation of the Wilson-Wilson experiment was recently questioned by Pellegrini and Swift (1995). 31 . g. the critics contested their starting fundamental physical assumptions [the use of an unacceptable coordinate system (Burrows). The final outcome of their analysis based on the assumed nature of a medium in motion differs from the result obtained by following the “elementary path” of Einstein and Laub. the constitutive equations inside the rotating cylinder have exactly the form predicted by the “simple” Minkowski’s theory. the current density) in the rotating frame due to the problem of clock synchronization (Weber)]. The authors pointed out that the fundamental Minkowski’s hypothesis was that any material point of the rotating cylinder may be treated as if it were in the local inertial frame of reference (LI) in which the point is instantaneously at rest. in the lab. g. Several authors questioned the validity of the PS argument (Burrows 1997. Weber 1997. Since the experiment was consistent with predictions of Minkowski’s theory (which is incorrect!) one has.

however. 1993) pointed out. microscopic approach. a purely relativistic phenomenon. according to the classical. in its proper frame of reference S ￿ . where v denotes the velocity of the considered point of the magnetic.12 The appearance of charges inside the current loop in uniform translation is a consequence of the relativistic transformation law for the charge density.) Due to the Lorentz contraction. Namely. consisting of atoms or molecules. This relationship are obtained as a consequence of the Lorentz-covariance of Maxwell’s equations (cf Rosser 1964). As is well known. thus. there is another. in the long run. as measured in the lab. as Rosser (1964. where m￿ denotes the magnetic dipole moment of the loop in its proper frame S ￿ . In that frame. in the current loop that is now uniformly moving with velocity v there is a charge distribution over the loop and it possesses the corresponding electric dipole v moment p = (1/c2 )v × m￿ . n0 of those magnetic dipoles per 32 is usually derived by using relativistic transformations for the fields. A justification of the specificity of their analysis needs some introductory remarks.11 In the lab frame S. a non-zero polarization given by. which . a magnetic dipole can be represented by a closed cone ducting loop with a stationary (conduction) current. (The appearance of electric dipole moment of a current loop in motion is. from relativity of simultaneity. any. as measured in the lab frame S. in the framework of v first order theory. the charge distribution stems. unknown in non-relativistic theories. Amp`rian model. For ordinary media.Krotkov et al (1999) gave a quite unexpected direction to the recent reexamination of the classical interpretation of the Wilson-Wilson experiment. the essential difference between Minkowski’s and Lorentz’s electrodynamics of moving media lies in the fact that only the former predicts that a magnetized medium in motion (with a non-zero magnetization M ￿ in the proper inertial frame of the magnetic S ￿ ) possesses. arbitrarily small segment of the current loop is electrically neutral. P = (1/c2 )v × M ￿ .

to macro-quantities by averaging over physically infinitesimally small regions of space and time intervals). in the framework of the first order theory in v/c. is somewhat problematic. Consequently. in the quantum-mechanical operators. based on the classical concepts. The preceding considerations reveal that not only the theories of Minkowski and Lorentz but also the modern analyses by Pellegrini and Swift and their critics. The authors analyzed a steel ball (a highly conductive and a highly permeable medium!) in uniform rotation about an axis outside the ball. i. “magnetic dielectric” was constructed of small steel balls of diameter about 3 mm embedded in the paraffin wax. they all use the usual method of the theory of continuous media (the transition from micro. It is clear that the “microscopic approach”. This conclusion is reached by using only Maxwell’s equations in the lab frame. Krotkov et al (1999)point out that neither the LI nor the PS approaches are applicable to this macroscopically inhomogeneous medium. p and m￿ could only be the average values of the corresponding . v p since p = (1/c2 )v × m￿ and P = n0 γp . or any assumption on physics in the ball’s proper frame. and thus the contribution to the polarization in the S frame due to v the motion of the magnetic is given by the expression P = γ(1/c2 )v × M ￿ . and the second is of the ball and v is the velocity of its centre as measured in the lab. In the WilsonWilson experiment. and found. e.m3 in S ￿ takes the volume (1/γ)m3 as measured in S. the concentration of the corresponding electric dipoles in the S frame equals n0 γ. without the use of special relativity. in a constant external magnetic field B0 parallel to the rotation axis. however. where m is the magnetic dipole moment best case. that the resulting electric dipole moment of the ball is the sum of two terms: the first is the well known electric dipole moment of a conducting ball in the effective electric field v × B0 . all lie within the standard framework of the classical field theory.13 Krotkov et al claim that the result can be generalized 33 v m the “relativistic” (1/c2 )v ×m term.

exist only in the steel balls. where electric conductivity is high. Krotkov et al did not venture on finding the polarization and magnetization of the WilsonWilson magnetic dielectric as a function of the electric and magnetic dipole moments of the steel balls. whose objective is to make a choice between several classical field theories. Their “homogeneous” cylinder was made of yttriumiron-garnet “which is a magnetic insulator even on the molecular scale”. In this case too the results took sides of Minkowski’s theory. An experiment with such a material has been recently performed by Hertzberg et al (2001). very convincingly consistent with the LI predictions of Minkowski’s theory. 34 . The original Wilson-Wilson experiment with the inhomogeneous dielectric constructed from steel balls embedded in the wax was also repeated. (Needless to say. pointed out the essential fact that in experiments of the WilsonWilson type. all models that take for granted Maxwell’s equations lead inevitably to the LI results of Minkowski’s theory. e. the rotating magnetic insulator must be (i. The analysis made by Krotkov et al. claim Krotkov et al. regardless of the validity of their final conclusions. Their argument is based on the fact that inside the material consisting of the host of steel balls embedded in the wax the magnetization. and thus also the electric dipole moment due to the motion of magnetic dipole.) The final conclusion of those authors is that the Wilson-Wilson experiment cannot detect a difference between the LI and PS predictions since the composite steel-wax cylinder is highly conductive in the regions with appreciable magnetization. were for 6% different from the predictions of the PS theory (the relative error of their measurement was 1%).to the magnetic dielectric from the Wilson-Wilson experiment. In this way. Experimental results. should be) a microscopically homogeneous medium (we remind our reader that Rosser (1964) suggested this long time ago). in the case of the Wilson-Wilson experiment.

Another problem. e. As Cullwick (1959. p 107) noted. at room velocities. As is well known.2. faraway from the phenomena of everyday experience.q(E + v × B )+ the constitutive equations. The answer to the query: electrodynamics of bodies in slow motion. was not possible. i. and that in favour of special relativity. Namely. at small speeds relativistic effects may be ignored. Maxwell’s equations for material media (the so-called material equations) are Lorentz-covariant. without or with special relativity. this is not so. seems to be obvious. As it is picturesquely said.14 However. the query necessitates a certain explanation.15 The question arises whether a non-relativistic analysis. is sufficient for a correct electrodynamic description of bodies in very . and so it seems that the problem is already solved. We saw that a correct interpretation of the results of those experiments without special relativity. the true arena of special relativity is the exotic kingdom of great speeds. Before all. of course. in the framework of a first-order theory. the phenomenological electrodynamics of moving bodies in an inertial frame of reference consists of four Maxwell’s equations for material media + the Lorenz gauge condition + Lorentz’s expression for the force acting on a point charge in the electromagE netic field. that is without Minkowski’s theory. based on the use of Galilei transformaslow motion. however. Minkowski’s theory. in experiments of the Wilson-Wilson type the maximum speeds of the points of the rotating cylinder are of order of several meters per second. Some difficulties. together with a mathematical application of special 35 tion. should be pointed out. Einstein and Laub were not using electrodynamics of moving bodies but instead the electromagnetic theory of bodies at rest. is whether Minkowski’s phenomenological relativistic electrodynamics is correct at all.4 Electrodynamics of bodies in slow motion: with or without special relativity? It is a commonplace that relativistic effects disclose themselves only at speeds close to that of light. However. At first sight it is a pseudo-problem.

In the view of the present author. When magnetic dielectrics are discussed. Taking into account the relatively complicated theory of the experiment by Hertzberg et al. One should.relativity. Howevere. the answer to the query depends on the nature of bodies. Although there seems to be a consensus that Minkowski’s recipe is valid in case of a uniform translational motion of a body. contrary to the generally accepted opinion). however. their analysis deals with macroscopically inhomogeneous bodies. in the view of the present author (or. 36 . Non-magnetic insulators in slow motion can be successfully described by using Lorentz’s non-relativistic theory (Pauli 1958). Minkowski’s recipe. the query is “shifted” in the sense of necessity of either special or general relativity. has no sound experimental basis. more precisely. remember the fact (already pointed out by Rosser (1964)) that there are conceptual difficulties also in case of the electrodynamics of bodies at rest. On the basis of the considerations given in the preceding Section. the consensus. e. the conclusions reached by Krotkov et al (1999) are problematic. as far as the present author is aware. it seems that in case of bodies in slow rotational motion. one could infer that there is no unambiguous answer to the above query. because macroscopic behaviour of a large number of micro-systems is deduced from the classical (macroscopic) ideas about the micro-systems. and also as a by-product that Lorentz’s theory is definitively eliminated (which essentially could not be inferred on the basis of the original Wilson-Wilson experiment. According to Krotkov et al (1999). On the basis of the experiment by Hertzberg et al (2001) one could infer that the question is settled and this in favour of special relativity i. electrodynamics of bodies in slow motion does not necessitate special relativity. following his intuition) the question of whether special relativity is sufficient for giving successful predictions in case of slowly rotating magnetic insulators should be considered open. In case of microscopically homogeneous (or inhomogeneous) bodies. however.

