SOME METHODOLOGICAL PROBLEMS OF THE

ELECTRODYNAMICS OF MOVING BODIES

Dragan Redžić
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 Recurrent Topics in Special Relativity
1.1 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 profes-
sional 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 suc-
cess 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 confu-
sion 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, Redžić 1990a, 2002),
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, Redžić 1996). It is indicative,
one can say, that Rindler, in his rightly acclaimed book on special relativ-
ity, 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
that represent a ratio of spatial components of a quadri-vector in Minkowski
space and the corresponding relativistic factor gamma (i.e. in purely geo-
metric and kinematic relations), in Rindler appears also a time dependence
of the relativistic mass, obtained from the quadri-vector equation of motion
(a purely dynamic quantity).3 The result is, of course, a conceptual mess,
for both “pure” and “impure” forces.
When a traveler through relativity somehow escapes from the quicksand
of terminology, more dangerous temptations lurk, just like in fairy tales.4
Namely, it turns out that it is not sufficient to know of the FitzGerald-
Lorentz contraction and time dilatation, to brood over them for several
years and even to use them in everyday work; as Bridgman (1963) put it in
A Sophisticate’s Primer on Relativity, we all are groping our path toward
understanding basic concepts. As an illustration for this state of affairs might
serve the following simple problem, a little riddle with pictures suitable to
a primer on relativity.
Three small spaceships A, B and C drift freely in a region of space remote
from other matter, without rotation and without relative motion, with B and
C equidistant from A (Figure 1).

Figure 1

In one moment two identical signals from A are emitted toward B and
C. On reception of these signals the motors of B and C are ignited and they
accelerate gently along the straight line connecting them (Figure 2).
Let the ships B and C be identical, and have identical acceleration pro-
grammes. Then (as reckoned by an observer in A) the ships will have at

4
every moment the same velocity, and always be at the same distance from
one another. 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). If the thread with no stress is just long
enough to span the initial distance in question, then as the ships accelerate
the thread travels with them. 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),

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. A clear consensus, testifies Bell, was eventually reached: the thread
would not break.
The answer is none the less wrong. Elementary explication, in Bell’s
formulation, goes as follows: “If the thread is just long enough to span the
required distance initially, then as the rockets speed up, it will become too
short, because of its need to FitzGerald contract, and must finally break.
It must break when, at a sufficiently high velocity, the artificial prevention
of the natural contraction imposes intolerable stress”. (Cf also Dewan and
Beran 1959, Evett and Wangsness 1960, Dewan 1963, Evett 1972.) It is
observed that the setup of the problem has been altered for several years.)
Here, we shall briefly paraphrase Bell’s remarkable comment on the described
situation which refers to the method of teaching special relativity.

5
 It is customary to emphasize the discontinuity, the radical breakup with
the primitive concepts of space and time. The result is often the complete de-
struction of the student’s trust in perfectly safe and useful concepts acquired
earlier. We neglect the fact that the chain of thought of the old pioneers-
wise men, FitzGerald, Larmor, Lorentz and Poincaré, factually carried out
and freed from the “weak link” of Newton’s concepts of time and space,
predicts both time dilatation and length contraction and leads eventually to
the same conclusions as the Einstein’s theory. However, unexpected qual-
ities of rigid (in relativistic sense, cf Rindler 1991) sticks and clocks that
move do not appear as a dry consequence of certain abstract mathematical
transformations, achieved from logically entangled postulates, as is the case
in Einstein’s approach, but as a natural offspring of earlier physical ideas.5
It appeared to Bell that students who follow this longer, classical road, have
a stronger and more reliable intuition.

1.2 Miracles
It is time to mention a few of the host of small and big wonders of special
relativity. The small wonders are the methodological ones, the scientific
problems that have been solved earlier, before relativity, but in a tedious
and complicated way, and that can be solved by using special relativity sim-
ply and elegantly, merely by “pushing the button”, by “switching off” one
inertial frame of reference and “switching on” another. 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, which is uniformly moving with velocity perpen-
dicular to the mirror’s plane. Max Abraham (1904) needed forty pages of
text for the solution of this problem, whereas Einstein (1905a) used only
three pages for the same thing in his epoch-making paper (honestly, rather
concise three pages, as pointed out by Arthur Miller (1981) in his rich and

6
detailed monograph wherein Einstein’s Relativity Paper was analyzed sen-
tence by sentence). (The present author admits that he has not read the
Abraham’s article, but has read the Einstein’s, very meticulously. Heavy
reading.)
Another case of “methodological wonders” appears in electrodynamics of
moving bodies. It is well known that an isolated charged conducting sphere
of radius R at rest in laboratory (an inertial frame of reference), produces
in space outside the sphere the same electrostatic field as the corresponding
point charge at rest at the centre of the sphere. Following Maxwell (1891),
this point charge may be called the image of the conducting sphere. 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, as measured
in laboratory?7
Famous J. J. Thomson and Oliver Heaviside, undoubted authorities
in the field of Maxwell’s electrodynamics, and men able to recognize the
essence, dealt with this problem as well. However, Searle (1897) was the
first to find the correct solution: the image of a charged conducting sphere
in motion is a uniformly charged line; the ratio of the length of the line
and the diameter of the sphere is v/c. (The quest for the image of a mov-
ing sphere, a little cliff-hanger that takes place in London, Cambridge and
Dublin in late 19th century, has been sketched in an excellent monograph by
Max Jammer (1961). The main characters are Maxwellians, a small group of
eccentrics that will give much pain to historians of science (cf Brown 2001,
2003, Lorrain et al 2000).) In his article Searle uses the contemporary scien-
tific language (the sphere moves with respect to the ether). He doesn’t yet
know (and how could he?) that the bodies in uniform motion with respect
to the ether do not have the same shape as when at rest.8 In the historical
perspective, Searle’s cumbersome and complicated solution to the problem
arouses admiration. A simple and elegant solution based on the recipe of
special relativity has been recently published (Redžić 1992a, b).

7
 According to a nice metaphor by W. Rindler, a pure thought has the
power to leap ahead of the empirical frontier - a feature of all good phys-
ical theories, but rarely, Rindler emphasizes, on such a heroic scale as in
the case of special relativity. These new, unexpected and amazing physical
conclusions (“leaps ahead of the empirical frontier”) - these true and great
wonders of special relativity - all have the same powerful source: the concept
of time. Time as a measurable physical quantity in inertial frames of refer-
ence has exactly those peculiar traits as predicted by the Einstein’s theory.
Also, Einstein’s (1905a) definition of time and the principle of constancy of
the velocity of light,9 on its own completely benign, in combination with the
principle of relativity always give rise to the same dramatic effect: the feeling
of losing ground under one’s feet, disbelief and insecurity, and a perennial
question if it is possible that everything could be really so. Even when this
new concept of time is somehow ”swallowed” and the student of relativity
yielded to his destiny expects new relativistic wonders, the disbelief and
insecurity stay.10
And the miracles are numerous, and sometimes rather inconspicuous.
For example, a certain quality which is in an IFR purely spatial and time-
independent, can include dependence on time in another IFR. Such is the
case with the distance between the spaceships B and C in the problem dis-
cussed above (Dewan 1963).11 On the other hand, 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; b) the
distance between the ends of a rigid (in a relativistic sense!) stick moving
along its own direction.12 Also, the fundamental prediction of special rela-
tivity, 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, if the clocks

8
at rest are Einstein-synchronized, when measured by the clocks at rest.13
Finally, 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. 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, with macroscopic
caesium clocks (Hafele and Keating 1972, Cornille 1988).

1.3 Path toward understanding?

It seems that the feeling of discomfort that accompanies physicists (and lay-
men) about the slowing down of the clock in motion is a consequence of the
opacity of the usual relativistic method of inferring. Namely, features of a
certain physical system (e.g. 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”), but from the Lorentz
transformations that connect the two IFRs, the laboratory frame and the
clock’s rest frame. A natural question arises of what is the role of the
clock’s rest frame, with all of its Einstein-synchronized clocks (which, while
mutually identical, may of course be different from the observed “clock in
motion”). 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), but quite puzzling. Even the creator himself of the theory
of relativity that will soon become the special one pointed out this funda-
mental limitation of “the principle of relativity, together with the principle
of constancy of the velocity of light” (Einstein 1907), that is, their purely
instrumental character.

