This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?

BooksAudiobooksComicsSheet Music### Categories

### Categories

### Categories

Editors' Picks Books

Hand-picked favorites from

our editors

our editors

Editors' Picks Audiobooks

Hand-picked favorites from

our editors

our editors

Editors' Picks Comics

Hand-picked favorites from

our editors

our editors

Editors' Picks Sheet Music

Hand-picked favorites from

our editors

our editors

Top Books

What's trending, bestsellers,

award-winners & more

award-winners & more

Top Audiobooks

What's trending, bestsellers,

award-winners & more

award-winners & more

Top Comics

What's trending, bestsellers,

award-winners & more

award-winners & more

Top Sheet Music

What's trending, bestsellers,

award-winners & more

award-winners & more

Welcome to Scribd! Start your free trial and access books, documents and more.Find out more

Dragan Redˇi´ zc

University of Belgrade

1

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

2

1

1.1

**Recurrent Topics in Special Relativity
**

Temptations

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

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

then as the ships accelerate the thread travels with them. Elementary explication. A clear consensus. we shall brieﬂy paraphrase Bell’s remarkable comment on the described situation which refers to the method of teaching special relativity. in Bell’s formulation. 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).every moment the same velocity. If the thread with no stress is just long enough to span the initial distance in question. because of its need to FitzGerald contract. The answer is none the less wrong. then as the rockets speed up. was eventually reached: the thread would not break. 5 . (Cf also Dewan and Beran 1959. goes as follows: “If the thread is just long enough to span the required distance initially. and must ﬁnally break. Evett and Wangsness 1960. 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). the artiﬁcial prevention of the natural contraction imposes intolerable stress”. it will become too short.) It is observed that the setup of the problem has been altered for several years.) Here. testiﬁes Bell. and always be at the same distance from one another. at a suﬃciently high velocity. It must break when. Dewan 1963. Evett 1972. 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.

have a stronger and more reliable intuition. factually carried out e and freed from the “weak link” of Newton’s concepts of time and space. which is uniformly moving with velocity perpendicular to the mirror’s plane. classical road. and that can be solved by using special relativity simply and elegantly. the radical breakup with the primitive concepts of space and time. 1.5 It appeared to Bell that students who follow this longer. rather concise three pages. before relativity. FitzGerald. predicts both time dilatation and length contraction and leads eventually to the same conclusions as the Einstein’s theory. unexpected qualities of rigid (in relativistic sense. the scientiﬁc problems that have been solved earlier. achieved from logically entangled postulates. We neglect the fact that the chain of thought of the old pioneerswise men. The small wonders are the methodological ones. However. merely by “pushing the button”. as pointed out by Arthur Miller (1981) in his rich and 6 .It is customary to emphasize the discontinuity. Larmor. The result is often the complete destruction of the student’s trust in perfectly safe and useful concepts acquired earlier. Max Abraham (1904) needed forty pages of text for the solution of this problem. but as a natural oﬀspring of earlier physical ideas. cf Rindler 1991) sticks and clocks that move do not appear as a dry consequence of certain abstract mathematical transformations.2 Miracles It is time to mention a few of the host of small and big wonders of special relativity. as is the case in Einstein’s approach. but in a tedious and complicated way. 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´. whereas Einstein (1905a) used only three pages for the same thing in his epoch-making paper (honestly. by “switching oﬀ” one inertial frame of reference and “switching on” another.

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

Also. in combination with the principle of relativity always give rise to the same dramatic eﬀect: the feeling of losing ground under one’s feet. a pure thought has the power to leap ahead of the empirical frontier . Rindler emphasizes.12 Also. disbelief and insecurity. Such is the case with the distance between the spaceships B and C in the problem discussed above (Dewan 1963). and sometimes rather inconspicuous. and a perennial question if it is possible that everything could be really so.9 on its own completely benign. a certain quality which is in an IFR purely spatial and timeindependent. the disbelief and insecurity stay.these true and great wonders of special relativity . if the clocks 8 .all have the same powerful source: the concept of time. 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. on such a heroic scale as in the case of special relativity. Even when this new concept of time is somehow ”swallowed” and the student of relativity yielded to his destiny expects new relativistic wonders.a feature of all good physical theories. the fundamental prediction of special relativity.11 On the other hand. unexpected and amazing physical conclusions (“leaps ahead of the empirical frontier”) . Time as a measurable physical quantity in inertial frames of reference has exactly those peculiar traits as predicted by the Einstein’s theory. but rarely. Einstein’s (1905a) deﬁnition of time and the principle of constancy of the velocity of light. can include dependence on time in another IFR. 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.According to a nice metaphor by W. These new. For example. Rindler. b) the distance between the ends of a rigid (in a relativistic sense!) stick moving along its own direction.10 And the miracles are numerous.

together with the principle of constancy of the velocity of light” (Einstein 1907). while mutually identical. with all of its Einstein-synchronized clocks (which. 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. 9 . 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 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”). that is. Cornille 1988). A natural question arises of what is the role of the clock’s rest frame.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. when measured by the clocks at rest. 1. but from the Lorentz transformations that connect the two IFRs. may of course be diﬀerent from the observed “clock in motion”). their purely instrumental character. 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. but quite puzzling. with macroscopic caesium clocks (Hafele and Keating 1972.13 Finally. Namely.at rest are Einstein-synchronized. the laboratory frame and the clock’s rest frame.g. features of a certain physical system (e. 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).