or a combination of the two motions. and also in the classical problem of a thin conducting ring uniformly rotating about its diameter in a constant externally applied magnetic field perpendicular to the rotation axis. 37 . that is Minkowski’s electrodynamics. Redˇi´ zc zc 2004c).To this topic also belong the standard didactic problems dealing with electromagnetic phenomena in non-magnetic conducting bodies moving through a constant externally applied magnetic field. The present author recently pointed out that even at room velocities special relativity. Bringuier 2004. in case of a uniform translational motion of a conductor of arbitrary shape. a pure rotation. seems to be indispensable for a correct derivation of basic inferences (cf Redˇi´ 2004b. the motion being a pure translation.

zc [2] The formulae apply to arbitrary monochromatic plane wave. b).leads to asymmetries that do not appear to be inherent to the phenomena .. contrary to Einstein’s statement.. It is perhaps worthwhile to mention that the present author recently pointed out a clear asymmetry in Maxwell’s electrodynamics which is inherent to the phenomena and which. While Rosser (1993) questioned the validity of the interpretation of Maxwell’s electrodynamics proposed by Bartocci and Mamone Capria. Many years after Bartocci and Mamone Capria (1991a. e. to elliptic polarization. 38 . Einstein original example. The observed phenomenon in this case depends solely on the relative motion of the magnet and the conductor. in the view of the present author their conclusions concerning the interaction between a point charge and a current loop in relative motion are correct (cf Redˇi´ 1993). The attempt contained a fatal flaw (Redˇi´ zc 2000)... if properly understood. that predicts a perfect (and not only to second order in v/c) symmetry.as it is usually understood today . This example has served to the author as an illustration for the thesis that “Maxwell’s electrodynamics .” wrote Einstein.Notes [1] In the whole Einstein’s paper.. The special case of a circularly polarized wave was used in Dodd’s (1983) attempt to interpret the Compton effect in the framework of classical electrodynamics. and not relativistic electrodynamics. regardless of the error pointed out by Bartocci and Mamone Capria (1991a. i. however. to the electrodynamics of moving bodies in the usual sense only refers its introductory paragraph containing a very short discussion on “the electrodynamic interaction between a magnet and a conductor. pp 146–9).” (Einstein 1905a). zc necessitates a more detailed analysis than that given by Miller (1981.b) argued that in Einstein’s example of the interaction between a magnet and a conductor it is classically interpreted Maxwell’s electrodynamics. “opens the door to special relativity” (Redˇi´ 2004a).

now under a new name (Lichtmenge. by Einstein . The example of the light complex clearly shows that intuition is sometimes more important than knowledge.[3] Lichtkomplex is a mysterious quantity in the framework of Maxwell’s electrodynamics and its appearance in Einstein’s paper is very strange. [5] It should be mentioned that Einstein obtained his electrodynamic results without knowing of tensors in Minkowski’s space. Rosser 1960). In the view of the present author.one cannot exclude the possibility that a more detailed elaboration of the experimental results will show that the principle (“such a simple and general physical idea”) is consistent with observations . 39 . Of course. [4] Planck (1906) was the first to derive and recognize the well known general form of the relativistic equation of motion of a charged particle in the electromagnetic field (“the Lorentz force equation”). Jefimenko (1996a) derived in Einstein’s way the transformation law of the most renowned pure E v B relativistic tri-force. for reaching a full insight it is indispensable to compare the pioneer attempts with the modern derivation of the “Lorentz force equation” through tensor calculus (cf e. While it seems that Kaufmann’s latest measurements disprove the principle of relativity introduced recently by Lorentz and. Recently.argued Planck . and only then will its appearance in the first act become understandable.. the grandeur of that scientific exploit. Einstein reached the correct final result zc by making a methodological error. The “mysterious stranger” will appear on the stage just one more time (Einstein 1905b). in a more general formulation. g. qE +qv ×B . Rosser 1964). Einstein’s tour de force can be adequately appreciated only by a researcher who trailed the same dangerous mountain path (cf Schwartz 1977. and also that the role of logic in physical sciences is sometimes very tricky (Stachel and Torretti 1982). Jefimenko’s article is a natural complement of Planck’s paper mentioned above (cf also French 1968. the quantity of light). It seems that physics has not until very recently said its last word about the light complex (Redˇi´ and Strnad 2004). Namely. Møller 1972)..

2004b). For example. [8] Einstein and Laub’s result reads Dz = (εr µr − 1)vHy /c2 . only the fixed value of v in the space-time point P. the application of the constitutive equation for the current density (the third equation (AS2))leads to a contradiction (cf Redˇi´ 2002. and that of Lorentz’s theory Dz = (εr − 1)µr vHy /c2 . in case of an axially symmetric charged conducting body that is uniformly rotating about its symmetry axis.[6] In this place Sommerfeld made the following remark: “The motion may be variable in space and time and must merely be capable of quasi-stationary treatment in the sense of Eq. of course. he speaks about space-time vectors of the first and second kind. he works in a complex space (ict!) whose metric is Euclidean. 40 . t enters in the following Lorentz’s transformations. in the SI system of units. (1) Figure 6. respectively. (2) where M ￿ is the magnetization in the proper frame of the magnetic.” It should be pointed out. For the quadri-gradient he uses a nowadays forgotten symbol lor. that in the general case Sommerfeld’s remark does not apply. instead of tensors of the first (quadri-vectors) and second rank. zc [7] Minkowski’s nomenclature is different from the present-day one. Thus v need not be a pure translation and the body need not be rigid. however. And. up to the second order terms in v/c. In Minkowski’s theory we start from the definition of the electric and the constitutive equation for the polarization of the “magnetic dielectric” which in the lab frame. A simple analysis reveals that in the magnetic’s rest frame.11). reads (Rosser 1964) E v P = ε0 (εr − 1)(E + v × B ) + (1/c2 )v × M ￿ . Here we sketch how one can reach these results which refer to the system shown in displacement D = ε0E + P . (33. in the first-order theory. For example.

(3) µ0 µr where B0 = µ0 Hyey is the magnetic flux density of the externally applied M￿ = magnetic field in the lab frame. If the condenser’s plates are mutually connected by means of a stationary lead. Eq. in the first order theory. one has B (µr − 1)B 0 µr . the result applies.fields. and taking into account that all relevant quantities are of the type v × B . of course. in both reference frames.and B .z x H _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ v v + + + + + + + + + + + v Figure 6 The slab made of magnetic dielectric and the condenser’s plates all move with e constant velocity v = vex in a constant externally applied magnetic field whose magnetic flux density is B0 = µ0 Hyey . (3) is obtained by using the continuity of H and the relativistic transformation laws for the E . The electric field in the dielectric vanishes when the dielectric completely fills the space between the plates. a charge appears on the plates. (By the way.) From equations (1). it is not difficult to verify that the magnetic flux density inside the magnetic dielectric equals B = B ￿ = µr B0 . (2) and (3) we get v D = ε0 εrE + ε0 (εr µr − 1)v × B0 41 (4) . The magnetic dielectric in motion is also electrically polarized.

the potential difference between the plates is zero. P = ε0 (εr − 1)(E + v × B ). Dz = σf . (5) Of course. (6) It should be mentioned that the original system discussed by Einstein and Laub (1908a) is different from that ascribed to Einstein and Laub in the literature in the following detail: in Einstein and Laub only the dielectric slab is moving. it follows that the electric field inside the dielectric also vanishes. and since a stationary state is established.Since the condenser’s plates are mutually connected by means of a stationary lead through sliding contacts. Cullwick states. the constitutive equation for the polarization of the magnetic dielectric contains only the E first term on the right hand side of equation (2). otherwise very accurate Cullwick is wrong: namely. this is an irrelevant second order effect. Interestingly. We discussed here the version usually presented in the literature where the dielectric and the plates all move at the same velocity and a stationary conducting wire is in contact with the plates by means of brushes (Cullwick 1959. Fortunately.) Both versions give the same results. where σf denotes the surface charge density over the lower plate of the condenser. In Lorentz’s theory. however. (This version is closer to the Wilson. Rosser 1964). If the gap between the dielectric slab and the condenser’s plates vanishes. however. the condenser’s plates connected by a stationary lead are also at rest with respect to the lab. Cullwick claims that Einstein and Laub identified without justification the magnetic field strength in the dielectric H (H ) and the magnetic field strength of the externally applied magnetic field H0 . and thus in this case we have Dz = (εr µr − 1)vHy /c2 .Wilson experiment where the cylindrical condenser rotates together with dielectric. so that in the same “experimental situation” we have DzL = (εr − 1)µr vHy /c2 . In this place. in the framework of the first order theory. in 42 . E = 0.