9
 Maybe the previously described feelings of unease and powerlessness that
follow the understanding of basic results of special relativity could be atten-
uated, or even completely removed, if Einstein’s method were supplemented,
mutatis mutandis, with reasonings of FitzGerald, Lorentz, Poincaré, in a way
suggested by Bell (1976, 1987). Here is a short sketch of Bell’s approach.
Let us suppose that natural laws known as Maxwell’s equations hold in
some inertial frame of reference (“the laboratory”). Since the coordinates of
position and time, such as x, y, z and t, always appear in the formulation
of all natural laws, it is above all necessary to define the meaning of these
fundamental quantities. Say that x, y, z and t have their usual meaning in
the laboratory. For example, with t we denote the reading of the synchro-
nized clocks that are at rest with respect to the laboratory. (Since Maxwell’s
equations imply the principle of constancy of the velocity of light, Einstein-
synchronization of an arbitrary number of clocks at rest with respect to the
laboratory is a trivially possible procedure.14,15 Let us now suppose that
a proton is at rest in laboratory, and that an electron rotates uniformly
around it on a circular trajectory of radius a under the action of the pro-
ton’s electrostatic field. Somehow the electron manages to maintain its own
energy constant. (Electron makes up for the energy lost as electromagnetic
radiation by absorbing the needed amount from some infinite reservoir of
energy, maybe vacuum?) In short, this hydrogen atom partly follows the
Bohr model. If we now expose this hydrogen atom to a constant and weak
electrostatic field, parallel to the plane of trajectory of the electron, the en-
tire system will accelerate in the direction of the field. 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, and
applying this equation of motion on the electron and the proton that form
our hydrogen atom, we arrive at some unexpected conclusions. After turn-
ing off the external field, and after dying out of transient effects, the proton

10
moves with constant velocity v ; the electron moves with respect to the pro-
ton (expressed, of course, through the laboratory coordinates x, y, z and t
) on an elliptical trajectory that is oblate in the direction of motion of the
�
system, with semi-axes a 1 − v 2 /c2 and a.16 The period of motion of the
electron on the ellipse around the proton in uniform translational motion is
�
1/ 1 − v 2 /c2 times larger than the period of motion of the electron on the
circle of radius a centered at the proton at rest.17
The preceding analysis of the “hydrogen atom” in motion, carried out
completely in the laboratory frame, reveals, thus, that length contraction
in the direction of motion and time dilatation occur in this simple physical
model due to acceleration! Now, it seems, it is easier to accept that these
are universal phenomena, which will take place in every “stick” and “clock”
in uniform motion with respect to the laboratory. Also, now it is more ac-
ceptable that for the “observer” moving with same velocity v as the proton,
the trajectory of the electron around the stationary (for that “observer”)
proton is a circle of radius a (because his meters sticks are contracted by
�
the same factor 1 − v 2 /c2 as well in the direction of motion), and the pe-
riod 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). Elliptical trajectory and a longer period are real for the “observer
in laboratory”; circular trajectory and a normal period are real for the “ob-
server in motion”. Since in physics real is what is reached by measuring
instruments, both “observers” are perfectly right.18

1.4 Relativity without Maxwell’s electrodynamics?

At this place, before entering electrodynamics of moving bodies, it is perhaps
worthwhile to make a small digression about the relationship between special
relativity, light and Maxwell’s electrodynamics. Although both light and

11
electrodynamics have played a central part in the historical development of
special relativity, the real basis of that theory, the Lorentz transformations,
in itself has nothing to do with Maxwell’s equations (Einstein 1935). In
addition to that, according to some authors, the principle of constancy of the
velocity of light has to be dethroned as one of the pillars of special relativity.
Rindler’s (1991) opinion is indicative in this connection: special relativity
would exist even if light and electromagnetism were somehow eliminated
from the nature.
Starting from the principle of relativity and the invariability of causal-
ity, Rindler proves that all inertial frames are related by either Galileo’s or
Lorentz’s transformations. If the transformations are Lorentz’s, then the
constant c which appears in them represents the smallest upper boundary
(the supremum) for the speed of particles in any inertial frame. At the same
time, the speed c can but does not have to be reachable by any physical
object. The possibility that the particles considered massless according to
contemporary opinion (photons, neutrinos, gravitons) may have a nonzero
mass was opened in this way (cf Vigier 1990). Thus, the constant c in the
Lorentz transformations would play the same role as the absolute zero of tem-
perature, the role of an inaccessible boundary.19 It seems, however, that the
alternative methods of clock synchronization, without light, which are indis-
pensable for Rindler’s argumentation, cannot be in accord with the principle
of relativity, nor “freed” from circular reasoning. The same objection goes
with a similar Mermin’s (1984) attempt to get the second postulate from
the principle of relativity. Mermin’s method of synchronization of distant
clocks by their “symmetric transport” (cf footnote 5 of his article) contains,
it seems, a hidden circular argument.
In this context, a recent demonstration of the power of relativistic kine-
matics should be mentioned. Feigenbaum and Mermin (1988) analyzed a me-
chanical version of the famous 1905 Gedankenexperiment, based on electro-
dynamic concepts (Einstein’s Lichtkomplex), which served Einstein (1905b)

12
to get to the equivalence between inertial mass and rest energy. These au-
thors reached the same fundamental conclusion, 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, without Maxwell’s elec-
trodynamics. Here, as in Einstein, the mass (the rest mass) appears in the
non-relativistic limit of kinetic energy, but Feigenbaum and Mermin get the
exact limit by calculating it, unlike Einstein who postulated it. Moreover,
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. (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).) Furthermore, Feigenbaum and Mermin showed that in the relativis-
tic expressions for momentum and kinetic energy of a free particle the same
mass-Lorentz scalar m appears. This is an important result for which Ein-
stein could find only a partial justification (Einstein 1935). Of course, it
would be hasty to conclude from the above discussion that the relativistic
kinematics is free of Maxwell’s electrodynamics (cf Jammer 2000, chapter
3), i. e. almighty.20

13
Notes

[1] A fresh example are, so to say, circus attractions of special relativity such
as length dilatation and time contraction (Field 2000). But here we refer pri-
marily 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]. This introductory chapter contains the inventory of
some recurrent topics in special relativity.
[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
1998, Žigman 1997)) is not generally accepted. For example, Eriksen and
Vøyenly (1976) state that the classical and the relativistic concepts of mass
are “incommensurable” (cf Jammer 2000, pp 57-61).
[3] For two inertial frames of reference S and S � in the standard configura-
tion (S � is uniformly moving with respect to S along the common positive
x − x� axis with velocity veex ), and for a particle with rest mass m0 and
instantaneous velocity in the S frame u = (ux , uy , uz ), the transformation
law of the x-component of the relativistic tri-force, f = d(m0u γu )/dt, reads,
according to Rindler,

fx − vdm/dt fx − v[ff · u /c2 + (1/γu )dm0 /dt]

fx� = =
1 − ux v/c2 1 − ux v/c2
where m ≡ m0 γu and γu ≡ (1 − u2 /c2 )−1/2 . However, taking into account
that the relativistic tri-force is not identically equal the time derivative of
the relativistic momentum of the particle, m0u γu , it is clear that the trans-
formation law of the x-component of the relativistic tri-force must have the
form

fx − v[ff · u /c2 + (1/γu2 /c2 )F α Uα ]

fx� =
1 − ux v/c2

14
where F α = (F 0 , γuf ) is the corresponding quadri-force, and U α = γu (c, u )
is the quadri-velocity of the particle on which the force is acting. (Here,
of course, contra-variant components of these quadri-vectors appear; we use
the standard metrics (1, -1, -1, -1).) We remind the reader that, in the
general case, a quadri-force does not comply with the condition F α Uα ≡ 0,
i. e. 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 ; the last equation is obtained from the
quadri-vector equation of motion, making use of the orthogonality of the
particle’s quadri-velocity and quadri-acceleration (Rosser 1964, Møller 1972,
Rindler 1991).
[4] Perhaps the mentioning of fairy tales in this context is not completely
devoid of sense. Some of the conclusions of special relativity touch the
archetypal dreams of humanity. Langevin’s (1911) Traveler (La Voyageuse
de Langevin, en français) comes home young (biologically young, not just
young looking, note how language is a problem), after many years of inter-
stellar journey.
[5] Analyzing a simple model of the hydrogen atom, using classical elec-
trodynamics (which is a relativistic theory par excellence without knowing
that), Bell has shown that in that simple system, when it is moving, both
the FitzGerald-Lorentz contraction and time dilatation occur. According to
Bell (1976), the essence of his argument is not at all that Einstein was wrong
in his 1905 “kinematic” analysis, but instead that a more cumbersome, less
economic reasoning, “based on special assumptions on the structure of mat-
ter”, can lead to a fuller insight, in a similar way as statistical mechanics
can offer a much broader view than phenomenological thermodynamics. It
should be mentioned that Bell’s seminal essay gives only a sketch of the
approach to special relativity through ideas of FitzGerald, Larmor, Lorentz
and Poincaré. As his only predecessor, Bell mentions a monograph by L.
Yanossy (1975).

15
[6] Recently, a solution to the same problem in the case of a uniformly
accelerated perfect planar mirror is published (Van Meter et al 2001). It is
a constant proper acceleration in question, of course.
[7] The conducting body has the shape of a prolate spheroid with semi-
�
axes R/ 1 − v 2 /c2 , R, R, as measured in the body’s proper frame. Due
to the FitzGerald-Lorentz contraction, the body is a sphere of radius R, as
measured in the laboratory. We remind our reader of the traps of language
in special relativity. Analyzing in 1905 how the shape of a body depends on
reference frame in which it is measured, Einstein occasionally used the verb
to observe (“betrachten”) instead of the verb to measure. Many years after,
if we do not take into account completely ignored Lampa (1924), physicists
(Terrell 1959, Weinstein 1959, cf also Rosser 1964) realized that a visible
shape (the one that can be seen by the eye, or photographed by a camera)
of a body whose speed is comparable to that of light does not coincide with
its measured shape. “If one saw an undistorted but rotated picture of a
moving cube, as predicted by the theory of special relativity, then, 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, one would deduce that
the length contraction had taken place.” (Here, “cube” is a body that has
the shape of a cube when at rest.) The moral of the story seems to have
been known to Democritus: things are not found therein where their picture
is.
[8] Today, post festum, it seems that Searle almost touched that discov-
ery. Namely, 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, 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). (The

16
electric and magnetic fields of a point charge in uniform motion through
the ether were derived by Heaviside as early as 1888, without the Liénard
- Wiechert potentials, and without special relativity.) On the other hand,
the field outside a conducting sphere at rest is identical to the field of a
point charge at rest, located at the centre of the sphere. From the preceding
considerations, applying the principle of relativity to Maxwell’s electrody-
namics we infer (cf Redžić 2004a): a conducting body that has the shape
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, unexpected, 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)).
[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, which is independent of whether the light ray was
emitted by a resting or by a moving body. Herein is

light path
velocity = ,
time interval
where time interval is to be understood in the sense of the definition in §1.”
A lot of paper was consumed in clarifying this formulation of Einstein’s.
Namely, “time interval” is defined in Einstein’s §1 just by means of the ve-
locity of light, and thus one of the basic rules of valid definition is violated:
Definitio ne fiat in orbem (A definition must not be circular). In the view
of the present author, the circularity problem can be simply solved by refor-
mulating the principle of constancy of the velocity of light (cf the note 15
below).