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

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

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

but Feigenbaum and Mermin get the exact limit by calculating it. unlike Einstein who postulated it.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. they revitalized the problem of the integration constant in the expression for the rest energy. which Einstein (1905b) “solved” by introducing the principle of equivalence between inertial mass and rest energy. This is an important result for which Einstein could ﬁnd only a partial justiﬁcation (Einstein 1935). almighty.) Furthermore. i. These authors reached the same fundamental conclusion. e. (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). the mass (the rest mass) appears in the non-relativistic limit of kinetic energy.to get to the equivalence between inertial mass and rest energy. Of course. chapter 3). without Maxwell’s electrodynamics. Moreover. Here. as well as the relativistic expressions for energy and momentum of a free particle in the most general form. by using solely relativistic kinematics and the laws of conservation of energy and momentum in their most general form. 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. as in Einstein.

Eriksen and Vøyenly (1976) state that the classical and the relativistic concepts of mass are “incommensurable” (cf Jammer 2000. reads. uy . 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 . fx = law of the x-component of the relativistic tri-force. This introductory chapter contains the inventory of some recurrent topics in special relativity. For example. However. m0u γu . f = d(m0u γu )/dt. Zigman 1997)) is not generally accepted. uz ). [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 ). 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]. pp 57-61). so to say. where m ≡ m0 γu and γu ≡ (1 − u2 /c2 )−1/2 . [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. the transformation according to Rindler. and for a particle with rest mass m0 and instantaneous velocity in the S frame u = (ux . taking into account that the relativistic tri-force is not identically equal the time derivative of the relativistic momentum of the particle.Notes [1] A fresh example are. circus attractions of special relativity such as length dilatation and time contraction (Field 2000).

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

Many years after. Analyzing in 1905 how the shape of a body depends on reference frame in which it is measured. “If one saw an undistorted but rotated picture of a moving cube. one would deduce that the length contraction had taken place. as measured in the body’s proper frame. Weinstein 1959. R. post festum. 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. Due measured in the laboratory. cf also Rosser 1964) realized that a visible shape (the one that can be seen by the eye.” (Here. R.[6] Recently. Einstein occasionally used the verb to observe (“betrachten”) instead of the verb to measure. if we do not take into account completely ignored Lampa (1924). It is a constant proper acceleration in question. as predicted by the theory of special relativity. [7] The conducting body has the shape of a prolate spheroid with semi axes R/ 1 − v 2 /c2 . a solution to the same problem in the case of a uniformly accelerated perfect planar mirror is published (Van Meter et al 2001). 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. or photographed by a camera) of a body whose speed is comparable to that of light does not coincide with its measured shape. 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. located at its centre (Searle 1897). Namely. 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. We remind our reader of the traps of language in special relativity. of course. it seems that Searle almost touched that discovery. [8] Today. then. as . “cube” is a body that has the shape of a cube when at rest. (The 16 to the FitzGerald-Lorentz contraction. physicists (Terrell 1959.

“time interval” is deﬁned in Einstein’s §1 just by means of the velocity of light. and thus one of the basic rules of valid deﬁnition is violated: of the present author.” velocity = A lot of paper was consumed in clarifying this formulation of Einstein’s. In the view 17 . and without special relativity. 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. located at the centre of the sphere. 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)). the circularity problem can be simply solved by reformulating the principle of constancy of the velocity of light (cf the note 15 below). the ﬁeld outside a conducting sphere at rest is identical to the ﬁeld of a point charge at rest.Wiechert potentials. From the preceding considerations. without the Li´nard e .electric and magnetic ﬁelds of a point charge in uniform motion through the ether were derived by Heaviside as early as 1888.) On the other hand. which is independent of whether the light ray was emitted by a resting or by a moving body. unexpected. Herein is light path . time interval where time interval is to be understood in the sense of the deﬁnition in §1. Deﬁnitio ne ﬁat in orbem (A deﬁnition must not be circular). [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. Namely.