[9] [9] The measured potential difference according to Einstein . The present author. This assumption is found in many textbooks and therefore necessitates a comment. which for the Wilson-Wilson magnetic dielectric with εr = 6 and µr = 3 amounted to 0. The assumption that in the proper frame any segment of a current loop with a stationary current is electrically neutral is known in the literature as the Clausius postulate (O’Rahilly 1965. Einstein-Laub’s result (5) can be reached in another (the third one) way. among rare authors which warned to caution in relation with the generally accepted interpretation of the Wilson-Wilson experiment was ever sceptical O’Rahilly (1965). e. Some time ago Matzek and Russell (1968) pointed out the fact that in case of an infinite straight cylindrical conducting wire with a stationary current the proper magnetic field of the current gives rise to a redistribution of the current carriers i. [11] The proper frame of a conducting loop is the reference frame in which crystal lattice of the loop is at rest. as “observed” in the proper frame of the lattice. Bartocci and Mamone Capria 1991a. 2. by using Cullwick’s (1959) “component field” method. p 589. In the analysis of the theory of the experiment (Cullwick pp 168-9) the central part is played by equation (4) from the preceding note. and consequently there is no contribution to the vector H due to the convection current of free surface charges. The average value of experimental results for that proportionality factor was 0. pp 606-613.Laub’s theory is proportional to the factor (1 − 1/εr µr ) and according to Lorentz’s theory to the factor (1 − 1/εr ). 96.b). has not succeeded in reaching the result (6) of Lorentz’s theory by that alternative method. to their concentrating towards the conductor axis (the “self-induced pinch-effect”). [10] As far as the present author is aware. however. Cullwick points out that there is no consensus in the literature about what is the solution of the problem according to Lorentz’s theory.Einstein and Laub the condenser’s plates does not move. 83. 944 and 0. respectively. vol. 43 .

an electric dipole moment. The magnetization M ￿ in S ￿ is given by M ￿ = n0m￿ . of the polarization vector of a magnetic dielectric in v M motion: P = γ(1/c2 )v ×M ￿ . n0 magnetic dipoles in m3 in S ￿ occupy the volume (1/γ) m3 . The crucial assumption was the Clausius postulate. The problem will be also discussed in the next Chapter. it is necessary to mention how the relation p = (1/c2 )v ×m￿ is derived in the general case. m￿y .Subsequent elaborations of the problem of finding the charge distribution in a conductor with a stationary current for more realistic models. Rosser’s (1993) remark concerning the validv p = (1/c2 )v × m￿ . from the preceding equations one immediately finds structure of magnetic dipole. for a rectangular loop whose direction of motion is parallel to one of its arms (Panofsky and Phillips 1955. Each of the atomic magnetic dipoles possesses. and for a circular loop (Rosser 1993). identical for all of them. p = (px . without introducing any special assumption about the ity of the preceding elementary reasoning is worth mentioning: “According 44 . py . by assumption. Since the polarization in p S equals P = n0 γp . Taking into account that the derivations are based on the classical model of v m magnetic dipole. One starts from the transformation law. in case of a planar closed current filament in a uniform translational motion in the proper plane. pz ) as measured in the lab frame S with respect to which the magnetic is uniformly moving with velocity v . up to all orders in v/c. from the S ￿ to the S frame. Gabuzda 1993. Let the magnetic medium consists of n0 atomic magnetic dipoles per cubic meter. where γ = (1 − v 2 /c2 )−1/2 . [12] This fundamental relation was exactly derived starting from the definition of the electric dipole moment. Blackford 1994). each of the same dipole moment m￿ = (m￿x . did not provide a clear answer to the question: in what inertial frame is a currentcarrying conductor electrically neutral (Peters 1985. Due to the Lorentz contraction. where only the contribution to the polarization in S due to the magnetization of the magnetic in motion is taken into account (cf Rosser 1964). Redˇi´ zc 1998). m￿z ) in the proper inertial frame S ￿ in which the medium is at rest. as measured in S. Rosser 1964.

which is (1/￿) a (m × E ) · (v /c2 )dt for a molecule traveling from just the interaction energy between the ‘relativistic dipole’ p and the electric field E . [14] One of rare exceptions is an excellent textbook by A. Namely if the motion of the sphere is uniform translation. The experiment was planned as a measurement of the Aharonov-Casher ￿b m v phase shift. then the second term in their key equation (13) does vanish and then the electric dipole moment of the sphere does have the value obtained by the authors.” Very soon. the central conclusion reached by Krotkov et al (1999) can by no means be considered conclusive. French (1968). the motion of the sphere is uniform rotation. then the second term in their equation (13) neither vanishes nor has a simple interpretation. Namely. P.” [13] In the view of the present author. this prediction of special relativity was experimentally validated (Sangster et al 1995). however. The measurement of this interaction energy for a molecule moving at (essentially) constant velocity may be considered to be confirmation of the Einstein-Laub analysis. this result should be true if the atomic magnetic dipole moments arise from orbital electron motions or from electron spin or from a combination of the two. within an error of about 2%. The integrand may be written as ((v /c2 )×m )·E . whose author passionately protests (on p 259) against this oversimplification in the style unusual for textbook literature: “Who says relativity is important only for velocities comparable to that of light?” [15] In Lorentz’s non-relativistic electron theory. the constitutive equations 45 v m E point a to point b. as Krotkov et al pointed out (1999): “The moving magnetic dipole was a magnetically polarized thallium fluoride molecule in a molecular beam that passed through a region of constant electric field E . If. which is . a proof has arisen that Rosser was right. which implies that a true expression for the electric dipole moment of the rotating sphere contains some additional terms.to special relativity.

There is no light. In relation with the preceding considerations. E J = σ(E + v × B ). can be obtained. µ0 µr E P = ε0 (εr − 1)(E + v × B ). the idea is tempting of an electrodynamics that would be Galilei-covariant. as well as Maxwell’s equations for material media in slow translational motion. as is well known. through a non-relativistic reasoning from the corresponding equations that apply to media at rest (Panofsky and Phillips 1955. that is in the lab. 46 . the constitutive equations for bodies in v M slow motion differ from these given above by a relativistic term (1/c2 )v ×M ￿ in equation (∗∗) for the polarization. p 170). as Le Bellac and L´vy-Leblond (1973) pointed out. in case of the last limit only the constitutive equations are in question). True. It should be mentioned that various authors give different answers to the question of what is the prediction of Lorentz’s theory in the case of the Wilson-Wilson experiment (Cullwick 1959. etc. there is no reference frame in which complete Maxwell’s equations apply. Condensers don’t work. In relativistic electrodynamics. (∗) (∗∗) (∗ ∗ ∗) The constitutive equations. pp 166-171). Such an electrodynamics does exist. researchers from the beginning of 20th century had mainly “cavalierly” assumed that Lorentz’s theory applies in the reference frame tied with the Earth. as Miller (1981) pointed out. However. isotropic medium in motion at low speeds read µr − 1 M = B + P × v. in that theory. Lorentz’s original theory was formulated with respect to the ether frame. Lorentz’s theory understood in this way represents “electrodynamics of bodies in slow motion without special relativity. Une fortunately. This assumption was also introduced in analysis of the Wilson-Wilson experiment (cf Cullwick 1959. Chapter 9).” and can be obtained from the formulae of relativistic electrodynamics in the limit c −→ ∞ (of course.for a linear.

and in the framework of relativistic electrodynamics. Setup of the problem in the framework of Maxwell’s theory. The loop C at the moment of time t = 0 is given by parametric equations x = R cos θ. y = R sin θ. Redˇi´ 1993). b.3 A problem in electrodynamics of slowly moving bodies: Maxwell’s theory versus relativistic electrodynamics Setup of the problem 3. Basic assumptions of Maxwell’s theory will be explicitly given. is very tricky (cf Teukolsky 1996). Maxwell’s theory). its natural habitat. the considered problem is a simple analogue of the famous Trouton-Noble experiment.b). Bartocci and Mamone Capria 1991a. Consider a filamentary circular current loop C with stationary current I which moves with respect to the IFR S with constant velocity v = (v. 0).) In addition. which seems to be one zc of the simplest in electrodynamics of moving bodies. respectively. a variant of the problem will be analyzed under the assumption that Maxwell’s theory applies in the reference frame of the ether. 0.] Our presentation closely follows that of Bartocci and Mamone Capria (1991a. [In this interpretation. the theory of which. will be solved in the laboratory reference frame in two ways: in the framework of classically interpreted Maxwell’s electrodynamics (henceforth. 47 z=0 (1) . This problem. (The two methods of solving this and similar problems represent electrodynamics of slowly moving bodies without and with special relativity.1 In this Chapter we shall deal with the electromagnetic interaction between a circular filamentary conducting loop with a stationary current in a uniform slow translational motion and a point charge which is at rest or is uniformly moving at the same velocity as the loop (Rindler 1989. contrary to that of the present problem.

L). A : ￿Φ = −ρ/ε0 A ￿A = −µ0j where ￿ and j must satisfy charge conservation j divj = − 48 ∂￿ ∂t (8) (6) (7) .2 Solution in the framework of Maxwell’s theory In what follows under Maxwell’s theory we shall strictly mean: a) the system of four Maxwell’s equations B ∂B E curlE = − ￿ ∂t ￿ E ∂E B curlB = µ0 ε0 +j ∂t E divE = ￿/ε0 B divB = 0 (2) (3) (4) (5) These equations reduce. as is shown in Figure 7? Figure 7 3. in the standard notation. 0. to the inhomogeneous d’Alembert type equations for potentials Φ.What is the force acting at that instant on a charge q which is at rest in the S frame at the point (0.