17
 y

R E
n
E*
E

v!B

O R/2 x

Q Q
z

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, located at the centre of
the sphere. The electromagnetic field of a point charge Q in uniform motion with
velocity v = veex is identical to the field of a conducting body having the shape of a
Heaviside ellipsoid which is moving with the same velocity. Applying the principle
of relativity to Maxwell’s electrodynamics we infer (Redžić 2004a): a charged
conducting body in motion having the shape of a Heaviside ellipsoid is obtained
by the motion of the same conducting √ body which is a sphere2 when at rest. The
figure corresponds to the value v = 3c/2, when γ = (1 − v /c ) 2 −1/2 = 2. The
field E ∗ = E + v × B is perpendicular to the surface of the Heaviside ellipsoid at
a point arbitrarily close to the surface (Redžić 1992a).

[10] Perhaps the best illustration of this psychological situation is the exis-
tence of the journal Galilean Electrodynamics.
[11] It is not difficult to verify immediately that the statement is true by using
the corresponding Minkowski diagram. It is, however, somewhat more diffi-
cult to imagine that there is such a feature at all, due to our pre-relativistic
instincts.
[12] Differentiating of these distances is essential in the explanation of dis-

18
appearance of the electric field of steady currents in the framework of an el-
ementary but non-trivial model (Zapolsky 1988). In what follows we briefly
paraphrase Zapolsky’s argument.
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). On the
other hand, if the two material points are being uniformly accelerated with
respect to the laboratory, say along the line connecting them, starting at the
same moment of time from the state of rest with the same acceleration, the
distance between the two points, as measured in the lab, is always one and
the same. Insisting here on symmetry would be equally irrational as in the
much better known “twin paradox”. The result of measurement depends
essentially on who is accelerated with respect to the lab: the material points
or the observer. One might wonder does this prove that an accelerated meter
stick would also not be contracted. The answer is an emphatic “no!”. The
two material points are not connected, and are completely ignorant of one
another. A meter stick, however, is a system of bound atoms. 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.
This means that the stick would tend to extend itself as measured by two
observers “standing” at its ends. Each observer “sees” (at any instant of his
time) that the other observer is going away from him. The conclusion is that
restitutive forces in the stick will oppose the forces causing that the ends
of the stick move with same acceleration. If the internal forces can do that
no more, the stick breaks. (A version of this problem, reminds Zapolsky,
was nicely presented by Bell (1976).) It should be noted that the motion of
the stick we discuss here is not “a rigid body acceleration”, which is usually
defined in special relativity as the acceleration that causes no internal stress
(cf Rindler 1991). It is not difficult to show that this kind of acceleration

19
(in which the proper acceleration continuously changes from end to end of
the stick) leads to the Lorentz contraction; however, it is not the kind of
acceleration appearing in case of two independent material points (cf also
Nikolić 1999).
[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).According to Dingle, special relativity permits the following
argumentation. (In the present note, the same notation as Dingle and Born’s
will be used: K(x, t) is the “resting” reference frame, k(ξ, τ ) is the one “in
motion”, where ξ = γv (x − vt), τ = γv (t − vx/c2 ), etc.). 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. 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. It follows
that one k- second of a clock at rest in the k frame equals 1/(1 − v 2 /c2 )
k-seconds of the same clock. Overall conclusion: special relativity is not
a valid scientific theory since it contains a contradiction. Dingle addressed
to Professor Born to defend “the integrity of scientist” by replying to the
challenge.
Born’s counter-argument runs as follows. Dingle falsifies special relativ-
ity. According to Born, 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. 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. Dingle’s inference does not follows from special rela-
tivity. (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, 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; those are two distinct

20
 ct c"
b
C TH C
a
SH SH
A B !

x
TH

Figure 5
C, C, section of light cone; SH, space calibration hyperbola; T H, time calibration
hyperbola; x, ct, conjugate diameters = axes in K; (ξ, cτ ), conjugate diameters =
axis in k; OA, represents the same time interval in K as OB in k:

OA ∼ OB
� �
OA ∼ ct Oa > OB ∼ OA
The clock at rest in K
Oa ∼ cτ τ > t
� �
OB ∼ cτ Ob > OA ∼ OB
The clock at rest ink
Ob ∼ ct t > τ

On this Born’s figure, the axes of the “middle frame” for K and k are not rep-
resented, for obvious reason; by convention, those axes
� are mutually orthogonal.
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).

straight lines in Minkowski space (Figure 5). Dingle has made the same kind
of error the student usually makes: two different quantities are denoted by
one and the same symbol.
The issue provoked a prolonged polemic in the Nature that lasted several
years. Numerous participants “accused” each other for elementary misun-
derstanding of basic concepts of special relativity. A consensus was never

21
reached. 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.
[14] The statement that the principle of constancy of the velocity of light
is already contained in Maxwell’s equations appears occasionally in the lit-
erature (Einstein 1905b, Bartocci and Mamone Capria 1991a). It is per-
haps worthwhile to mention that Maxwell’s equations are a sufficient but
not a necessary condition for the validity of the principle. A definition of
the space and time coordinates must precede the quest for the laws of na-
ture. Therefore any definition of the time coordinate based on a previously
discovered law of nature is nothing but a circulus vitiosus. In this sense
the principle of constancy of the velocity of light (also known as Einstein’s
second postulate) is essentially the first, fundamental, primordial principle
that conceptually precedes the principle of relativity. 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. The fact that Maxwell’s equations are consistent
with both principles is an excellent recommendation for the equations, but
nothing else.
[15] Einstein’s second postulate (1905a), cleaned up from the circular argu-
ment, states that in an IFR one way-two clock velocity of light, an immea-
surable quantity, always equals one clock-two way velocity of light which is
a measurable quantity and, as measurements reveal, a universal constant.
In this way, it is postulated that Einstein synchronization is a realizable
procedure, i. e. the meaning of time as a measurable physical quantity is
postulated. The fact that there exist physical laws (Maxwell’s equations)
consistent with the second postulate, which were discovered before physicists
began to deal with the problem of clock synchronization, is of course a good
recommendation for that postulate. Fortunately, the physical laws apply

22
in the pseudo-inertial reference frame tied for the Earth regardless of the
season.
[16] If v = veex , by a suitable choice of the initial moment t = 0 the equation
�
of the ellipse reads (xe − vt)2 /(a 1 − v 2 /c2 )2 + ye2 /a2 = 1, where xe and ye
denote the electron’s coordinates.
[17] A few examples for time dilatation of a moving clock in the same
spirit, on the basis of classical electrodynamics, were presented by Jefimenko
(1996b).
[18] This implies that physical reality independent of the frame of reference
(“observer”) has no physical sense. (In the same way as the question whether
the FitzGerald-Lorentz contraction is real has no physical sense. 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, for the same “events”. Of course, the final outcomes
must be one and the same for all the “observers”. A vivid illustration of
the various physical realities provides Rindler’s length contraction paradox
(Rindler 1991, cf also Dewan 1963).
On the basis of the preceding considerations, one could infer that, since
“physical realities” of the same events corresponding to different “observers”
are not identical, this then means that the principle of relativity does not
apply. 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!), and dif-
ferent physical realities of different “observers” are a necessary consequence
of different initial conditions. This is clearly seen by passing from a passive
to an active interpretation of the Lorentz transformations (Bohm and Hiley
1985).
By the way, the thesis that both the FitzGerald-Lorentz contraction and
time dilatation are nothing but subjective phenomena was a continuing sub-
ject of lively discussion among physicists and philosophers. The thesis is

23
presumably a consequence of the mess about the concept of time. Namely,
it seems that Newton’s absolute time is perfectly consistent with the illusive
subjective feeling that thought “at one instant” can encompass everything,
the whole cosmos. That subjective feeling, unfortunately, is not consistent
with the time as a measurable physical quantity, because the time is in ac-
cord with Einstein’s theory, in inertial frames, of course. As a curiosity,
we mention that in the first, heroic years of the special theory of relativity,
when the discussions about the subjective nature of time were most lively, a
Yugoslavian physicist, Vladimir Varićak, also took part in them (cf Einstein
1911, Miller 1981).
[19] Bachman (1982) derived a relativistic Doppler formula for waves whose
phase velocity relative to the medium is u

� �� �1/2
� u + v0 1 − vs2 /c2
f = f0 .
u − vs 1 − v02 /c2
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, the relativistic limiting speed c, the velocity of the source toward the
“observer” relative to the medium vs , and the velocity of the “observer”
toward the source relative to the medium v0 . The formula is derived under
the assumption that the velocities of the source and detector are along the
line connecting them. If the phase velocity of the wave exactly equals c,
then, and only then, the detected frequency f � depends only on the velocity
of the source as measured in the proper frame of the detector, regardless
of the velocity of uniform motion of the medium relative to the source or
detector. Overall conclusion: if the phase velocity of the light is less than
c, the ether must exist; however, if the phase velocity of the light exactly
equals c, then the ether may but need not exist, and Occam’s razor solves
the problem (Mirabelli 1985).