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. located at the centre of the sphere. The √ ﬁgure corresponds to the value v = 3c/2. 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. 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).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. [11] It is not diﬃcult to verify immediately that the statement is true by using the corresponding Minkowski diagram. however. somewhat more diﬃcult to imagine that there is such a feature at all. It is. when γ = (1 − v 2 /c2 )−1/2 = 2. due to our pre-relativistic instincts. zc [10] Perhaps the best illustration of this psychological situation is the existence of the journal Galilean Electrodynamics. [12] Diﬀerentiating of these distances is essential in the explanation of dis18 .

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

k(ξ. τ ) is the one “in motion”. According to Born. τ = γv (t − vx/c2 ). the same notation as Dingle and Born’s will be used: K(x. however. 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. 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). etc. where ξ = γv (x − vt). 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. Dingle addressed that one k. t) is the “resting” reference frame. One K-second of a clock at rest in the K frame equals 1/ 1 − v 2 /c2 k-seconds. (In the present note. those are two distinct 20 a valid scientiﬁc theory since it contains a contradiction. Dingle falsiﬁes special relativity. Dingle’s inference does not follows from special relativity. as measured by the system of Einstein-synchronized clocks at rest in the k frame.second of a clock at rest in the k frame equals 1/(1 − v 2 /c2 ) . Overall conclusion: special relativity is not to Professor Born to defend “the integrity of scientist” by replying to the challenge. (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. Born’s counter-argument runs as follows.(in which the proper acceleration continuously changes from end to end of the stick) leads to the Lorentz contraction. 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.). special relativity permits the following argumentation. 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.According to Dingle. 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.

conjugate diameters = axes in K. The issue provoked a prolonged polemic in the Nature that lasted several years. ct. x. C. 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. those axes are mutually orthogonal. section of light cone. by convention. the axes of the “middle frame” for K and k are not represented. SH. space calibration hyperbola. for obvious reason. T H. Dingle has made the same kind of error the student usually makes: two diﬀerent quantities are denoted by one and the same symbol.ct b C a SH A B ct TH C SH x O x TH Figure 5 C. OA. Numerous participants “accused” each other for elementary misunderstanding of basic concepts of special relativity. (ξ. time calibration hyperbola. A consensus was never 21 . 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). cτ ). straight lines in Minkowski space (Figure 5).

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

By the way.in the pseudo-inertial reference frame tied for the Earth regardless of the season. for the same “events”. on the basis of classical electrodynamics. On the basis of the preceding considerations. 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. were presented by Jeﬁmenko (1996b). (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. 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. [18] This implies that physical reality independent of the frame of reference (“observer”) has no physical sense. e [16] If v = vex . [17] A few examples for time dilatation of a moving clock in the same spirit. This is clearly seen by passing from a passive to an active interpretation of the Lorentz transformations (Bohm and Hiley 1985). where xe and ye denote the electron’s coordinates. The inference would be false. 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!). this then means that the principle of relativity does not apply. cf also Dewan 1963). A vivid illustration of the various physical realities provides Rindler’s length contraction paradox (Rindler 1991. the ﬁnal outcomes must be one and the same for all the “observers”. The thesis is 23 . and different physical realities of diﬀerent “observers” are a necessary consequence of diﬀerent initial conditions. Of course. since “physical realities” of the same events corresponding to diﬀerent “observers” are not identical. one could infer that.

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

(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. Namely. Redˇi´ 1990b). kinematic derivations of the Doppler eﬀect (French 1968.) 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. 25 . in the case of the Doppler eﬀect its power is limited. Peres 1987) are approximations.

Like the well known biological principle that ontogeny is a short and quick repetition of phylogeny.1 In the electrodynamic part of the paper Einstein proved that the Maxwell-Hertz equations in vacuo are Lorentz-covariant. in a certain sense. for example. as is well known.1 Electrodynamics of moving bodies and the Wilson-Wilson experiment Einstein. Fermat’s principle). Minkowski As it was hinted above. the principle of relativity is essentially a metaprinciple (the term is Rindler’s (1991)). electrodynamics of moving bodies is quite in second place.”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). tenth paragraph of the paper. to the electrodynamics of moving bodies. The law states what could be a physical law but the principle is mute about which is a physical law (contrary to. 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. and then applied the derived transformation laws for the E . he interpreted 26 . Although the title of Einstein’s (1905a) epoch-making paper is “On the Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies”.and B . In this way he obtained the formulae expressing the Doppler principle and the light aberration “for arbitrary velocities. refers.ﬁelds to the case of a monochromatic plane linearly polarized electromagnetic wave in vacuo. Physical laws are reached slowly and painfully. Applying the principle of relativity.3 Only the last.2 2. in that work. however. 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”. entitled “Dynamics of a (slowly accelerated) electron”.