∂t A B = curlA ) (10) c) An additional assumption that can be viewed as a restriction on the way fields “originate” from sources: we assume that for given ￿ and j . However. by assumption. it can be argued that the conventional presentday choice of putting σ0 = 0 is not experimentally so well established as it could be. c2 ∂t (c2 = 1/ε0 µ0 ) (9) (The electric and magnetic fields are expressed through the potentials by A ∂A .. namely the one given by the so-called retarded potentials3 ￿ 1 ￿ (x￿ . t− | r − r ￿ | /c) ￿ ￿ ￿ r Φ(r . Maxwell’s theory presented above applies. z ￿ . (6) and (7) have a unique solution which is physically relevant. y ￿ . t) = dx dy dz 4πε0 | r − r￿ | ￿ µ0 j (x￿ .and the potentials A and Φ must satisfy the Lorenz1 gauge condition2 A divA = − the relations E = −gradΦ − b) The Lorentz force law A ∂A F = q −gradΦ − A + v × curlA ∂t ￿ ￿ (11) 1 ∂Φ . we could add another hypothesis 49 . since in a noncosmological context (such as the one we shall be dealing with) σ0 seems to be really negligible. σ0 > 0) has been recently gaining adherents. t) = r dx dy dz 4π | r − r￿ | (12) (13) [“Remark: In equation (3) it would be natural to add a term σ0E . in a given inertial frame of reference S. y ￿ . z ￿ . t− | r − r ￿ | /c) ￿ ￿ ￿ A(r . e. we wish to point out that the opposite view (i. Although this does not affect directly our argument.”4 ] It is not difficult to verify that charge conservation (8) is a sufficient condition for the retarded potentials Φ and A to satisfy the Lorenz gauge condition (9). where σ0 is the vacuum conductivity.

a circular loop in motion with a stationary current I is not a clearly defined system. it is clear that without more specific assumptions on the way simple physical systems have to be modeled the theory so far described cannot get very far as a physical theory.which would ensure the validity of the theory in all reference frames S ￿ linked to S by a Lorentz transformation. it is natural to take for granted that charge and current densities in case of a loop in motion are related with the corresponding densities for the loop at rest. this assumption enables us to write Maxwell’s equations in a Lorentz-covariant form. In this sense MT is formally covariant with respect to the Lorentz transformations. A ) are contra-variant components of quadri-vectors of Minkowski’s space-time. The additional hypothesis reads (￿c. First. An essential detail. we add a new hypothesis which we shall call the Clausius postulate (CP)5 : Any segment of a conductor at rest with a stationary current is electrically neutral. this is the way relativistic electrodynamics (RED) is obtained. As Bartocci and Mamone Capria pointed out. For our discussion we need to know for instance something about the electric field produced by a current. (14) As is well known. devoid of any physical content. Now we have almost all requisites necessary for solving our problem. Namely. one should answer the question of what may be assumed in MT about the behaviour of a loop in motion. is missing. j ) and (Φ/c. It should be stressed that (14) is a fundamental physical assumption which is logically independent from the previous (2)-(13). ￿0 and j 0 . Then. it should be specified that “a stationary current I” refers to the proper frame of the loop. 50 . however. Introducing the hypothesis that both charge and lengths are preserved under motion. It is perfectly legitimate to consider the possibility of translating Maxwell’s equations into space-time geometric terms as nothing more than an interesting mathematical property.

y. t) v j (x. y. using the continuity equation and the CP we have ￿(x. e. y. t) = j 0 (x − vt. t) = ￿0 (x − vt. y. Taking into account that a stationary current is considered. ∂t 4π D3 0 51 (22) . y. t) = j 0 (x − vt. whereas for the vector potential A we have µ0 IR A= 4π where ￿ 2π 0 (− sin θ.according to the Galilean law of composition of velocities (Redˇi´ 1993) zc ￿(x. y. z. t) + ￿0 (x − vt. z. 0) dθ D (19) and β ≡ v/c. that j 0 = j 0 (x. cos θ. z). y. z. (1 − β )z dθ. t)v . z). i. z. we now only have to evaluate the retarded potentials (12) and (13). 3 4π D D3 0 0 (21) ￿ ￿ 2π (x − vt − R cos θ) cos θ + (1 − β 2 )(y − R sin θ) sin θ − dθ . z) = 0 j (x. z. (15) (16) where the notation is adapted to the present problem (the loop is moving along the positive x-axis). D3 0 and for its electric field E the expression ￿ A ∂A µ0 IvR 2π (x − vt − R cos θ)(− sin θ. z. t) = ￿0 (x − vt. y. (20) field B of our current loop C in motion ￿ ￿ 2π ￿ 2π ￿ µ0 IR ￿ cos θ sin θ 2 2 A B = curlA = 1−β z dθ. in accord with our definition of MT. The electric potential Φ obviously vanishes.7 From (19) we get the following expression for the magnetic ￿ ￿￿ ￿ D2 = (x − vt − R cos θ)2 + 1 − β 2 (y − R sin θ)2 + z 2 . z. y. y. (17) (18) One can easily verify that ￿ and j satisfy the continuity equation if the same applies to the corresponding rest densities ￿0 and j 0 . cos θ. 0) E =− =− dθ.

and the loop is circular.3 Solution in the framework of relativistic electrodynamics We now obviously have to reformulate the problem: there is a stationary ￿ current I. y = 0. which coincides with the exact expression for B of the current loop at rest.8 3. in the same approximation. L) is given by the expression F = −q = ￿ A ∂A ∂t ￿ µ0 qIvR2 4π ￿ x=0.t=0 2π 0 Neglecting terms of second and higher orders in β in a series expansion of the integrand in (23) we have ￿ ￿3/2 e F ≈ (µ0 qIvR2 /4 R2 + L2 )e y . 0.0 = (µ0 IR2 /2 R2 + L2 )ex at the same point. z=L (25) for the force acting on q by the electromagnetic field of the loop at the instant t = 0 (and.y=0.z=L. Following 52 . ￿ ￿3/2 e B 0.The required force acting by the electromagnetic field of the moving loop at the instant t = 0 on the charge q at rest at the point (0.L. (24) cos θ (− sin θ.0. cos θ. of course. at any instant) we get F ∗ = −q ￿ ￿ A ∂A v + qv × B ≈ − µ0 qIvR2 /4(R2 + L2 )3/2 ey . 0) ￿ ￿ ￿￿3/2 dθ R2 + L2 − β 2 R2 sin2 θ + L2 (23) One can easily verify that. so that its trajectory is given by x = vt. ∂t (26) again up to the second order terms in β. In case the point charge q moves with the same velocity as the loop C. in the rest frame of the loop Srf .

as measured in the S frame. and since v = ve x . mea￿ sured of course in the Srf frame. passing details. 0) dθ. for the vector potential of the electromagnetic field due to the moving loop in the S frame we obtain µ0 IR AR = 4π where 2 DR = (x − vt − R ￿ 2π (− sin θ. of the relativity of simultaneity (Rosser 1964). taking ￿ into account that in the Srf frame Φ￿R vanishes (CP): ΦR = vARx . there is no difference between the predictions of RED and MT. in this case the crucial relation p = v × m ￿ /c2 is valid exactly. Comparing equations (27) and (19) one could infer that. However. in the long run. the ￿ ￿ ￿￿ ￿ 1 − β 2 cos θ)2 + 1 − β 2 (y − R sin θ)2 + z 2 . DR (27) and the subscript R indicates that the solution belongs to relativistic electrodynamics. (29) to all the orders in β (Rosser 1993). then one applies the transformation law). while according to the ￿ CP each segment of the loop is electrically neutral in the Srf frame. 53 . the presence of a charge distribution in the current loop in motion is a purely relativistic effect and is a consequence. a rather simple calculation reveals that the electric dipole moment of the loop in the S frame equals e p = −e y vIπR2 /c2 .￿ the standard procedure (first one evaluates the potential A ￿R in the Srf frame.] The scalar potential ΦR is readily obtained on the basis of the hypothesis (14). up to the second order terms in β.] In the case of our filamentary circular loop of radius R. Finally. 0 ￿ 1 − β 2 cos θ. Namely. obviously. [Since the magnetic dipole moment of ￿ e the loop in the Srf frame is m￿ = IπR2e z . (28) relativistic transformation law of charge and current densities implies that there is a charge distribution in the current loop in motion. [As is well known. with stationary current I. this is not so.

in the transformation law of the charge density ￿ ￿ ￿ ￿ ￿ = γ ￿￿ + vjx /c2 ≈ ￿￿ + vjx /c2 . e. (31) ￿ which immediately follows from the fact that in the Srf frame the corre- sponding force vanishes. so that its trajectory is given by equation (25).9. (30) up to the second order terms in β. i. we come to a conclusion that even at extremely low speeds the predictions of RED and MT are essentially different. then the relation ￿ = ￿￿ would also apply in RED up to the second order terms in β. equations (31) and (26). this divergence in predictions arises from the following two reasons. if it were ￿￿ ￿= 0 ￿ in the Srf frame. and the predictions of the two theories would coincide at low speeds. given by the expression F R = −q( A ∂A R + grad ΦR )x=0.) The second. the ap- pearance of that term is a consequence. (26) and (30) are correct up to the second order quantities in β. (As is pointed out above. and from the relativistic transformation law of the Lorentz force. L) is.y=0. whereas equation (30) is exact. for all reasonable values of drift velocity of current ￿ carriers in Srf .the force acting by the electromagnetic field of the moving loop on the charge q which is at rest at (0. of the relativity of simultaneity (Rosser 1964). in the long run. The first.t=0 ≈ ∂t ￿ ￿3/2 e ≈ (µ0 qIvR2 /2 R2 + L2 )e y .10 In case q moves with the same velocity as the loop. unknown in MT. the force on q exactly vanishes. note that equations (24). not less important reason is the Clausius postulate. Comparing the corresponding equations (30) and (24). which is used in both theories. according to RED. Namely. (32) ￿ there is a term vjx /c2 . in RED. Assuming the validity of the CP. 0. F ∗ R = 0. As can be seen. our example reveals that in the 54 .z=L.

(−e y ) 55 .. obtaining a maximum effect when this velocity lies in the plane . as equation (26) reveals.” (A simple analysis reveals that in the general case the force on e the stationary charge q at the centre of the loop equals −(µ0 qIv/4R)e y cos ψ.11 (The force has the same unit vector as qv × B . because one can repeat the observations for various choices of that plane. Namely. Moreover. the situation is different if we go back to the original Maxwell’s hypothesis that Maxwell’s theory is valid in the reference frame of the ether. however. this result applies under the proviso that the velocity v of the Earth with respect to the ether is parallel v to the plane of the loop. as presumably it is.. In this case the problem we discussed above suggests a new experimentum crucis discriminating between RED and MT. by increasing I and q we might be able to observe an effect even if the velocity of the laboratory is very small. e where ψ denotes the acute angle between v and the plane of the cicuit. the field due to a circular current loop of radius R with a stationary current I which is at rest in a pseudo-inertial reference frame tied with the Earth (the laboratory) exerts no force on a charge at the centre of the loop. compared to c. According to RED. predicts that there exists a force −(µ0 qIv/4R)e y on the charge q. equations (24) and (30) i. where B is the magnetic flux density at the centre of the loop due to the current in the loop. and to other sources of systematic errors.) “The predicted force depends both on the intensity and on the direction of the current which should make it possible to separate a nonzero effect from other disturbances due to constant fields existing in the terrestrial reference frame. (26) and (31) are presumably inaccessible to experimental verification. It seems that the preceding considerations are only of academic interest. e Maxwell’s theory. However. The possibility that the plane of the circuit does not contain the ‘absolute’ velocity makes no harm.general case relativistic effects must not be ignored even at “room velocities” of macroscopic systems in translational motion. e. as Bartocci and Mamone Capria (1991a) pointed out.