24
[20] For example, in the case of the Doppler effect its power is limited.
Namely, kinematic derivations of the Doppler effect (French 1968, Peres
1987) are approximations. (These derivations lead to Einstein’s Doppler
formula which deals with the plane wave approximation (for a different look
at that formula see Schrödinger 1922, Redžić 1990b).) The present author is
aware of only one attempt of an exact kinematical treatment of the Doppler
effect (Rothenstein 2002).

25
2 Electrodynamics of moving bodies and the
Wilson-Wilson experiment
2.1 Einstein, Minkowski
As it was hinted above, the principle of relativity is essentially a meta-
principle (the term is Rindler’s (1991)). Like the well known biological
principle that ontogeny is a short and quick repetition of phylogeny, 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 physi-
cal systems change”. The law states what could be a physical law but the
principle is mute about which is a physical law (contrary to, for example,
Fermat’s principle). Physical laws are reached slowly and painfully.
Although the title of Einstein’s (1905a) epoch-making paper is “On the
Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies”, in that work, as is well known, electro-
dynamics of moving bodies is quite in second place.1 In the electrodynamic
part of the paper Einstein proved that the Maxwell-Hertz equations in vacuo
are Lorentz-covariant, and then applied the derived transformation laws for
the E - and B - fields to the case of a monochromatic plane linearly polarized
electromagnetic wave in vacuo. In this way he obtained the formulae express-
ing the Doppler principle and the light aberration “for arbitrary velocities.”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).3 Only the last, tenth paragraph of the paper, enti-
tled “Dynamics of a (slowly accelerated) electron”, refers, in a certain sense,
to the electrodynamics of moving bodies. Applying the principle of relativ-
ity, 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; however, he interpreted

26
the obtained equation in a cumbersome way.4,5 Fundamental equations of
the phenomenological electrodynamics of moving bodies, on the ground-
work laid by Lorentz (1895) Poincaré (1906) and Einstein, were constructed
by Hermann Minkowski (1908), whose ideas represent the starting point
of all subsequent researches in the field. Here we give how the essence of
Minkowski’s method was formulated by the famous physics teacher Arnold
Sommerfeld (1952).
“Minkowski’s logic was simple: The Maxwell equations for a state of rest
apply within the laboratory. Consider a point of space-time P of a body
moving with respect to the laboratory at the laboratory time t; let it have
the velocity v . Let P be transformed to rest by the introduction of the co-
ordinates x� , y � , z � , t� for the description of the processes in the neighborhood
of P, t. In this system Maxwell’s equations for a state of rest apply to the
quantities E � , B � , D� , H � , J � , �� :

∂BB� D�
∂D
E� = −
curlE , H� = J � +
curlH ,
∂t� ∂t� (AS1)
D � = �� ,
divD �
B = 0,
divB

with material constants differing from those for vacuum

D � = εE
E �, B � = µH
H �, J � = σE
E� (AS2)

These constants have the same values as if the body were at rest with respect
to the laboratory, since it knows nothing of its motion. The operations
curl and div in (AS1) refer of course, just like the time t� , to the primed
system. Now the inverse Lorentz transformation is to be carried out, which
transforms the primed system back into the original one of the laboratory.
In the latter Eqs. (AS1) apply once more if all primes are omitted, in view
of the basic property of covariance of the Maxwell equations with respect
to the Lorentz transformations. However, Eqs. (AS 2), transformed to the
unprimed system, take on a new form.”

27
 Minkowski’s physical ideas were simple indeed, which was not at all the
case with the mathematical “apparatus” he was using. Namely, fundamental
equations for the electromagnetic phenomena in moving bodies Minkowski
expressed through tensors in a (pseudo-) Riemannian four-dimensional Minkowski
space. Mathematical apparatus known today to every physics student was
used then for the first time.7 Physicists were far away from acquiring the
“tensorial mentality”.
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), Cullwick
(1959), Rosser (1964), Møller (1972). Instead, by using that theory we
shall attempt in the following chapter to analyze a simple problem from a
somewhat unusual perspective. In the present chapter we shall deal with
interpretations, some old some new, of the Wilson-Wilson experiment, one
of the crucial experiments of the electrodynamics of bodies in slow motion.

2.2 Einstein and Laub, the Wilson-Wilson experiment

Several months after the publication of the Minkowski paper, Einstein and
Laub (1908a,b) derived the same fundamental electromagnetic equations for
bodies in motion, now following Einstein’s “elementary path”. (Taking into
account, put the authors, that the work of Minkowski in the mathemati-
cal sense imposes too severe conditions before its reader, we find it useful
to derive the fundamental equations in an elementary way which, however,
essentially corresponds to Minkowski’s method.) Einstein and Laub imme-
diately applied the new tool of theoretical physics to an exotic system; their
inferences, as is usually the case with special relativity, were unusual.
Consider an infinite slab made of a linear, homogeneous and isotropic
dielectric of relative permittivity εr and relative permeability µr , where
εr µr > 1, which is uniformly moving at a speed v through the plate condenser
of infinite extent at rest. When a potential difference is applied between the

28
plates, the surface charge density on the plate which is at a higher potential
is positive when v < v∗ and negative when v > v∗, tending to infinity when
√
v tends to v∗, where v∗ ≡ c/ εr µr denotes the velocity of of the electro-
magnetic waves in the magnetic dielectric when it is at rest. (The present
author still remembers that, after reading the above Einstein and Laub’s
conclusion for the first time, he had experienced a certain frisson mystique,
despite the fact that the system considered is impracticable. We remind our
reader of the fact that the human race has learnt, from 1905 until today,
that one should respect theoretical physics, even when it deals with such a
kind of problems.) If a constant magnetic field, parallel to the plates and
perpendicular to the velocity of the dielectric slab, is applied to the sys-
tem considered, and if the plates are connected by a thin conducting wire,
D ) and the
then a simple relationship between the electric displacement (D
H ) in the dielectric is obtained in the framework
magnetic field strength (H
of Minkowski’s theory of the first order in v/c. Lorentz’s non-relativistic
electron theory gives, however, a different relationship between D and H
for the same system.8 If there existed, Einstein and Laub wrote, dielectric
bodies with a considerable magnetic permeability, then it would be possible
to choose experimentally between the theories of Lorentz and Minkowski.
Such bodies, however, did not exist.
Whatever does not exist in the nature, appears occasionally in the labo-
ratories. In order to check up the theory of Einstein and Laub, a magnetic
dielectric “with considerable magnetic permeability” was created by Wilson
and Wilson (1913). Their recipe was as follows. They used small 1/8 in.
steel balls “and each one was coated thinly with sealing-wax. The coated
spheres were packed tightly and melted paraffin was poured into the empty
spaces between them so as to form a solid mass.” This magnetic dielectric,
with εr = 6 and µr = 3, filled the space between the plates of a cylindri-
cal condenser, made of brass; the length of the cylinder was 9 · 5 cm., and

29
the inner and outer diameters of the solid dielectric tube were respectively
2 cm. and 3 · 73 cm. The condenser was uniformly rotated at a speed of
about 6000 r.p.m., in the axial magnetizing field of a coaxial solenoid. 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. In the experiment, the potential difference between the plates
of the condenser was measured. (Cullwick (1959) gave a detailed analysis
of the Wilson-Wilson experiment.) As it is well known, the results of the
experiment eliminated Lorentz’s theory.9 That was a triumph of both spe-
cial relativity and Minkowski’s phenomenological electrodynamics of moving
media.10
The reader has certainly noted that Wilson and Wilson, as it is usually
euphemistically said, somewhat modified the original “experimental set-up”
of Einstein and Laub. The uniform translation of an infinite slab, inacces-
sible to experimental verification, was replaced by the uniform rotation of
a long cylindrical tube made of magnetic insulator. From the viewpoint
of Minkowski’s theory, the substitution is perfectly legal: arbitrarily small
neighborhood of any rotating point of the dielectric is at rest in the corre-
sponding local IFR. 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. Namely, one of the fundamental assumptions of Einstein’s theory
of relativity, both the special and the general one, is that both length con-
traction and time dilatation are determined only by the relativistic factor γ,
i. e. they do not depend on instantaneous acceleration (the clock hypothesis
and the stick hypothesis, cf Møller 1972).

30
2.3 Review of recent reexaminations of the classical
interpretation of the Wilson-Wilson experiment
The conventional interpretation of the Wilson-Wilson experiment was re-
cently 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. Pelle-
grini and Swift (PS) argued that a correct analysis must take into account
the fact that a rotating frame is not an inertial frame. Their “corrected
analysis” borrowed from the general theory of relativity necessary tools for
dealing with electrodynamics in an accelerated frame of reference. The final
outcome of their analysis based on the assumed nature of a medium in mo-
tion differs from the result obtained by following the “elementary path” of
Einstein and Laub. Since the experiment was consistent with predictions of
Minkowski’s theory (which is incorrect!) one has, claim Pellegrini and Swift,
a fundamental conflict between theory and experiment.
Several authors questioned the validity of the PS argument (Burrows
1997, Weber 1997, Ridgely 1998). None of the critics found an error in
the PS calculation; instead, the critics contested their starting fundamental
physical assumptions [the use of an unacceptable coordinate system (Bur-
rows), errors in defining basic physical quantities (e. g. the current density)
in the rotating frame due to the problem of clock synchronization (Weber)].
Ridgely (1999) analyzed in detail the constitutive equations for the polar-
ization and magnetization in a uniformly rotating frame, starting from the
corresponding constitutive equations for D and B in the Lorentz-covariant
formulation (cf e. g. Pauli 1958, p 103, Griffiths 1999, p 545); transforming
back to the laboratory frame he obtained that, in the lab, the constitutive
equations inside the rotating cylinder have exactly the form predicted by
the “simple” Minkowski’s theory.