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

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

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

In the experiment. i. 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. was replaced by the uniform rotation of a long cylindrical tube made of magnetic insulator. (Cullwick (1959) gave a detailed analysis of the Wilson-Wilson experiment. is that both length contraction and time dilatation are determined only by the relativistic factor γ. as it is usually euphemistically said. The condenser was uniformly rotated at a speed of about 6000 r. they do not depend on instantaneous acceleration (the clock hypothesis and the stick hypothesis.) As it is well known.. Namely. 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. the potential diﬀerence between the plates of the condenser was measured. somewhat modiﬁed the original “experimental set-up” of Einstein and Laub. and 3 · 73 cm.m. in the axial magnetizing ﬁeld of a coaxial solenoid.9 That was a triumph of both special relativity and Minkowski’s phenomenological electrodynamics of moving media. one of the fundamental assumptions of Einstein’s theory of relativity.p. 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.the inner and outer diameters of the solid dielectric tube were respectively 2 cm. 30 . cf Møller 1972). e. both the special and the general one. inaccessible to experimental veriﬁcation. the results of the experiment eliminated Lorentz’s theory. The uniform translation of an inﬁnite slab. From the viewpoint of Minkowski’s theory.

starting from the corresponding constitutive equations for D and B in the Lorentz-covariant formulation (cf e.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). 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. the constitutive equations inside the rotating cylinder have exactly the form predicted by the “simple” Minkowski’s theory. p 545). Pellegrini and Swift (PS) argued that a correct analysis must take into account the fact that a rotating frame is not an inertial frame. Pauli 1958. a fundamental conﬂict between theory and experiment. transforming back to the laboratory frame he obtained that. Weber 1997. 31 . Griﬃths 1999. claim Pellegrini and Swift. None of the critics found an error in the PS calculation. the critics contested their starting fundamental physical assumptions [the use of an unacceptable coordinate system (Burrows). the current density) in the rotating frame due to the problem of clock synchronization (Weber)]. Since the experiment was consistent with predictions of Minkowski’s theory (which is incorrect!) one has. instead. Ridgely 1998). 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. Several authors questioned the validity of the PS argument (Burrows 1997. Ridgely (1999) analyzed in detail the constitutive equations for the polarization and magnetization in a uniformly rotating frame. in the lab. errors in deﬁning basic physical quantities (e. p 103. g. g. Their “corrected analysis” borrowed from the general theory of relativity necessary tools for dealing with electrodynamics in an accelerated frame of reference.2.

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

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. where m is the magnetic dipole moment best case. v p since p = (1/c2 )v × m and P = n0 γp . the concentration of the corresponding electric dipoles in the S frame equals n0 γ.to macro-quantities by averaging over physically inﬁnitesimally small regions of space and time intervals). The authors analyzed a steel ball (a highly conductive and a highly permeable medium!) in uniform rotation about an axis outside the ball. in the framework of the ﬁrst order theory in v/c. i. based on the classical concepts. Consequently. and the second is of the ball and v is the velocity of its centre as measured in the lab. or any assumption on physics in the ball’s proper frame. It is clear that the “microscopic approach”. in a constant external magnetic ﬁeld B0 parallel to the rotation axis. without the use of special relativity. This conclusion is reached by using only Maxwell’s equations in the lab frame. and found. however. In the WilsonWilson experiment. they all use the usual method of the theory of continuous media (the transition from micro. e. “magnetic dielectric” was constructed of small steel balls of diameter about 3 mm embedded in the paraﬃn wax. Krotkov et al (1999)point out that neither the LI nor the PS approaches are applicable to this macroscopically inhomogeneous medium. 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 . 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 . 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. is somewhat problematic. p and m could only be the average values of the corresponding .m3 in S takes the volume (1/γ)m3 as measured in S. in the quantum-mechanical operators.

An experiment with such a material has been recently performed by Hertzberg et al (2001). whose objective is to make a choice between several classical ﬁeld theories. very convincingly consistent with the LI predictions of Minkowski’s theory. (Needless to say. e.) 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. pointed out the essential fact that in experiments of the WilsonWilson type. the rotating magnetic insulator must be (i. regardless of the validity of their ﬁnal conclusions. In this case too the results took sides of Minkowski’s theory. and thus also the electric dipole moment due to the motion of magnetic dipole. 34 . in the case of the Wilson-Wilson experiment. all models that take for granted Maxwell’s equations lead inevitably to the LI results of Minkowski’s theory. The original Wilson-Wilson experiment with the inhomogeneous dielectric constructed from steel balls embedded in the wax was also repeated.to the magnetic dielectric from the Wilson-Wilson experiment. Their “homogeneous” cylinder was made of yttriumiron-garnet “which is a magnetic insulator even on the molecular scale”. claim Krotkov et al. 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. where electric conductivity is high. exist only in the steel balls. were for 6% diﬀerent from the predictions of the PS theory (the relative error of their measurement was 1%). should be) a microscopically homogeneous medium (we remind our reader that Rosser (1964) suggested this long time ago). In this way. Experimental results. Their argument is based on the fact that inside the material consisting of the host of steel balls embedded in the wax the magnetization. The analysis made by Krotkov et al.