The researchers observed just the dependence they were expecting. the observed phenomenon being a consequence of the piezoelectric effect in the teflon isolation of the superconducting coil used in experiments. has never been performed. led by a “non-obvious suggestion” that magnitude of charge of current carriers is proportional to v 2 /c2 . however. where v is the carriers’ speed. as well as the fact that the quest for the second-order effects is in question.) Bartocci and Mamone Capria proposed to call a possible experiment whose idea was presented above the Kennard-Marinov enthusiasts in the field of classical electrodynamics.4 Experiments The suggested crucial Kennard-Marinov experiment.B is the unit vector of v ×B . as well as various fundamental theoretical conceptions related with it. have been published (Edwards et al (1976).12. it seems that one should also listen lonely voices of those researchers in the field of electrodynamics which are considered outsiders by the present-day scientific community (cf Maddox 1990).15 have presumably all been made fruitless by recent experiments of Shishkin et al (2002) which established that there is no Edwards potential. depending on the square of the current intensity. any exclusiveness when reaching conclusions would be irrational. The subsequent attempts to explain the Edwards potential.13 experiment. 56 . Taking into account delicacy of the interplay between theory and experiment (“experiment is theory of theory” (Popper 1982)). Sansbury (1985)) disproving the key assumption in the preceding analyses. the Clausius postulate. In addition. Edwards et al (1976) found that there is a nonzero electric potential due to a stationary current in a closed superconducting coil. as far as the present author is aware. passionate adherents of Maxwell’s original theory.14 Some experimental results. intending thus to remember the name and the work of the two 3.

. Scientific terminology is unfair occasionally. (7) and (9) furnishing the same fields E and B when ￿H = 0. The existence of this kind of solution of Maxwell’s equations suggests that Maxwell’s theory may be incomplete. Maxwell’s equations are essentially Heaviside’s (Lorrain et al 2000.]. As far as the problem of the sources is concerned. It seems to lack some additional restriction in order that fields originate only from sources like charges and magnets. Kilmister.Notes [1] This is not a typographical error. Vol. was corrected (cf Rohrlich (2002). C. and the lack of the physical relevance of the “anticipated” potentials. For example. 3 Maxwell’s Equations and Their Consequences (Pergamon Press. Thus. the behaviour at infinity of the fields. By making a gauge transformation Φ −→ Φ0 = Φ − ∂H . no sources of the field anywhere or at any time. Elementary Electromagnetic Theory. But we do not know how to modify the theory so as to rectify this defect. also this standard choice depends on the acceptance of other “neutral”.that is. Ludwig Lorenz. W. 57 . hypotheses about the way fields “originate” from sources. pp 549-550: “How is one to interpret such a solution of Maxwell’s equations? There are no singularities . [.” [3] By the way. Chirgwin. the potentials A and Φ that satisfy the Lorenz gauge condition are not unique. [2] As is well known. and the existence of nonzero and nonsingular solutions of the homogeneous wave equation we quote from B. from the point of view of the present consideration.. Perusal of the most recent literature reveals that the Lorentz gauge is mainly replaced by the Lorenz gauge. Plumpton and C. 1973). H. a long-lasting injustice toward the true author of that gauge condition. ∂t A −→ A 0 = A + gradH one could get another solution of equations (6). and also O’Rahilly (1965)). pp 486-7).

Panofsky and Phillips 1955). Gdansk 1987 (World Scientific.” Compare note [11] in the preceding chapter. Monti. [5] See. Monti. Clausius stated that “a closed constant current in a stationary conductor exerts no force on stationary electricity. for instance. R. for us MT is mainly a tool. p 589. with an obvious historical relevance. see. Having in mind that (Φ/c.” in Problems in Quantum Physics. O’Rahilly (1965). who has also shown its important large-scale consequences. A ) formally looking are contra-variant components of a quadri-vector. [7] A proof of equation (19) is based on the formal covariance of MT with respect to the Lorentz transformations. z ￿ = z. one has A￿x = γAx . We do not claim that this version of MT does not require amendments in order to be proposed as a realistic physical theory (cf French 1968. “The electric conductivity of background space. but our aim here is to show some consequences of MT in its most “classical” interpretation. and the last section of this chapter. y ￿ = y. where γ ≡ (1−β 2 )−1/2 . For details. 1988) or Vigier (1990). and using the fact that on the basis of the CP Φ = 0.[4] The hypothesis σ0 > 0 has been recently revived by R. . we present here a more complete variant. to analyze some of the implications of the relativistic assumptions. Vol. A￿z = Az . and the primed and unprimed coordinates are related by the standard Lorentz transformation x￿ = γ (x − vt) . 58 ￿ ￿ t￿ = γ t − vx/c2 . for instance. A￿y = Ay . [6] Of course we might alternatively introduce some form of the FitzGeraldLorentz contraction hypothesis. As Bartocci and Mamone Capria (1991a) give only a sketch of the proof. II.

ζ ￿ = z. and (19) is reached by an elementary calculation. e j 0 = Iδ(ρ − R)δ(z)e θ η ￿ = ρ sin θ. We point out that it is not very frame in the framework of MT. using (17) and (18). y. η ￿ . However. ￿ j z = jz . z1 = ζ ￿ we have ￿ µ0 +∞ j 0 (ξ ￿ . t ) = 4π ￿ ￿ ￿ ￿ ￿ ￿ ￿ ￿ j 0 (x￿1 /γ. ￿ j y = jy . y1 . z1 )dx￿1 dy1 dz1 ￿ ￿ [(x￿ − x￿1 )2 + (y ￿ − y1 )2 + (z ￿ − z1 )2 ]1/2 The last two equations contain deliberate errors (the factor of γ!). y1 = η ￿ . but lead to the correct result. and also µ0 r A (r . Since µ0 r A (r . y ￿ . we can put A = A ￿ . z) = γjx0 (x￿ /γ. A possible prescription is due to Maxwell: 59 .Also ￿ jx = γjx0 (x − vt. the errors are motivated only by the economy of writing. it is obvious from ￿ obvious how to find the electric and magnetic fields E ￿ and B ￿ in the Srf equation (26) that E + v × B ￿= 0 in MT. at the instant t = 0. t ) = 4π −∞ {(x￿ /γ − ξ ￿ )2 + (1/γ 2 ) [(y ￿ − η ￿ )2 + (z ￿ − ζ ￿ )2 ]}1/2 It is now natural to introduce the corresponding polar cylindrical coordinates by the relations ξ ￿ = ρ cos θ. since in the so-called Galilean limit of RED the electric field in ￿ the Srf frame E ￿ = E + v × B and equals zero. In these coordinates dξ ￿ dη ￿ dζ ￿ = ρdρdθdz. z ￿ ). ζ ￿ )dξ ￿ dη ￿ dζ ￿ ￿ ￿ ￿ r A (r . ￿ ￿ Introducing new variables x￿1 /γ = ξ ￿ . t ) = 4π ￿ ￿ ￿ ￿ r j ￿ (r ￿1 . t￿ret ) 3 ￿ dr1 | r ￿ − r ￿1 | and our final goal is to find the vector potential A . QED [8] One would expect that E + v × B = 0 at the considered point.

for these electrodynamical systems the principle of relativity is valid in MT (an ideal example would be the Faraday-Neumann-Lenz law of electromagnetic induction) (cf. z ￿ . of course. 60 “[.” that is. z. t)... Essentially. t) where r ￿ = r − v t. Formally. y ￿ . It is not difficult to verify A A ∂A ∂A ￿ v A − − gradΦ = − − grad￿ Φ￿ + (v · grad￿ )A ￿ ∂t ∂t and consequently − A ∂A A − gradΦ + V × curlA = ∂t A ∂A ￿ v − − grad￿ Φ￿ + V ￿ × curl￿A￿ + grad￿ (v · A￿ ). interpretation. the Faraday-Neumann-Lenz law of electromagnetic induction is Galilei-invariant in the above. z ￿ . the meaning of the symbols we used is obvious. and let V ￿ be the instantaneous velocity of the same charge with respect to an inertial frame S ￿ which is moving with velocity v = (vx . z ￿ = z − vz t we have V = V ￿ + v . t) = A (x. however. vz ) relatively to S. y.) circuits . ∂t V B V v A that is E +V ×B = E ￿ +V ￿ × B ￿ + grad￿ (v ·A ￿ ). R. in Maxwell. vol. finding of A and Φ can be a cumbersome task. y. t) = Φ(x. Maxwell’s. It should be stressed. Maxwell (1891). y ￿ .] in all phenomena relating to closed (emphasis added by D. and that now one has Φ￿ (x￿ . Maxwell’s interpretation of this result is very interesting: and the currents in them. vy . On the basis of the Galilei transformation x￿ = x − vx t. in the ether frame). that Maxwell’s prescription makes it possible to find A ￿ and Φ￿ only when A and Φ are already known. Maxwell is wrong here since in the S ￿ frame his E ￿ and B ￿ fields do not satisfy Maxwell’s equations. z. p 601). y ￿ = y − vy t. 2.Let V be the instantaneous velocity of a charge q with respect to the laboratory frame S (that is. We take that A ￿ (x￿ . it is indifferent whether the axes to which we refer the system be at rest or in motion. As can be seen from the example of equation (19).