31
 Krotkov et al (1999) gave a quite unexpected direction to the recent reex-
amination of the classical interpretation of the Wilson-Wilson experiment.
A justification of the specificity of their analysis needs some introductory
remarks.
As is well known, the essential difference between Minkowski’s and Lorentz’s
electrodynamics of moving media lies in the fact that only the former pre-
dicts that a magnetized medium in motion (with a non-zero magnetization
M � in the proper inertial frame of the magnetic S � ) possesses, as measured
in the lab frame S, a non-zero polarization given by, in the framework of
first order theory, P = (1/c2 )vv × M � , where v denotes the velocity of the
considered point of the magnetic, as measured in the lab. This relationship
is usually derived by using relativistic transformations for the fields, which
are obtained as a consequence of the Lorentz-covariance of Maxwell’s equa-
tions (cf Rosser 1964). For ordinary media, consisting of atoms or molecules,
there is another, microscopic approach. Namely, according to the classical,
Ampèrian model, a magnetic dipole can be represented by a closed con-
ducting loop with a stationary (conduction) current, in its proper frame of
reference S � . In that frame, any, arbitrarily small segment of the current
loop is electrically neutral.11 In the lab frame S, however, in the current
loop that is now uniformly moving with velocity v there is a charge dis-
tribution over the loop and it possesses the corresponding electric dipole
moment p = (1/c2 )vv × m� , where m� denotes the magnetic dipole moment
of the loop in its proper frame S � .12 The appearance of charges inside the
current loop in uniform translation is a consequence of the relativistic trans-
formation law for the charge density; as Rosser (1964, 1993) pointed out,
the charge distribution stems, in the long run, from relativity of simultane-
ity. (The appearance of electric dipole moment of a current loop in motion
is, thus, a purely relativistic phenomenon, unknown in non-relativistic the-
ories.) Due to the Lorentz contraction, n0 of those magnetic dipoles per

32
m3 in S � takes the volume (1/γ)m3 as measured in S. Consequently, the
concentration of the corresponding electric dipoles in the S frame equals
n0 γ, and thus the contribution to the polarization in the S frame due to
the motion of the magnetic is given by the expression P = γ(1/c2 )vv × M � ,
since p = (1/c2 )vv × m� and P = n0 γpp. It is clear that the “microscopic
approach”, based on the classical concepts, is somewhat problematic; in the
best case, p and m� could only be the average values of the corresponding
quantum-mechanical operators.
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, all lie within the standard framework of the classical field theory,
i. e. they all use the usual method of the theory of continuous media
(the transition from micro- to macro-quantities by averaging over physically
infinitesimally small regions of space and time intervals). In the Wilson-
Wilson experiment, however, “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 applica-
ble to this macroscopically inhomogeneous medium. The authors analyzed a
steel ball (a highly conductive and a highly permeable medium!) in uniform
rotation about an axis outside the ball, in a constant external magnetic field
B0 parallel to the rotation axis, and found, in the framework of the first
order theory in v/c, 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 , and the second is
the “relativistic” (1/c2 )vv ×m
m term, where m is the magnetic dipole moment
of the ball and v is the velocity of its centre as measured in the lab. This
conclusion is reached by using only Maxwell’s equations in the lab frame,
without the use of special relativity, or any assumption on physics in the
ball’s proper frame.13 Krotkov et al claim that the result can be generalized

33
to the magnetic dielectric from the Wilson-Wilson experiment. Their argu-
ment is based on the fact that inside the material consisting of the host of
steel balls embedded in the wax the magnetization, and thus also the electric
dipole moment due to the motion of magnetic dipole, exist only in the steel
balls, where electric conductivity is high. (Needless to say, Krotkov et al did
not venture on finding the polarization and magnetization of the Wilson-
Wilson magnetic dielectric as a function of the electric and magnetic dipole
moments of the steel balls.) 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. In this way, claim Krotkov
et al, all models that take for granted Maxwell’s equations lead inevitably
to the LI results of Minkowski’s theory, in the case of the Wilson-Wilson
experiment.
The analysis made by Krotkov et al, regardless of the validity of their final
conclusions, pointed out the essential fact that in experiments of the Wilson-
Wilson type, whose objective is to make a choice between several classical
field theories, the rotating magnetic insulator must be (i. e. should be) a
microscopically homogeneous medium (we remind our reader that Rosser
(1964) suggested this long time ago).
An experiment with such a material has been recently performed by
Hertzberg et al (2001). Their “homogeneous” cylinder was made of yttrium-
iron-garnet “which is a magnetic insulator even on the molecular scale”.
Experimental results, very convincingly consistent with the LI predictions
of Minkowski’s theory, were for 6% different from the predictions of the
PS theory (the relative error of their measurement was 1%). The original
Wilson-Wilson experiment with the inhomogeneous dielectric constructed
from steel balls embedded in the wax was also repeated. In this case too the
results took sides of Minkowski’s theory.

34
2.4 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, faraway from the phenomena of everyday experience.
As it is picturesquely said, the true arena of special relativity is the exotic
kingdom of great speeds; at small speeds relativistic effects may be ignored.14
However, 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.
We saw that a correct interpretation of the results of those experiments with-
out special relativity, that is without Minkowski’s theory, was not possible.
The answer to the query: electrodynamics of bodies in slow motion, at room
velocities, without or with special relativity, i. e. Minkowski’s theory, seems
to be obvious. Some difficulties, however, should be pointed out.
Before all, the query necessitates a certain explanation. At first sight
it is a pseudo-problem. As is well known, Maxwell’s equations for mate-
rial media (the so-called material equations) are Lorentz-covariant, and so
it seems that the problem is already solved, and that in favour of special
relativity. However, this is not so. Namely, the phenomenological elec-
trodynamics 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 electromag-
E + v × B )+ the constitutive equations.15 The question arises
netic field,q(E
whether a non-relativistic analysis, based on the use of Galilei transforma-
tion, is sufficient for a correct electrodynamic description of bodies in very
slow motion, in the framework of a first-order theory. Another problem, of
course, is whether Minkowski’s phenomenological relativistic electrodynam-
ics is correct at all. As Cullwick (1959, p 107) noted, Einstein and Laub were
not using electrodynamics of moving bodies but instead the electromagnetic
theory of bodies at rest, together with a mathematical application of special

35
relativity. Although there seems to be a consensus that Minkowski’s recipe
is valid in case of a uniform translational motion of a body, the consensus,
as far as the present author is aware, has no sound experimental basis.
On the basis of the considerations given in the preceding Section, one
could infer that there is no unambiguous answer to the above query. Ac-
cording to Krotkov et al (1999), electrodynamics of bodies in slow motion
does not necessitate special relativity. Howevere, their analysis deals with
macroscopically inhomogeneous bodies. In the view of the present author,
the conclusions reached by Krotkov et al (1999) are problematic. In case of
microscopically homogeneous (or inhomogeneous) bodies, the answer to the
query depends on the nature of bodies. Non-magnetic insulators in slow mo-
tion can be successfully described by using Lorentz’s non-relativistic theory
(Pauli 1958). When magnetic dielectrics are discussed, however, it seems
that in case of bodies in slow rotational motion, the query is “shifted” in the
sense of necessity of either special or general 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. e. Minkowski’s recipe, 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, contrary to the generally accepted opinion). One should, how-
ever, remember the fact (already pointed out by Rosser (1964)) that there
are conceptual difficulties also in case of the electrodynamics of bodies at
rest, because macroscopic behaviour of a large number of micro-systems is
deduced from the classical (macroscopic) ideas about the micro-systems.
Taking into account the relatively complicated theory of the experiment by
Hertzberg et al, in the view of the present author (or, more precisely, follow-
ing 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.

36
 To this topic also belong the standard didactic problems dealing with
electromagnetic phenomena in non-magnetic conducting bodies moving through
a constant externally applied magnetic field, the motion being a pure trans-
lation, a pure rotation, or a combination of the two motions. The present
author recently pointed out that even at room velocities special relativity,
that is Minkowski’s electrodynamics, seems to be indispensable for a cor-
rect derivation of basic inferences (cf Redžić 2004b, Bringuier 2004, Redžić
2004c), in case of a uniform translational motion of a conductor of arbitrary
shape, and also in the classical problem of a thin conducting ring uniformly
rotating about its diameter in a constant externally applied magnetic field
perpendicular to the rotation axis.

37
Notes

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

38
[3] Lichtkomplex is a mysterious quantity in the framework of Maxwell’s
electrodynamics and its appearance in Einstein’s paper is very strange. The
“mysterious stranger” will appear on the stage just one more time (Ein-
stein 1905b), now under a new name (Lichtmenge, the quantity of light),
and only then will its appearance in the first act become understandable.
The example of the light complex clearly shows that intuition is sometimes
more important than knowledge, and also that the role of logic in physical
sciences is sometimes very tricky (Stachel and Torretti 1982). It seems that
physics has not until very recently said its last word about the light complex
(Redžić and Strnad 2004). Namely, Einstein reached the correct final result
by making a methodological error.
[4] Planck (1906) was the first to derive and recognize the well known gen-
eral form of the relativistic equation of motion of a charged particle in the
electromagnetic field (“the Lorentz force equation”). While it seems that
Kaufmann’s latest measurements disprove the principle of relativity intro-
duced recently by Lorentz and, in a more general formulation, by Einstein
- argued Planck - 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 ...
[5] It should be mentioned that Einstein obtained his electrodynamic results
without knowing of tensors in Minkowski’s space. In the view of the present
author, the grandeur of that scientific exploit, Einstein’s tour de force can be
adequately appreciated only by a researcher who trailed the same dangerous
mountain path (cf Schwartz 1977, Rosser 1964). Recently, Jefimenko (1996a)
derived in Einstein’s way the transformation law of the most renowned pure
E +qvv ×B
relativistic tri-force, qE B . Jefimenko’s article is a natural complement
of Planck’s paper mentioned above (cf also French 1968, Rosser 1960). Of
course, 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. g. Møller 1972).