is whether Minkowski’s phenomenological relativistic electrodynamics is correct at all. Some diﬃculties. the query necessitates a certain explanation. however. i. As Cullwick (1959. 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. p 107) noted. should be pointed out. At ﬁrst sight it is a pseudo-problem. seems to be obvious. of course. 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. at room velocities. is suﬃcient for a correct electrodynamic description of bodies in very . together with a mathematical application of special 35 tion. Einstein and Laub were not using electrodynamics of moving bodies but instead the electromagnetic theory of bodies at rest. faraway from the phenomena of everyday experience. that is without Minkowski’s theory. Namely. based on the use of Galilei transformaslow motion. As it is picturesquely said.14 However. Minkowski’s theory. in the framework of a ﬁrst-order theory. was not possible. without or with special relativity. at small speeds relativistic eﬀects may be ignored. 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.15 The question arises whether a non-relativistic analysis. e. However. The answer to the query: electrodynamics of bodies in slow motion. Before all.2. this is not so.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. and so it seems that the problem is already solved. Maxwell’s equations for material media (the so-called material equations) are Lorentz-covariant.q(E + v × B )+ the constitutive equations. Another problem. As is well known. and that in favour of special relativity.

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. the conclusions reached by Krotkov et al (1999) are problematic. more precisely. one could infer that there is no unambiguous answer to the above query. the answer to the query depends on the nature of bodies. remember the fact (already pointed out by Rosser (1964)) that there are conceptual diﬃculties also in case of the electrodynamics of bodies at rest. the query is “shifted” in the sense of necessity of either special or general relativity. In the view of the present author. 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. 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. electrodynamics of bodies in slow motion does not necessitate special relativity. Taking into account the relatively complicated theory of the experiment by Hertzberg et al. their analysis deals with macroscopically inhomogeneous bodies. One should. the consensus. 36 . contrary to the generally accepted opinion). Non-magnetic insulators in slow motion can be successfully described by using Lorentz’s non-relativistic theory (Pauli 1958). e. it seems that in case of bodies in slow rotational motion. On the basis of the considerations given in the preceding Section. however. Although there seems to be a consensus that Minkowski’s recipe is valid in case of a uniform translational motion of a body. Howevere. in the view of the present author (or. however. According to Krotkov et al (1999).relativity. When magnetic dielectrics are discussed. has no sound experimental basis. as far as the present author is aware. Minkowski’s recipe.

that is Minkowski’s electrodynamics. 37 . The present author recently pointed out that even at room velocities special relativity. a pure rotation. seems to be indispensable for a correct derivation of basic inferences (cf Redˇi´ 2004b. the motion being a pure translation. 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. in case of a uniform translational motion of a conductor of arbitrary shape.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. Redˇi´ zc zc 2004c). or a combination of the two motions. Bringuier 2004.

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. pp 146–9).leads to asymmetries that do not appear to be inherent to the phenomena .. if properly understood. to elliptic polarization. regardless of the error pointed out by Bartocci and Mamone Capria (1991a.... Einstein original example. This example has served to the author as an illustration for the thesis that “Maxwell’s electrodynamics . that predicts a perfect (and not only to second order in v/c) symmetry. 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. b). While Rosser (1993) questioned the validity of the interpretation of Maxwell’s electrodynamics proposed by Bartocci and Mamone Capria.” wrote Einstein.” (Einstein 1905a). and not relativistic electrodynamics. e. 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.as it is usually understood today . The attempt contained a fatal ﬂaw (Redˇi´ zc 2000). zc necessitates a more detailed analysis than that given by Miller (1981. 38 .. contrary to Einstein’s statement. however. zc [2] The formulae apply to arbitrary monochromatic plane wave. 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). Many years after Bartocci and Mamone Capria (1991a.Notes [1] In the whole Einstein’s paper. The observed phenomenon in this case depends solely on the relative motion of the magnet and the conductor. i. “opens the door to special relativity” (Redˇi´ 2004a).b) argued that in Einstein’s example of the interaction between a magnet and a conductor it is classically interpreted Maxwell’s electrodynamics.

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

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

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

In this place. where σf denotes the surface charge density over the lower plate of the condenser. 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 . in the framework of the ﬁrst order theory. If the gap between the dielectric slab and the condenser’s plates vanishes. Cullwick states. so that in the same “experimental situation” we have DzL = (εr − 1)µr vHy /c2 . Fortunately.) Both versions give the same results. in 42 . the condenser’s plates connected by a stationary lead are also at rest with respect to the lab.Wilson experiment where the cylindrical condenser rotates together with dielectric. Rosser 1964). this is an irrelevant second order eﬀect. and since a stationary state is established. the constitutive equation for the polarization of the magnetic dielectric contains only the E ﬁrst term on the right hand side of equation (2). it follows that the electric ﬁeld inside the dielectric also vanishes. E = 0. 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. however.Since the condenser’s plates are mutually connected by means of a stationary lead through sliding contacts. Interestingly. In Lorentz’s theory. P = ε0 (εr − 1)(E + v × B ). however. Dz = σf . and thus in this case we have Dz = (εr µr − 1)vHy /c2 . (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. (This version is closer to the Wilson. the potential diﬀerence between the plates is zero. (5) Of course. otherwise very accurate Cullwick is wrong: namely.