can be eval- . y. tiful method of determining the solenoidal component of the electric field of the loop in motion was proposed by Rosser (1993). of course). the method was recently “rediscovered” by Dmitriyev (2002). Jammer 1961. and also by Lorentz (1895) in his Versuch. The vanishing of the convective derivative of the quantities describing an electromagnetic system in uniform translation. Miller 1981. because one has exactly ΦR = vARx . The partial time derivative can be expressed through A A the partial derivative over the x coordinate. stationary in its proper reference frame. cf Panofsky and Phillips 1955. dA R /dt = ∂A R /∂t + (v · grad)A R . since the obviously vanishes in the problem we consider. ∂A R /∂t on the z-axis at the instant t = 0 in RED. This alternative. t) = A￿ R (x − vt. Namely. as is well known (Panofsky and Phillips 1955). 1892). z. on the basis of the transformation law. more beauA A v A convective (Eulerian) derivative of A R . one has A R (x. for reducing some electrodynamic problems to the electrostatic ones (that is for reducing the inhomogeneous d’Alembert equation in case of a charge distribution in uniform translation to the Poisson equation. was used by Heaviside (1889. up to the second order quantities in β. taking that the magnetic field of the circular current loop just near the axis has the same value as on the axis (the last approximation is legal since we are looking for the partial derivatives). and can be found in the immediate vicinity of the axis by applying Stokes’ theorem. i. −gradΦR . can be solved in another. pp 32-33. e. and A￿ R at any point of space has only azimuthal component (the symmetry!. ∂A R /∂t = −v∂A R /∂x. z).A [9] The problem of finding the vector potential A R . with respect to the axis of the circular loop.] uated directly. the Coulomb field of the 61 The irrotational component of the electric field. less formal way based on intuition and symmetry arguments. On the other hand. the electric field of an electrostatic (in its proper frame) charge distribution that is uniformly moving at speed v equals. [A historical remark is in order. within the considered approximation. up to the second order terms in β. y.

62 . Griffiths and Heald 1991. it seems that the general form of the time-dependent Coulomb law (Jefimenko 1989. through the corresponding Coulomb field. A R ≈ A￿ R . The alternative method described above of finding −gradΦR was also proposed by Rosser (1993). is conceptually tricky since it necessitates some non-obvious ￿ bution on the current loop in motion vanishes in the Srf frame. the real distribution is replaced by an equivalent (in the sense of finding −gradΦR ) fictive charge distribution which is “one-component” (there is no current in ￿ ￿ the Srf frame for that distribution). For example. and which “exists” in the Srf frame too. in a simple way. −gradΦR . This is the true meaning of Rosser’s (1993) statement that when evaluating the irrotational component of the electric field of the moving current loop retardation effects may be ignored. Incidentally. and thus negligible. according to RED. the real charge distri- while efficacious. [It is not difficult to verify that the contribution of the vector potential to the electric field due to a charge distribution in uniform translation (this potential arises from the corresponding convection current) is a second order quantity in β. exists on the current loop in motion contributes to the irrotational component of the electric field of the loop. where ΦR = vARx . −gradΦR . steps (not even mentioned by Rosser). we come to a conclusion that the charge distribution which. the convection current arising from the charge distribution in motion may be ignored. which means that within the consid- ered approximation only the conduction current in the loop gives a relevant contribution to the solenoidal component of the electric field. this method. (As is mentioned above.) The result reached in this way coincides with that evaluated directly.] Having in mind that the Lorentz contraction is a second order effect.same charge distribution that would be at rest in the instantaneous position of the considered charge distribution in motion. Lorrain et al 1988) would be of no use here. In the view of the present author.

(Professor Geraint Rosser in a letter to the present author of 20. agreed that in his original paper a mistake was made. in MT (in its original. the electromagnetic field. where u is the instantaneous velocity of the particle. there is a third “body”. which also possesses a momentum. The explanation is conventional: the electromagnetic interaction between the current loop and the point charge is not a direct one.) [11] It is of some interest here to answer the question of what is the equation of motion of a charged point. Simple calculations seem to be reserved for exotic systems (cf Butoli 1989). a medium in the interaction. since q is stationary at (0. The preceding conclusion contradicts Rosser’s (1993) statement that the force vanishes. It B ). it is not possible to verify by a direct calculation whether in this example the equation ￿ ￿ p dpf /dt = −µ0 qIvR2 /4(R2 + L2 )3/2 e y applies at the instant t = 0. and that the force is indeed given by the above expression.[10] The force by which the field of the charge q is acting on the loop in e motion at the instant t = 0 equals (−µ0 qIvR2 /4(R2 + L2 )3/2 )e y . where ￿ E pf = ε0 (E × B ) dV is the linear momentum of the total electromagnetic field. and assume that 63 E would be natural to take the conventional form d(m0u )/dt = q(E + u × . and the charge distribution over the loop in motion is given by a relatively simple expression within the considered approximation. it seems that the principle of action and reaction is not satisfied. March 2003. 0. with a charge q and with a mass m. in the electromagnetic field. “ether” variant. so that the total linear momentum of the system the current loop + the point charge + the electromagnetic field is conserved (cf Tamm 1979).) Since the force by which the field of the loop in motion is acting on the stationary q at the instant t = 0 is given by equation (30). (The situation is much more pleasing with illustrations for the angular momentum of the electromagnetic field. Unfortunately. as it is well known. L). Cf Griffiths (1989) and references therein. of course). which is obtained by applying the Coulomb law. Namely.

together with the “spatial” equation of motion (A) imply the “zeroth” component E d(m0 c2 γu )/dt = qE · u . for the problem discussed here it is irrelevant which one of the two equations of motion we use. was also 64 . the quadrivectorial “Lorentz force equation” is tantamount to equation (A) complemented by the assumption that m0 is a time-independent Lorentz-scalar. However. By the way. m0 .the mass of the particle m0 is time-independent. as Bell (1987) pointed out. appealing to Kaufmann’s experiments (cf Miller 1981). The present author feels that it is indispensable to point out the fact neglected by Bartocci and Mamone Capria (1991a. (This postulate might.) By using the identity e d du deu 3 (m0u γu ) = γu m0 eu + γu m0 u . Thus. (A) by making the same assumption on the mass. in RED equation (A)is Lorentz-covariant if and only if the fundamental assumption is valid (starting from Einstein (1905a) and Planck (1906) always tacit) that the mass of the particle.) As can be seen. up to second order terms in βu (the last equation is exact for u = 0). one could postulate that in the ether frame the equation of motion has the form E u d(m0u γu )/dt = qE + qu × B . [12] It happens sometimes that ideas and discoveries of “old” physicists sink into oblivion. of the corresponding quadri-vectorial equation of motion. the fundamental zc assumption on the time-independence of the Lorentz-scalar m0 . In this way. lead to discovery of special relativity. (This neglected fact was recently pointed out by the present author (Redˇi´ 2002). is a timeindependent Lorentz-scalar. dt dt dt where eu = u /u. in the long run. that are moving with respect to the ether.b): the here discussed problem of the electrodynamical interaction of the charge and the current loop at relative rest. one obviously has d(m0u γu )/dt = d(m0u )/dt.

together with the assumption of the validity of Galilei transformation. Arnold. physical effects depend only on the relative motion between ponderable bodies and on their mutual relative positions. New York. that is on the motion with respect to the ether. MT and RED were analyzed in detail by Bartocci and Mamone Capria (1991a). The basic idea of the “old” physicists was simple: “it is highly improbable that anything depends on the absolute motion” (FitzGerald 1882). Since in the considered problem MT predicts a nonzero force (our equation (26)) depending on unobservable speed v (the speed of the system with respect to the ether) Budde (1880) and Lorentz (1895. 1904. the corresponding principle of slow relative motion. 1912) (these references are given in Miller (1981). They have shown that the principle of relative motion does not apply in MT nor in RED. FitzGerald. 1978) p 10. with what we think today to be the correct solution. pp 176-7) postulated that charges are induced on the current loop in exactly that amount which is needed to cancel the electrodynamic force due to the absolute motion of 65 . Weinstein (Springer. their solution to the problem coincides. Somewhat unexpectedly. Vogtmann and A. applies in RED but not in MT. Mathematical Methods of Classical Mechanics. and represents another illustration of Wigner’s statement that sometimes intuition is more important than knowledge. K. the principle of slow relative motion.] The “old” physicists instinctively applied the powerful principle of relativity to MT. [The equivalence of the two principles is presumably the reason for ignoring the principle of relative motion in textbooks devoted to classical mechanics. see Miller (1981)).the topic of discussions among the physicists in late 19th century (Budde. I. in a certain sense. is in classical mechanics tantamount to the principle of relativity (“identical systems in any two inertial frames behave in the same way under the same initial conditions”). an exception is V. however. transl. Relationships among the principle of relative motion. Lorentz. One recognizes here the principle of relative motion which.