39
[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. (33.11). Thus v need not be a pure translation
and the body need not be rigid. only the fixed value of v in the space-time
point P, t enters in the following Lorentz’s transformations.” It should be
pointed out, however, that in the general case Sommerfeld’s remark does not
apply. For example, in case of an axially symmetric charged conducting body
that is uniformly rotating about its symmetry axis, the application of the
constitutive equation for the current density (the third equation (AS2))leads
to a contradiction (cf Redžić 2002, 2004b).
[7] Minkowski’s nomenclature is different from the present-day one. For
example, instead of tensors of the first (quadri-vectors) and second rank, he
speaks about space-time vectors of the first and second kind, respectively.
For the quadri-gradient he uses a nowadays forgotten symbol lor. And, of
course, he works in a complex space (ict!) whose metric is Euclidean.
[8] Einstein and Laub’s result reads Dz = (εr µr − 1)vHy /c2 , and that of
Lorentz’s theory Dz = (εr − 1)µr vHy /c2 , in the SI system of units. Here we
sketch how one can reach these results which refer to the system shown in
Figure 6. In Minkowski’s theory we start from the definition of the electric
displacement

D = ε0E + P , (1)

and the constitutive equation for the polarization of the “magnetic di-
electric” which in the lab frame, up to the second order terms in v/c, reads
(Rosser 1964)

E + v × B ) + (1/c2 )vv × M � ,
P = ε0 (εr − 1)(E (2)

where M � is the magnetization in the proper frame of the magnetic. A simple

analysis reveals that in the magnetic’s rest frame, in the first-order theory,

40
 z

x
H
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ v

+ + + + + + + + + + + v

Figure 6
The slab made of magnetic dielectric and the condenser’s plates all move with
constant velocity v = veex in a constant externally applied magnetic field whose
magnetic flux density is B0 = µ0 Hyey . The magnetic dielectric in motion is
also electrically polarized. If the condenser’s plates are mutually connected by
means of a stationary lead, a charge appears on the plates. The electric field in
the dielectric vanishes when the dielectric completely fills the space between the
plates.

one has
(µr − 1)BB 0 µr
M� = , (3)
µ0 µr
where B0 = µ0 Hyey is the magnetic flux density of the externally applied
magnetic field in the lab frame. Eq. (3) is obtained by using the continuity
of H and the relativistic transformation laws for the E - and B - fields. (By
the way, it is not difficult to verify that the magnetic flux density inside
the magnetic dielectric equals B = B � = µr B0 , in both reference frames; the
result applies, of course, in the first order theory, and taking into account
that all relevant quantities are of the type v × B .) From equations (1), (2)
and (3) we get
D = ε0 εrE + ε0 (εr µr − 1)vv × B0 (4)

41
Since the condenser’s plates are mutually connected by means of a stationary
lead through sliding contacts, and since a stationary state is established,
the potential difference between the plates is zero. If the gap between the
dielectric slab and the condenser’s plates vanishes, it follows that the electric
field inside the dielectric also vanishes, E = 0, and thus in this case we have

Dz = (εr µr − 1)vHy /c2 . (5)

Of course, Dz = σf , where σf denotes the surface charge density over the

lower plate of the condenser. In Lorentz’s theory, however, the constitutive
equation for the polarization of the magnetic dielectric contains only the
E + v × B ),
first term on the right hand side of equation (2), P = ε0 (εr − 1)(E
so that in the same “experimental situation” we have

DzL = (εr − 1)µr 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; the condenser’s plates connected by a stationary lead are also at
rest with respect to the lab. 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, Rosser 1964). (This version is closer to the
Wilson- Wilson experiment where the cylindrical condenser rotates together
with dielectric.) Both versions give the same results, in the framework of
the first order theory. Interestingly, Cullwick claims that Einstein and Laub
identified without justification the magnetic field strength in the dielectric
H ) and the magnetic field strength of the externally applied magnetic field
(H
H0 . Fortunately, Cullwick states, this is an irrelevant second order effect. In
this place, however, otherwise very accurate Cullwick is wrong: namely, in

42
Einstein and Laub the condenser’s plates does not move, and consequently
there is no contribution to the vector H due to the convection current of
free surface charges. Einstein-Laub’s result (5) can be reached in another
(the third one) way, by using Cullwick’s (1959) “component field” method.
The present author, however, has not succeeded in reaching the result (6) of
Lorentz’s theory by that alternative method. Cullwick points out that there
is no consensus in the literature about what is the solution of the problem
according to Lorentz’s theory.
[9] [9] The measured potential difference according to Einstein - Laub’s the-
ory is proportional to the factor (1 − 1/εr µr ) and according to Lorentz’s
theory to the factor (1 − 1/εr ), which for the Wilson-Wilson magnetic di-
electric with εr = 6 and µr = 3 amounted to 0, 944 and 0, 83, respectively.
The average value of experimental results for that proportionality factor was
0, 96. 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.
[10] As far as the present author is aware, 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), pp 606-613.
[11] The proper frame of a conducting loop is the reference frame in which
crystal lattice of the loop is at rest. 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,
vol. 2, p 589, Bartocci and Mamone Capria 1991a,b). This assumption
is found in many textbooks and therefore necessitates a comment. 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. e. to their concentrating towards the conductor axis (the
“self-induced pinch-effect”), as “observed” in the proper frame of the lattice.

43
Subsequent elaborations of the problem of finding the charge distribution in
a conductor with a stationary current for more realistic models, did not
provide a clear answer to the question: in what inertial frame is a current-
carrying conductor electrically neutral (Peters 1985, Gabuzda 1993, Redžić
1998). The problem will be also discussed in the next Chapter.
[12] This fundamental relation was exactly derived starting from the defini-
tion of the electric dipole moment, up to all orders in v/c, in case of a planar
closed current filament in a uniform translational motion in the proper plane,
for a rectangular loop whose direction of motion is parallel to one of its arms
(Panofsky and Phillips 1955, Rosser 1964, Blackford 1994), and for a circu-
lar loop (Rosser 1993). The crucial assumption was the Clausius postulate.
Taking into account that the derivations are based on the classical model of
m�
magnetic dipole, it is necessary to mention how the relation p = (1/c2 )vv ×m
is derived in the general case. One starts from the transformation law, from
the S � to the S frame, of the polarization vector of a magnetic dielectric in
M � , where only the contribution to the polarization
motion: P = γ(1/c2 )vv ×M
in S due to the magnetization of the magnetic in motion is taken into account
(cf Rosser 1964). Let the magnetic medium consists of n0 atomic magnetic
dipoles per cubic meter, each of the same dipole moment m� = (m�x , m�y , m�z )
in the proper inertial frame S � in which the medium is at rest. The mag-
netization M � in S � is given by M � = n0m� . Each of the atomic magnetic
dipoles possesses, by assumption, an electric dipole moment, identical for
all of them, p = (px , py , pz ) as measured in the lab frame S with respect to
which the magnetic is uniformly moving with velocity v . Due to the Lorentz
contraction, n0 magnetic dipoles in m3 in S � occupy the volume (1/γ) m3 ,
where γ = (1 − v 2 /c2 )−1/2 , as measured in S. Since the polarization in
S equals P = n0 γpp, from the preceding equations one immediately finds
p = (1/c2 )vv × m� , without introducing any special assumption about the
structure of magnetic dipole. Rosser’s (1993) remark concerning the valid-
ity of the preceding elementary reasoning is worth mentioning: “According

44
to special relativity, 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.”
Very soon, a proof has arisen that Rosser was right. Namely, this predic-
tion of special relativity was experimentally validated (Sangster et al 1995),
within an error of about 2%, as Krotkov et al pointed out (1999): “The mov-
ing magnetic dipole was a magnetically polarized thallium fluoride molecule
in a molecular beam that passed through a region of constant electric field
E . The experiment was planned as a measurement of the Aharonov-Casher
�b
m × E ) · (vv /c2 )dt for a molecule traveling from
phase shift, which is (1/�) a (m
point a to point b. The integrand may be written as ((vv /c2 )×m
m)·E
E , which is
just the interaction energy between the ‘relativistic dipole’ p and the electric
field E . 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.”
[13] In the view of the present author, the central conclusion reached by
Krotkov et al (1999) can by no means be considered conclusive. Namely
if the motion of the sphere is uniform translation, 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. If, however,
the motion of the sphere is uniform rotation, then the second term in their
equation (13) neither vanishes nor has a simple interpretation, which implies
that a true expression for the electric dipole moment of the rotating sphere
contains some additional terms.
[14] One of rare exceptions is an excellent textbook by A. P. French (1968),
whose author passionately protests (on p 259) against this oversimplifica-
tion in the style unusual for textbook literature: “Who says relativity is
important only for velocities comparable to that of light?”
[15] In Lorentz’s non-relativistic electron theory, the constitutive equations

45
for a linear, isotropic medium in motion at low speeds read
µr − 1
M = B + P × v, (∗)
µ0 µr
E + v × B ),
P = ε0 (εr − 1)(E (∗∗)
E + v × B ).
J = σ(E (∗ ∗ ∗)

The constitutive equations, as well as Maxwell’s equations for material me-

dia in slow translational motion, can be obtained, as is well known, through
a non-relativistic reasoning from the corresponding equations that apply to
media at rest (Panofsky and Phillips 1955, Chapter 9). True, Lorentz’s
original theory was formulated with respect to the ether frame. However,
as Miller (1981) pointed out, researchers from the beginning of 20th cen-
tury had mainly “cavalierly” assumed that Lorentz’s theory applies in the
reference frame tied with the Earth, that is in the lab. This assumption
was also introduced in analysis of the Wilson-Wilson experiment (cf Cull-
wick 1959, pp 166-171). Lorentz’s theory understood in this way represents
“electrodynamics of bodies in slow motion without special relativity,” and
can be obtained from the formulae of relativistic electrodynamics in the limit
c −→ ∞ (of course, in case of the last limit only the constitutive equations
are in question).
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, p 170).
In relativistic electrodynamics, the constitutive equations for bodies in
M�
slow motion differ from these given above by a relativistic term (1/c2 )vv ×M
in equation (∗∗) for the polarization.
In relation with the preceding considerations, the idea is tempting of
an electrodynamics that would be Galilei-covariant. Such an electrodynam-
ics does exist, as Le Bellac and Lévy-Leblond (1973) pointed out. Un-
fortunately, in that theory, there is no reference frame in which complete
Maxwell’s equations apply. Condensers don’t work. There is no light, etc.