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”). 2. and consequently there is no contribution to the vector H due to the convection current of free surface charges. [10] As far as the present author is aware. 43 . [9] [9] The measured potential diﬀerence according to Einstein . e. The present author. 944 and 0. which for the Wilson-Wilson magnetic dielectric with εr = 6 and µr = 3 amounted to 0. however. 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. 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. respectively. p 589. This assumption is found in many textbooks and therefore necessitates a comment.b). 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). [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. by using Cullwick’s (1959) “component ﬁeld” method. Bartocci and Mamone Capria 1991a.Laub’s theory is proportional to the factor (1 − 1/εr µr ) and according to Lorentz’s theory to the factor (1 − 1/εr ). vol. 83. The average value of experimental results for that proportionality factor was 0. pp 606-613.Einstein and Laub the condenser’s plates does not move. 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. Cullwick points out that there is no consensus in the literature about what is the solution of the problem according to Lorentz’s theory. 96. Einstein-Laub’s result (5) can be reached in another (the third one) way.

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

[14] One of rare exceptions is an excellent textbook by A.” Very soon.” [13] In the view of the present author. 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. then the second term in their equation (13) neither vanishes nor has a simple interpretation. 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. 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. within an error of about 2%. the central conclusion reached by Krotkov et al (1999) can by no means be considered conclusive. The integrand may be written as ((v /c2 )×m )·E . P. which is . this prediction of special relativity was experimentally validated (Sangster et al 1995). If. the motion of the sphere is uniform rotation. 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 . a proof has arisen that Rosser was right. French (1968). 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.to special relativity. 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 . Namely if the motion of the sphere is uniform translation. which implies that a true expression for the electric dipole moment of the rotating sphere contains some additional terms. the constitutive equations 45 v m E point a to point b. Namely. The experiment was planned as a measurement of the Aharonov-Casher b m v phase shift.

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

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

What is the force acting at that instant on a charge q which is at rest in the S frame at the point (0.2 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. to the inhomogeneous d’Alembert type equations for potentials Φ. as is shown in Figure 7? Figure 7 3. in the standard notation. L). 0. A : Φ = −ρ/ε0 A A = −µ0j where and j must satisfy charge conservation j divj = − 48 ∂ ∂t (8) (6) (7) .

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 . t− | r − r | /c) A(r . c2 ∂t (c2 = 1/ε0 µ0 ) (9) (The electric and magnetic ﬁelds are expressed through the potentials by A ∂A . Although this does not aﬀect directly our argument.. (6) and (7) have a unique solution which is physically relevant. t) = r dx dy dz 4π | r − r | (12) (13) [“Remark: In equation (3) it would be natural to add a term σ0E . However. ∂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 . e. z . where σ0 is the vacuum conductivity. Maxwell’s theory presented above applies. t) = dx dy dz 4πε0 | r − r | µ0 j (x . y . we wish to point out that the opposite view (i. z . σ0 > 0) has been recently gaining adherents. since in a noncosmological context (such as the one we shall be dealing with) σ0 seems to be really negligible. we could add another hypothesis 49 . namely the one given by the so-called retarded potentials3 1 (x . in a given inertial frame of reference S. by assumption.”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). it can be argued that the conventional presentday choice of putting σ0 = 0 is not experimentally so well established as it could be. y . t− | r − r | /c) r Φ(r .

For our discussion we need to know for instance something about the electric ﬁeld produced by a current. Introducing the hypothesis that both charge and lengths are preserved under motion. Now we have almost all requisites necessary for solving our problem. The additional hypothesis reads (c. 50 . 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. First. Namely. 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. is missing. this assumption enables us to write Maxwell’s equations in a Lorentz-covariant form. devoid of any physical content. In this sense MT is formally covariant with respect to the Lorentz transformations. one should answer the question of what may be assumed in MT about the behaviour of a loop in motion. It should be stressed that (14) is a fundamental physical assumption which is logically independent from the previous (2)-(13). 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. 0 and j 0 .which would ensure the validity of the theory in all reference frames S linked to S by a Lorentz transformation. (14) As is well known. An essential detail. j ) and (Φ/c. however. a circular loop in motion with a stationary current I is not a clearly deﬁned system. it should be speciﬁed that “a stationary current I” refers to the proper frame of the loop. A ) are contra-variant components of quadri-vectors of Minkowski’s space-time. 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. Then. As Bartocci and Mamone Capria pointed out. this is the way relativistic electrodynamics (RED) is obtained.