Kennard. Graz. H. For example. “Philos. “On unipolar induction . 33. [15] Numerous references are given in a paper by Shishkin et al (2002). 179-190 (1917). Ugarov 1979. Their result for density of charges induced on the loop. IIX. Purcell 1985. up to second order terms in β. The Thorny Way of Truth. It is difficult to discuss the validity of Ivezi´’s c attempt because of the obviously didactical nature of the considered model 66 denotes the conduction current density in the proper frame of the loop and . [14] A variant of that experiment has been realized. Lorentz. where J r the charges! The present author has become aware of this adherence of the “old” physicists to the principle of relativity also in the domain of electromagnetic phenomena only very recently. FitzGerald. Mag. preliminary experimental results indicate a violation of the local Lorentz-invariance. the true authors of the proposed experimentum crucis. 1982-1991. reads ￿i = v · J r /c2 . it seems that Bartocci and Mamone Capria should not have ignored Budde. by c analyzing the classical illustration of the relationship between electromagnetism and special relativity. E.the loop and the point charge. as the authors cautiously mention. after the publication of his speculation that Maxwellians were on the threshold of a discovery of special relativity (Redˇi´ zc 2004a). an infinite straight cylindrical conductor with a stationary current (Feynman et al 1964. introducing an ad hoc assumption on the Lorentz-contraction of the distance between electrons-current carriers in the laboratory reference frame.potential. Having in mind the preceding note. now in the context of a different “philosophy” (Bartocci et al 2001). and also Stefan Marinov. [13] Cf. and perhaps most completely French 1968).another experiment and its significance as evidence for the existence of the aether. International Publishers “East-West”. Ivezi´ (1990) attempted to explain the Edwards I 2 .

in which also some other authors took part. 67 . the analysis presented by Zapolsky (1988) gives a theoretical justification of the Clausius postulate in the framework of an elementary (but nontrivial) model of a circular current loop with a stationary current. (A somewhat more realistic model of an infinite current-carrying wire implies a self-induced pinch-effect and leads to new dilemmas (Matzek and Russell 1968. Redˇi´ zc 1998). Gabuzda 1993. On the other c hand. without reaching some new essential conclusion.non-invariance of the macroscopic charge of a segment of a closed current-carrying loop) is essentially a natural and necessary consequence of the relativity of simultaneity and the Clausius postulate. and thus annuls indirectly Ivezi´’s assumption.(an infinite one-dimensional system). the present author agrees with Bartlett and Edwards (1990) that what Ivezi´ considers a fatal defect of the standard relativistic electrodynamics c (Lorentz . A discussion on this topic.) On the one hand. lasted some time in the same journal.

” Nature 197 1287 68 .References Abraham M 1904.” Am.” Am.“Electric field of a slowly moving rectangular current loop: A microscopic approach. J.” Am. Phys. Lpz.“Invariance of charge to Lorentz transformation.” Found. J.” Prog. Sci.“Symmetries and asymmetries in classical and relativistic electrodynamics. 1 (2). Phys. Phys. Cardone F i Mignani R 2001. 62 1005-8 Bohm D i Hiley B J 1985.“Looking for a possible breakdown of local Lorentz invariance for electromagnetic phenomena: theory and first experimental results. 58 390-4 Bartlett D F i Edwards W F 1990. Phys. Phys. Cult.“Doppler effect for sound via classical and relativistic space-time diagrams.“Some remarks on classical electromagnetism and the principle of relativity.“Zur Theorie der Strahlung und des Strahlungsdruckes. 53 720-3 Born M 1963. 14 236-287 Bachman R A 1982.“Active interpretation of the Lorentz ‘boosts’ as a physical explanation of different time rates. 59 1030-2 Bartocci U. J.“Special theory of relativity.“How to teach special relativity. 14 51-64 Bell J S 1976. J. Phys. Lett.“Relativistic acoustic Doppler effect.” Am. A useful reference is also Reynolds R E 1990.” Phys. A 151 259-262 Bartocci U i Mamone Capria M 1991a. Lett. 50 816-8. 21 787-801 Bartocci U i Mamone Capria M 1991b. Phys. J.” Am. Phys.” Ann.” Found.. reprinted in Bell J S 1987 Speakable and Unspeakable in Quantum Mechanics (Cambridge: Cambridge U P) Blackford B L 1994.

25 L13-L15 .“The twin paradox and the Hafele and Keating experiment. 10 e e 59-60 Carini G 1965.“Note on stress effects due to relativistic contraction.“Das Clausius’sche Gesetz und die Bewegung der Erde im Raume.“Sulla dinamica relativistica di un corpuscolo con massa di quiete variabile.” Phys.” Eur. Phys. Soc. 65 929-31 Butoli A 1989. Phys. Phys. J. J.” Am. Phys. Fis. Rech. 11 401-413 Cornille P 1988. Sci. Phys.“Stress effects due to Lorentz contraction. Soc. Peloritana Sci. 27 517-8 69 B fields without special relativity.“The origin of length contraction: I.” Am. 31 383-6 Dewan E i Beran M 1959. FitzGerald and Lorentz: the origins of relativity revisited. J. Lett. Lett. Lodz 53 Ser.” Bull. 10 553-560.” Atti. Deform. A 131 156-162 Cullwick E G 1959 Electromagnetism and Relativity 2nd edn (London: Longmans Green) Dewan E 1963. The FitzGerald Lorentz deformation hypothesis.“Action et r´action en ´lectrodynamique.” Am.”Comment on Maxwell’s equations in a rotating medium: Is there a problem?. Mat.“Michelson. ibid. 69 1044-54 Brown H R 2003.” Eur. 39 23-35 Budde E A 1880. J.Bridgman P W 1963 A Sophisticate’s Primer on Relativity (London: Routledge &Kegan) Bringuier E 2004. Phys.” Ann. Nat.“Reply to Redˇi´’s Comment: Electrostatic charges in v × zc Brown H R 2001. J. Phys.” Am. J. 12 644-7 (1881) Burrows M L 1997.

Phys.“Uber die elektromagnetischen Grundgleichungen f¨r bewegte K¨rper.” Nature 195 985-6 Dmitriyev V P 2002. Math. Rev.a classical treatment. Phys.” Ann.“Ist die Tr¨gheit eines K¨rpers von seinem Energieinhalt a o abh¨nging?.“Zum Ehrenfestschen Paradoxon.“Special theory of relativity. Z.“The Compton effect .“Bemerkungen zu unserer Arbeit ‘Uber die elektromagnetischen Grundgleichungen f¨r bewegte K¨rper. 6 115-124 70 . o 17 891-921 Einstein A 1905b.” Am. 41 223-230 ¨ Einstein A i Laub J 1908a. Bull.” Am. 23 206-8 Einstein A 1911. Lpz.“Zur Elektrodynamik bewegter K¨rper.” Found...” Phys.” Ann.. Phys. D 14 922-938 Einstein A 1905a. Phys. Phys. 4 205-211 Edwards W F.“Elementary derivation of the equivalence of mass and energy. 70 717-8 Dodd J N 1983.” Physik. Soc. J.“Bemerkungen zu der Notiz von Hrn.“The easiest way to the Heaviside ellipsoid.“Continuing investigation into possible electric fields arising from steady conduction currents. 26 532-540 u o ¨ Einstein A i Laub J 1908b. a Lpz.. Lpz.Dingle H 1962. Lpz. Paul Ehrenfest ‘Die Translation deformierbaren Elektronen und der Fl¨chensatz. Phys. 12 509-510 Einstein A 1935.. Phys. Phys. Kenyon C S i Lemon D K 1976.” Eur.“The classical and relativistic concepts of mass. u o 28 445-7 Eriksen E i Vøyenli K 1976.’” Ann. 18 639-641 a Einstein A 1907. Lpz.” Ann. J.’” Ann.

Savart and Coulomb laws.“A relativistic rocket discussion problem.dependent generalizations of the Biot .“Around .world atomic clocks: observed relativistic time gains.” Am.“E = mc2 . J.Evett A A 1972. J. 61 360-2 Griffiths D J 1989.” Am. NJ: Prentice .“Time . MA: Addison-Wesley) Field J H 2000. Leighton R B i Sands M 1964 The Feynman Lectures on Physics vol 2 (Reading.the . J.Hall) Griffiths D J i Heald M A 1991.“Two novel special relativistic effects: Space dilatation and time contraction.” Am. Phys. Phys.’ by N L Sharma. 57 558 Griffiths D J 1999 Introduction to Electrodynamics 3rd edn (Upper Saddle River. R. J.world atomic clocks: predicted relativistic time gains. “Around . J. Phys.“Note on the separation of relativistically moving rockets. 28 566 Feigenbaum M J i Mermin N D 1988.” Am. 1 319-324 French A P 1968 Special Relativity (London: Nelson) Gabuzda D C 1993.” Am. 68 367-374 FitzGerald G F 1882. Phys. J. Phys.“On electromagnetic effects due to the motion of the Earth.carrying wire. Dublin Soc.“Note on ‘Field versus action-at-a-distance in a static situation. 40 1170-1 Evett A A i Wangsness R K 1960.” Am. 59 111-7 Hafele J C i Keating R E 1972.” Trans.” Science 177 166-8. 56 18-21 Feynman R P. J.the . Phys.” ibid 168-170 71 . Phys.“The charge densities in a current .” Am.