46
3 A problem in electrodynamics of slowly
moving bodies: Maxwell’s theory versus
relativistic electrodynamics
3.1 Setup of the problem
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, Bartocci and Ma-
mone Capria 1991a, b, Redžić 1993). This problem, which seems to be one
of the simplest in electrodynamics of moving bodies, will be solved in the
laboratory reference frame in two ways: in the framework of classically inter-
preted Maxwell’s electrodynamics (henceforth, Maxwell’s theory), and in the
framework of relativistic electrodynamics. Basic assumptions of Maxwell’s
theory will be explicitly given. (The two methods of solving this and similar
problems represent electrodynamics of slowly moving bodies without and
with special relativity, respectively.) In addition, a variant of the problem
will be analyzed under the assumption that Maxwell’s theory applies in the
reference frame of the ether, its natural habitat. [In this interpretation, the
considered problem is a simple analogue of the famous Trouton-Noble ex-
periment, the theory of which, contrary to that of the present problem, is
very tricky (cf Teukolsky 1996).] Our presentation closely follows that of
Bartocci and Mamone Capria (1991a,b).
Setup of the problem in the framework of Maxwell’s theory.
Consider a filamentary circular current loop C with stationary current I
which moves with respect to the IFR S with constant velocity v = (v, 0, 0).
The loop C at the moment of time t = 0 is given by parametric equations

x = R cos θ, y = R sin θ, z=0 (1)

47
What is the force acting at that instant on a charge q which is at rest in the
S frame at the point (0, 0, L), as is shown in Figure 7?

Figure 7

3.2 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 (2)
� ∂t �
E
∂E
B = µ0 ε 0
curlB +j (3)
∂t
E = �/ε0
divE (4)
B=0
divB (5)

These equations reduce, in the standard notation, to the inhomogeneous

d’Alembert type equations for potentials Φ, A :

�Φ = −ρ/ε0 (6)
�A
A = −µ0j (7)

where � and j must satisfy charge conservation

∂�
divjj = − (8)
∂t

48
and the potentials A and Φ must satisfy the Lorenz1 gauge condition2
1 ∂Φ
A=−
divA , (c2 = 1/ε0 µ0 ) (9)
c2 ∂t
(The electric and magnetic fields are expressed through the potentials by
the relations
A
∂A
E = −gradΦ − , A)
B = curlA (10)
∂t
b) The Lorentz force law
� �
A
∂A
F = q −gradΦ − + v × curlA
A (11)
∂t
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 , (6) and
(7) have a unique solution which is physically relevant, namely the one given
by the so-called retarded potentials3
�
1 � (x� , y � , z � , t− | r − r � | /c) � � �
Φ(rr , t) = dx dy dz (12)
4πε0 | r − r� |
�
µ0 j (x� , y � , z � , t− | r − r � | /c) � � �
A(rr , t) = dx dy dz (13)
4π | r − r� |
[“Remark: In equation (3) it would be natural to add a term σ0E , where σ0
is the vacuum conductivity; it can be argued that the conventional present-
day choice of putting σ0 = 0 is not experimentally so well established as it
could be. Although this does not affect directly our argument, since in a
noncosmological context (such as the one we shall be dealing with) σ0 seems
to be really negligible, we wish to point out that the opposite view (i. e.,
σ0 > 0) has been recently gaining adherents.”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).
Maxwell’s theory presented above applies, by assumption, in a given
inertial frame of reference S. However, we could add another hypothesis

49
which would ensure the validity of the theory in all reference frames S � linked
to S by a Lorentz transformation; this is the way relativistic electrodynamics
(RED) is obtained. The additional hypothesis reads
(�c, j ) and (Φ/c, A ) are contra-variant components of quadri-vectors of
Minkowski’s space-time. (14)
As is well known, this assumption enables us to write Maxwell’s equations
in a Lorentz-covariant form. It should be stressed that (14) is a fundamen-
tal physical assumption which is logically independent from the previous
(2)-(13). 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, devoid of any physical content. In this
sense MT is formally covariant with respect to the Lorentz transformations.
As Bartocci and Mamone Capria pointed out, 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.
For our discussion we need to know for instance something about the electric
field produced by a current; 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 electri-
cally neutral.
Now we have almost all requisites necessary for solving our problem. An
essential detail, however, is missing. Namely, a circular loop in motion with
a stationary current I is not a clearly defined system. First, it should be
specified that “a stationary current I” refers to the proper frame of the
loop. Then, one should answer the question of what may be assumed in MT
about the behaviour of a loop in motion. Introducing the hypothesis that
both charge and lengths are preserved under motion, 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, �0 and j 0 ,

50
according to the Galilean law of composition of velocities (Redžić 1993)

�(x, y, z, t) = �0 (x − vt, y, z, t) (15)

j (x, y, z, t) = j 0 (x − vt, y, z, t) + �0 (x − vt, y, z, t)vv , (16)

where the notation is adapted to the present problem (the loop is moving
along the positive x-axis). Taking into account that a stationary current is
considered, i. e. that j 0 = j 0 (x, y, z), using the continuity equation and the
CP we have

�(x, y, z, t) = �0 (x − vt, y, z) = 0 (17)

j (x, y, z, t) = j 0 (x − vt, y, z). (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 ; in accord with our
definition of MT, we now only have to evaluate the retarded potentials (12)
and (13). The electric potential Φ obviously vanishes, whereas for the vector
potential A we have
� 2π
µ0 IR (− sin θ, cos θ, 0)
A= dθ (19)
4π 0 D
where
� �� �
D2 = (x − vt − R cos θ)2 + 1 − β 2 (y − R sin θ)2 + z 2 , (20)

and β ≡ v/c.7 From (19) we get the following expression for the magnetic
field B of our current loop C in motion
� � 2π � 2π
µ0 IR � 2
� cos θ 2 sin θ
B = curlAA= 1−β z 3
dθ, (1 − β )z dθ,
4π 0 D 0 D3
� 2π � (21)
(x − vt − R cos θ) cos θ + (1 − β 2 )(y − R sin θ) sin θ
− dθ ,
0 D3
and for its electric field E the expression
�
∂AA µ0 IvR 2π (x − vt − R cos θ)(− sin θ, cos θ, 0)
E =− =− dθ. (22)
∂t 4π 0 D3

51
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, 0, L) is given by the
expression
� �
A
∂A
F = −q
∂t x=0,y=0,z=L,t=0
� 2π (23)
µ0 cos θ (− sin θ, cos θ, 0)
= qIvR2 � � ��3/2 dθ
4π 0 R2 + L2 − β 2 R2 sin2 θ + L2
Neglecting terms of second and higher orders in β in a series expansion of
the integrand in (23) we have
� �3/2
F ≈ (µ0 qIvR2 /4 R2 + L2 )eey . (24)

One can easily verify that, in the same approximation,

� �3/2
B 0,0,L,0 = (µ0 IR2 /2 R2 + L2 )eex

which coincides with the exact expression for B of the current loop at rest,
at the same point.
In case the point charge q moves with the same velocity as the loop C,
so that its trajectory is given by

x = vt, y = 0, z=L (25)

for the force acting on q by the electromagnetic field of the loop at the
instant t = 0 (and, of course, at any instant) we get
A
∂A � �
F ∗ = −q + qvv × B ≈ − µ0 qIvR2 /4(R2 + L2 )3/2 ey , (26)
∂t
again up to the second order terms in β.8

3.3 Solution in the framework of relativistic electro-

dynamics
We now obviously have to reformulate the problem: there is a stationary
�
current I, and the loop is circular, in the rest frame of the loop Srf . Following