y. y.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 . 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. e. The electric potential Φ obviously vanishes. y. y. t) + 0 (x − vt. 0) dθ D (19) and β ≡ v/c. Taking into account that a stationary current is considered. z. (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. t) = 0 (x − vt. y. t)v . t) = j 0 (x − vt. z) = 0 j (x. whereas for the vector potential A we have µ0 IR A= 4π where 2π 0 (− sin θ. y. 0) E =− =− dθ. in accord with our deﬁnition of MT. using the continuity equation and the CP we have (x. ∂t 4π D3 0 51 (22) . D3 0 and for its electric ﬁeld E the expression A ∂A µ0 IvR 2π (x − vt − R cos θ)(− sin θ. (1 − β )z dθ. y. (15) (16) where the notation is adapted to the present problem (the loop is moving along the positive x-axis). z). cos θ. i. that j 0 = j 0 (x. cos θ. z. y. y. z. t) v j (x. t) = j 0 (x − vt. z). z. z. y.according to the Galilean law of composition of velocities (Redˇi´ 1993) zc (x. z. t) = 0 (x − vt. (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 .

so that its trajectory is given by x = vt. ∂t (26) again up to the second order terms in β. 0) 3/2 dθ R2 + L2 − β 2 R2 sin2 θ + L2 (23) One can easily verify that. of course. and the loop is circular. in the same approximation. Following 52 .y=0.3 Solution in the framework of relativistic electrodynamics We now obviously have to reformulate the problem: there is a stationary current I. z=L (25) for the force acting on q by the electromagnetic ﬁeld of the loop at the instant t = 0 (and. (24) cos θ (− sin θ. in the rest frame of the loop Srf . In case the point charge q moves with the same velocity as the loop C.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. which coincides with the exact expression for B of the current loop at rest. y = 0.8 3. at any instant) we get F ∗ = −q A ∂A v + qv × B ≈ − µ0 qIvR2 /4(R2 + L2 )3/2 ey . cos θ. L) is given by the expression F = −q = A ∂A ∂t µ0 qIvR2 4π x=0.0.L.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.z=L. 3/2 e B 0.

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

according to RED. in the transformation law of the charge density = γ + vjx /c2 ≈ + vjx /c2 . so that its trajectory is given by equation (25). Assuming the validity of the CP. which is used in both theories. (32) there is a term vjx /c2 . our example reveals that in the 54 . in RED. (As is pointed out above. and the predictions of the two theories would coincide at low speeds. As can be seen. we come to a conclusion that even at extremely low speeds the predictions of RED and MT are essentially diﬀerent. not less important reason is the Clausius postulate.9. unknown in MT. for all reasonable values of drift velocity of current carriers in Srf . if it were = 0 in the Srf frame. i.z=L. (30) up to the second order terms in β. Namely. (31) which immediately follows from the fact that in the Srf frame the corre- sponding force vanishes.t=0 ≈ ∂t 3/2 e ≈ (µ0 qIvR2 /2 R2 + L2 )e y . L) is. 0. in the long run. the force on q exactly vanishes. this divergence in predictions arises from the following two reasons. F ∗ R = 0. and from the relativistic transformation law of the Lorentz force. (26) and (30) are correct up to the second order quantities in β. The ﬁrst. e. then the relation = would also apply in RED up to the second order terms in β.the force acting by the electromagnetic ﬁeld of the moving loop on the charge q which is at rest at (0. whereas equation (30) is exact. given by the expression F R = −q( A ∂A R + grad ΦR )x=0. of the relativity of simultaneity (Rosser 1964). note that equations (24).) The second.y=0.10 In case q moves with the same velocity as the loop. the ap- pearance of that term is a consequence. equations (31) and (26). Comparing the corresponding equations (30) and (24).

and to other sources of systematic errors. where B is the magnetic ﬂux density at the centre of the loop due to the current in the loop. 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. The possibility that the plane of the circuit does not contain the ‘absolute’ velocity makes no harm. 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. predicts that there exists a force −(µ0 qIv/4R)e y on the charge q. compared to c.) “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. by increasing I and q we might be able to observe an eﬀect even if the velocity of the laboratory is very small. however.” (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. It seems that the preceding considerations are only of academic interest.. In this case the problem we discussed above suggests a new experimentum crucis discriminating between RED and MT. obtaining a maximum eﬀect when this velocity lies in the plane . 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. However.11 (The force has the same unit vector as qv × B . Moreover. as presumably it is. (−e y ) 55 . e where ψ denotes the acute angle between v and the plane of the cicuit. e.general case relativistic eﬀects must not be ignored even at “room velocities” of macroscopic systems in translational motion. equations (24) and (30) i. (26) and (31) are presumably inaccessible to experimental veriﬁcation. as Bartocci and Mamone Capria (1991a) pointed out. Namely. because one can repeat the observations for various choices of that plane.. as equation (26) reveals. According to RED. e Maxwell’s theory.