Phys. Phys.“Relativity and the electric dipole moment of a moving. Phys. 64 812-4 Kalman G 1961. J.“On the electromagnetic effects due to the motion of electrification through a dielectric. 123 384-390 Krotkov R V et al 1999. conducting magnetized sphere. Phys.” Philos.” Am.“Measurement of the relativistic potential difference across a rotating magnetic dielectric cylinder. MA: Harvard U P) Jammer M 2000 Concepts of Mass in Contemporary Physics and Philosophy (Princeton. NJ: Princeton U P ) Janossy L 1971 Theory of Relativity Based on Physical Reality (Budapest: Acad´miaia Kiado) e Jefimenko O D 1989 Electricity and Magnetism 2nd edn (Star City: Electret Scientific Company) Jefimenko O D 1996a. 64 618-620 Jefimenko O D 1996b.“Lagrangian formalism in relativistic dynamics.” Phys. Lett. J.Heaviside O 1889. A 144 427-431 Jammer M 1961 Concepts of Mass in Classical and Modern Physics (Cambridge. Mag.” Am.” Am. Rev.” Am. 27 324-339 Heaviside O 1892 Electrical Papers vol 2 (London: MacMillan) Hertzberg J B et al 2001. 69 648-654 Ivezi´ T 1990. J.” Phys. J.“Direct calculation of time dilation.“Wie erscheint nach der Relativit¨tstheorie ein bewegter Stab a 72 . 67 493-8 Lampa A 1924.“The ‘relativistic’ electric fields arising from steady conduction c currents.“Derivation of relativistic force transformation equations from Lorentz force law.

einem ruhenden Beobachter,” Z. Phys. 72 138-148, citirano u: Kraus U 2000,“Brightness and color of rapidly moving objects: The visual appearance of a large sphere revisited,” Am. J. Phys. 68 56-60 Langevin P 1911,“L’´volution de l’espace et du temps,” Scientia 10 31-54 e Le Bellac M i L´vy-Leblond J-M 1973,“Galilean electromagnetism,” Nuovo e Cim. 14B 217-234 Leibovitz C 1969,“Rest mass in special relativity,” Am. J. Phys. 37 834-5 Lorentz H A 1895 Versuch einer Theorie der elektrischen und optischen Erscheinungen in bewegten K¨rpern (Leiden: Brill) o Lorrain P, Corson D R i Lorrain F 1988 Electromagnetic Fields and Waves 3rd edn (New York: Freeman) Lorrain P, Corson D R i Lorrain F 2000 Fundamentals of Electromagnetic Phenomena (New York: Freeman) Maddox J 1990,“Stefan Marinov’s seasonal puzzle,” Nature 346 103 Matzek M A i Russell B R 1968,“On the transverse electric field within a conductor carrying a steady current,” Am. J. Phys. 36 905-7 Maxwell J C 1891 A Treatise on Electricity and Magnetism 3rd edn, vol 1 (Oxford: Clarendon) (reprinted 1954 (New York: Dover) p 246) Mermin N D 1984,“Relativity without light,” Am. J. Phys. 52 119-124 Miller A I 1981 Albert Einstein’s Special Theory of Relativity: Emergence (1905) and Early Interpretation (1905-1911) (Reading, MA: Addison - Wesley) Minkowski H 1908,“Die Grundgleichungen f¨r die elektromagnetischen Vorg¨nge u a in bewegten K¨rpern,” G¨t. Nachr. 53-111 (reprinted in Minkowski H 1967 o o 73

Gesammelte Abhandlungen vol 2 (New York: Chelsea)) Mirabelli A 1985,“The ether just fades away,” Am. J. Phys. 53 493-4 Møller C 1972 1972 The Theory of Relativity 2nd edn (Oxford: Clarendon) Nikoli´ H 1999,“Relativistic contraction of an accelerated rod,” Am. J. Phys. c 67 1007-1012 Okun L B 1989,“The concept of mass,” Phys. Today 42(6) 31-6 Okun L B 1998,“Note on the meaning and terminology of Special Relativity,” Eur. J. Phys. 15 403-6 O’Rahilly A 1965 Electromagnetic Theory (New York: Dover) Panofsky W K H i Phillips M 1955 Classical Electricity and Magnetism (Cambridge, MA: Addison - Wesley) Pauli W 1958 Theory of Relativity (London: Pergamon) (reprinted 1981 transl. G Field (New York: Dover)) Pellegrini G N i Swift A R 1995,“Maxwell’s equations in a rotating medium: Is there a problem?,” Am. J. Phys. 63 694-705 Peres A 1987,“Relativistic telemetry,” Am. J. Phys. 55 516-9 Peters P C 1985,“In what frame is a current - carrying conductor neutral?,” Am. J. Phys. 53 1165-9 Planck M 1906,“Das Prinzip der Relativit¨t und die Grundgleichungen der a Mechanik,” Verh. Deutsch. Phys. Ges. 4 136-141 Poincar´ H 1906,“Sur la dynamique de l’´lectron,” Rend. Circ. Mat. Palermo e e 21 129-175 (reprinted in Poincar´ H 1989 La M´canique Nouvelle (Sceaux: e e ´ Editions Jacques Gabay)


Popper K R 1982 Quantum Theory and the Schism in Physics (London:Hutchinson) Purcell E M 1985 Electricity and Magnetism 2nd edn (New York: McGraw - Hill) Redˇi´ D V 1990a,“Problem koncepta mase,” Galaksija, broj 221, 74-5 zc Redˇi´ D V 1990b,“The Doppler effect and conservation laws revisited,” Am. zc J. Phys. 58 1205-8 Redˇi´ D V 1992a,“On the electromagnetic field close to the surface of a zc moving conductor,” Am. J. Phys. 60 275-7 Redˇi´ D V 1992b,“Image of a moving spheroidal conductor,” Am. J. Phys. zc 60 506-8 Redˇi´ D V 1993,“Comment on ‘Some remarks on classical electromagnetism zc and the principle of relativity,’ by U Bartocci and M Mamone Capria,” Am. J. Phys. 61 1149 Redˇi´ D V 1996,“Derivation of relativistic force transformation equations zc via four - vectors,” unpublished Redˇi´ D V 1998,“A current - carrying conductor, mini pinch and special zc relativity,” unpublished Redˇi´ D V 2000,“Comment on the Compton effect,” Eur. J. Phys. 21 L9 zc Redˇi´ D V 2002,“Electromagnetism of rotating conductors revisited,” Eur. zc J. Phys. 23 127-134 Redˇi´ D V 2004a,“Image of a moving sphere and the FitzGerald - Lorentz zc contraction,” Eur. J. Phys. 25 123-6 Redˇi´ D V 2004b,“Electrostatic charges in v × B fields: with or without zc special relativity?,” Eur. J. Phys. 25 L9-L11 75

J. J. J.“Classical electromagnetism and relativity: A moving magnetic dipole.“Aharonov .” unpublished Sandin T R 1991. 61 371-5 Rothenstein B et al 2002.” Am. A 51 1776-1786 76 . Phys.“The electric and magnetic fields of a charge moving with uniform velocity. Rev.“Applying relativistic electrodynamics to a rotating material medium. Phys. 59 1032-6 Sangster K et al 1995. and Newton’s law of gravitation. J.” Am.Casher phase in an atomic system. Phys.” Am. 57 993-4 Rindler W 1991 Introduction to Special Relativity 2nd edn (Oxford: Clarendon) Rohrlich F 2002.” submitted zc Ridgely C T 1998.” Contemp. Phys.“Relativity and electromagnetism: The force on a magnetic monopole.” Phys. Physics 1 453-466 Rosser W G V 1964 An Introduction to the Theory of Relativity (London: Butterworths) Rosser W G V 1993.” Am.“Doppler shift in a spherical wave: The game with very small and the very big. the Coulomb field.“Conductors moving in magnetic fields: approach to equizc librium.“Causality.” to appear Redˇi´ D i Strnad J 2004. 66 114-121 Ridgely C T 1999. Phys. J. 67 414-421 Rindler W 1989.“In defense of relativistic mass.” Am. 70 411-4 Rosser W G V 1960.“Einstein’s light complex. J.” Am. Phys.Redˇi´ D V 2004c.“Applying covariant versus contravariant electromagnetic tensors to rotating media.

” J.Noble experiment revisited. part II. 12 69-73 Tamm I E 1979 Fundamentals of the Theory of Electricity (Moscow: Mir) Terrell J 1959. Phys.“Einstein’s first derivation of mass .“Invisibility of the Lorentz contraction.” Am. 116 1041-5 Teukolsky S A 1996. Phys.” Eur. Sci. E G Ramberg (New York: Academic) Stachel J i Torretti R 1982.dependent mass or proper time. 44 329-341 Shishkin et al 2002. 50 760-3 Strnad J 1991.” Am. J. 64 1104-9 Ugarov V A 1979 Special Theory of Relativity (Moscow: Mir) 77 . Mag.energy equivalence. 45 811-7 Searle G F C 1897.“Velocity . Instrum.“On the steady motion of an electrified ellipsoid.” Philos.“Einstein’s comprehensive 1907 essay on relativity.” Am.“The explanation of the Trouton . Phys. 35 497-502 Sommerfeld A 1952 Electrodynamics transl. D: Appl.carrying conductor. 56 415-7 Schr¨dinger E 1922. o Z 23 301-3 Schwartz H M 1977.” Physik. Phys. Phys.“Dopplerprinzip und Bohrsche Frequenzbedingung.“Investigation of possible electric potential arising from a constant current through a superconducting coil. J.“Detection of a force between a charged metal foil and a current .” Phys. J.” Rev.Sansbury R 1985. J. Phys. Rev.

J. Plasma. J.induced dissipative red .“On the electric field of rotating a magnetic insulator in a magnetic field.“Evidence for nonzero mass photons associated with a vacuum .“Observation of length by a single observer.“Reflection of plane waves from a uniformly accelerating mirror. 56 1137-1141 ˇ Zigman V J 1997 Specijalna teorija relativnosti . Phys.Mehanika II izdanje (Beograd: Studentski trg) 78 . 18 64-72 Weber T A 1997. Soc. J. 69 783-7 Vigier J P 1990. Phys.“On electric fields produced by steady currents. A 89 99-106 Zapolsky H S 1988.Van Meter J R et al 2001.” Am. R.” Am. 65 946-953 Weinstein R 1960.” Am. Phys. J. 28 607-610 Wilson M i Wilson H A 1913.” Am.” IEEE Trans.” Proc. Sci.“Measurements on a rotating frame in relativity and the Wilson and Wilson experiment. London Ser.shift mechanism. Phys.

You're Reading a Free Preview

/*********** DO NOT ALTER ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE ! ************/ var s_code=s.t();if(s_code)document.write(s_code)//-->