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

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

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

QED [8] One would expect that E + v × B = 0 at the considered point.Also jx = γjx0 (x − vt. A possible prescription is due to Maxwell: 59 . 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. using (17) and (18). and (19) is reached by an elementary calculation. z) = γjx0 (x /γ. tret ) 3 dr1 | r − r 1 | and our ﬁnal goal is to ﬁnd the vector potential A . t ) = 4π j 0 (x1 /γ. z1 )dx1 dy1 dz1 [(x − x1 )2 + (y − y1 )2 + (z − z1 )2 ]1/2 The last two equations contain deliberate errors (the factor of γ!). at the instant t = 0. z ). e j 0 = Iδ(ρ − R)δ(z)e θ η = ρ sin θ. Introducing new variables x1 /γ = ξ . ζ = z. the errors are motivated only by the economy of writing. but lead to the correct result. We point out that it is not very frame in the framework of MT. t ) = 4π r j (r 1 . we can put A = A . and also µ0 r A (r . j y = jy . ζ )dξ dη dζ r A (r . y1 . j z = jz . However. z1 = ζ we have µ0 +∞ j 0 (ξ . In these coordinates dξ dη dζ = ρdρdθdz. y1 = η . 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. y . y. η . Since µ0 r A (r . since in the so-called Galilean limit of RED the electric ﬁeld in the Srf frame E = E + v × B and equals zero.

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

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

−gradΦR . the convection current arising from the charge distribution in motion may be ignored. For example. and which “exists” in the Srf frame too. we come to a conclusion that the charge distribution which. in a simple way. [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. Griﬃths and Heald 1991. A R ≈ A R .same charge distribution that would be at rest in the instantaneous position of the considered charge distribution in motion. where ΦR = vARx .) The result reached in this way coincides with that evaluated directly. −gradΦR . according to RED. through the corresponding Coulomb ﬁeld. it seems that the general form of the time-dependent Coulomb law (Jeﬁmenko 1989. is conceptually tricky since it necessitates some non-obvious bution on the current loop in motion vanishes in the Srf frame. The alternative method described above of ﬁnding −gradΦR was also proposed by Rosser (1993). the real charge distri- while eﬃcacious. 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). steps (not even mentioned by Rosser). this method. 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. Incidentally. In the view of the present author. (As is mentioned above. exists on the current loop in motion contributes to the irrotational component of the electric ﬁeld of the loop. and thus negligible. 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. 62 .] Having in mind that the Lorentz contraction is a second order eﬀect. Lorrain et al 1988) would be of no use here.

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

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

1912) (these references are given in Miller (1981). K. 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 . applies in RED but not in MT. Relationships among the principle of relative motion.the topic of discussions among the physicists in late 19th century (Budde. with what we think today to be the correct solution. Somewhat unexpectedly. 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”). They have shown that the principle of relative motion does not apply in MT nor in RED. in a certain sense. [The equivalence of the two principles is presumably the reason for ignoring the principle of relative motion in textbooks devoted to classical mechanics. Weinstein (Springer. MT and RED were analyzed in detail by Bartocci and Mamone Capria (1991a). Vogtmann and A. Lorentz. transl. however. FitzGerald. New York.] The “old” physicists instinctively applied the powerful principle of relativity to MT. I. 1978) p 10. the principle of slow relative motion. and represents another illustration of Wigner’s statement that sometimes intuition is more important than knowledge. together with the assumption of the validity of Galilei transformation. 1904. physical eﬀects depend only on the relative motion between ponderable bodies and on their mutual relative positions. Mathematical Methods of Classical Mechanics. an exception is V. their solution to the problem coincides. 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. the corresponding principle of slow relative motion. Arnold. The basic idea of the “old” physicists was simple: “it is highly improbable that anything depends on the absolute motion” (FitzGerald 1882). One recognizes here the principle of relative motion which. see Miller (1981)). that is on the motion with respect to the ether.

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

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. Redˇi´ zc 1998). lasted some time in the same journal. the present author agrees with Bartlett and Edwards (1990) that what Ivezi´ considers a fatal defect of the standard relativistic electrodynamics c (Lorentz . Gabuzda 1993. A discussion on this topic. On the other c hand. 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.(an inﬁnite one-dimensional system). (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. and thus annuls indirectly Ivezi´’s assumption. without reaching some new essential conclusion. 67 . in which also some other authors took part.) On the one hand.

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

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

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

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

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

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)

74

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

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

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

Are you sure?

This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?

We've moved you to where you read on your other device.

Get the full title to continue

Get the full title to continue listening from where you left off, or restart the preview.

scribd