52
the standard procedure (first one evaluates the potential A �R in the Srf
�
frame,
then one applies the transformation law), passing details, for the vector
potential of the electromagnetic field due to the moving loop in the S frame
we obtain � �
2π
µ0 IR (− sin θ, 1 − β 2 cos θ, 0)
AR = dθ, (27)
4π 0 DR
where
� � �� �
2
DR = (x − vt − R 1 − β 2 cos θ)2 + 1 − β 2 (y − R sin θ)2 + z 2 , (28)

and the subscript R indicates that the solution belongs to relativistic elec-
trodynamics. Comparing equations (27) and (19) one could infer that, up to
the second order terms in β, there is no difference between the predictions
of RED and MT. However, this is not so. Namely, while according to the
�
CP each segment of the loop is electrically neutral in the Srf frame, the
relativistic transformation law of charge and current densities implies that
there is a charge distribution in the current loop in motion, as measured in
the S frame. [As is well known, the presence of a charge distribution in the
current loop in motion is a purely relativistic effect and is a consequence, in
the long run, of the relativity of simultaneity (Rosser 1964).] In the case of
our filamentary circular loop of radius R, with stationary current I, mea-
�
sured of course in the Srf frame, a rather simple calculation reveals that the
electric dipole moment of the loop in the S frame equals

p = −eey vIπR2 /c2 , (29)

to all the orders in β (Rosser 1993). [Since the magnetic dipole moment of
�
the loop in the Srf frame is m� = IπR2e z , and since v = veex , obviously,
in this case the crucial relation p = v × m � /c2 is valid exactly.] The scalar
potential ΦR is readily obtained on the basis of the hypothesis (14), taking
�
into account that in the Srf frame Φ�R vanishes (CP): ΦR = vARx . Finally,

53
the force acting by the electromagnetic field of the moving loop on the charge
q which is at rest at (0, 0, L) is, according to RED, given by the expression
AR
∂A
F R = −q( + grad ΦR )x=0,y=0,z=L,t=0 ≈
∂t (30)
� �3/2
≈ (µ0 qIvR2 /2 R2 + L2 )eey ,

up to the second order terms in β.9,10 In case q moves with the same velocity
as the loop, so that its trajectory is given by equation (25), the force on q
exactly vanishes,
F ∗ R = 0, (31)
�
which immediately follows from the fact that in the Srf frame the corre-
sponding force vanishes, and from the relativistic transformation law of the
Lorentz force.
Comparing the corresponding equations (30) and (24), i. e. equations
(31) and (26), we come to a conclusion that even at extremely low speeds
the predictions of RED and MT are essentially different; note that equations
(24), (26) and (30) are correct up to the second order quantities in β, whereas
equation (30) is exact. As can be seen, this divergence in predictions arises
from the following two reasons. The first, in RED, in the transformation
law of the charge density
� �
� = γ �� + vjx� /c2 ≈ �� + vjx� /c2 , (32)

there is a term vjx� /c2 , unknown in MT. (As is pointed out above, the ap-
pearance of that term is a consequence, in the long run, of the relativity of
simultaneity (Rosser 1964).) The second, not less important reason is the
Clausius postulate, which is used in both theories. Namely, if it were �� �= 0
�
in the Srf frame, then the relation � = �� would also apply in RED up to the
second order terms in β, for all reasonable values of drift velocity of current
�
carriers in Srf , and the predictions of the two theories would coincide at low
speeds. Assuming the validity of the CP, our example reveals that in the

54
general case relativistic effects must not be ignored even at “room velocities”
of macroscopic systems in translational motion.
It seems that the preceding considerations are only of academic inter-
est. Namely, equations (24) and (30) i. e. (26) and (31) are presumably
inaccessible to experimental verification. However, as Bartocci and Mamone
Capria (1991a) pointed out, 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. In this case the problem we discussed above suggests a
new experimentum crucis discriminating between RED and MT. According
to RED, 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.
Maxwell’s theory, however, predicts that there exists a force −(µ0 qIv/4R)eey
on the charge q, as equation (26) reveals; this result applies under the pro-
viso that the velocity v of the Earth with respect to the ether is parallel
to the plane of the loop.11 (The force has the same unit vector as qvv × B ,
where B is the magnetic flux density at the centre of the loop due to the
current in the loop.) “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, and to other sources of systematic errors. More-
over, by increasing I and q we might be able to observe an effect even if the
velocity of the laboratory is very small, as presumably it is, compared to c.
The possibility that the plane of the circuit does not contain the ‘absolute’
velocity makes no harm, because one can repeat the observations for various
choices of that plane, obtaining a maximum effect when this velocity lies in
the plane ...” (A simple analysis reveals that in the general case the force on
the stationary charge q at the centre of the loop equals −(µ0 qIv/4R)eey cos ψ,
where ψ denotes the acute angle between v and the plane of the cicuit; (−eey )

55
 B .) Bartocci and Mamone Capria proposed to call a
is the unit vector of v ×B
possible experiment whose idea was presented above the Kennard-Marinov
experiment, intending thus to remember the name and the work of the two
enthusiasts in the field of classical electrodynamics, passionate adherents of
Maxwell’s original theory.12,13

3.4 Experiments
The suggested crucial Kennard-Marinov experiment, as far as the present
author is aware, has never been performed.14 Some experimental results,
however, have been published (Edwards et al (1976), Sansbury (1985)) dis-
proving the key assumption in the preceding analyses, the Clausius postu-
late. Edwards et al (1976) found that there is a nonzero electric potential
due to a stationary current in a closed superconducting coil, depending on
the square of the current intensity. The researchers observed just the de-
pendence they were expecting, led by a “non-obvious suggestion” that mag-
nitude of charge of current carriers is proportional to v 2 /c2 , where v is the
carriers’ speed. The subsequent attempts to explain the Edwards poten-
tial, as well as various fundamental theoretical conceptions related with it,15
have presumably all been made fruitless by recent experiments of Shishkin
et al (2002) which established that there is no Edwards potential, the ob-
served phenomenon being a consequence of the piezoelectric effect in the
teflon isolation of the superconducting coil used in experiments. Taking into
account delicacy of the interplay between theory and experiment (“experi-
ment is theory of theory” (Popper 1982)), as well as the fact that the quest
for the second-order effects is in question, any exclusiveness when reaching
conclusions would be irrational. In addition, 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).

56
Notes
[1] This is not a typographical error. Perusal of the most recent literature re-
veals that the Lorentz gauge is mainly replaced by the Lorenz gauge. Thus, a
long-lasting injustice toward the true author of that gauge condition, Ludwig
Lorenz, was corrected (cf Rohrlich (2002), and also O’Rahilly (1965)). Sci-
entific terminology is unfair occasionally. For example, Maxwell’s equations
are essentially Heaviside’s (Lorrain et al 2000, pp 486-7).
[2] As is well known, the potentials A and Φ that satisfy the Lorenz gauge
condition are not unique. By making a gauge transformation
∂H
Φ −→ Φ0 = Φ − , A −→ A 0 = A + gradH
∂t
one could get another solution of equations (6), (7) and (9) furnishing the
same fields E and B when �H = 0. As far as the problem of the sources
is concerned, and the existence of nonzero and nonsingular solutions of the
homogeneous wave equation we quote from B. H. Chirgwin, C. Plumpton
and C. W. Kilmister, Elementary Electromagnetic Theory, Vol. 3 Maxwell’s
Equations and Their Consequences (Pergamon Press, 1973), pp 549-550:
“How is one to interpret such a solution of Maxwell’s equations? There are
no singularities - that is, no sources of the field anywhere or at any time.
[...]. The existence of this kind of solution of Maxwell’s equations suggests
that Maxwell’s theory may be incomplete. It seems to lack some additional
restriction in order that fields originate only from sources like charges and
magnets. But we do not know how to modify the theory so as to rectify this
defect.”
[3] By the way, also this standard choice depends on the acceptance of other
“neutral”, from the point of view of the present consideration, hypotheses
about the way fields “originate” from sources, the behaviour at infinity of the
fields, and the lack of the physical relevance of the “anticipated” potentials.

57
[4] The hypothesis σ0 > 0 has been recently revived by R. Monti, who has
also shown its important large-scale consequences. For details, see, for in-
stance, R. Monti, “The electric conductivity of background space,” in Prob-
lems in Quantum Physics, Gdansk 1987 (World Scientific, 1988) or Vigier
(1990).
[5] See, for instance, O’Rahilly (1965), Vol. II, p 589. Clausius stated
that “a closed constant current in a stationary conductor exerts no force on
stationary electricity.” Compare note [11] in the preceding chapter, and the
last section of this chapter.
[6] Of course we might alternatively introduce some form of the FitzGerald-
Lorentz contraction hypothesis, but our aim here is to show some conse-
quences of MT in its most “classical” interpretation. 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, Panofsky and Phillips 1955);
for us MT is mainly a tool, with an obvious historical relevance, to analyze
some of the implications of the relativistic assumptions.
[7] A proof of equation (19) is based on the formal covariance of MT with
respect to the Lorentz transformations. As Bartocci and Mamone Capria
(1991a) give only a sketch of the proof, we present here a more complete
variant.
Having in mind that (Φ/c, A ) formally looking are contra-variant com-
ponents of a quadri-vector, and using the fact that on the basis of the CP
Φ = 0, one has

A�x = γAx , A�y = Ay , A�z = Az ,

where γ ≡ (1−β 2 )−1/2 , and the primed and unprimed coordinates are related
by the standard Lorentz transformation
� �
x� = γ (x − vt) , y � = y, z � = z, t� = γ t − vx/c2 .

58
Also

jx� = γjx0 (x − vt, y, z) = γjx0 (x� /γ, y � , z � ), jy� = jy , jz� = jz ,

using (17) and (18). Since

�
� � µ0
� j � (rr �1 , t�ret ) 3 �
A (rr , t ) = dr1
4π | r � − r �1 |

and our final goal is to find the vector potential A , we can put A = A � , and
also �
� � � µ0 j 0 (x�1 /γ, y1� , z1� )dx�1 dy1� dz1�
A (rr , t ) =
4π [(x� − x�1 )2 + (y � − y1� )2 + (z � − z1� )2 ]1/2
The last two equations contain deliberate errors (the factor of γ!), but lead to
the correct result; the errors are motivated only by the economy of writing.
Introducing new variables x�1 /γ = ξ � , y1� = η � , z1� = ζ � we have
�
� � � µ0 +∞ j 0 (ξ � , η � , ζ � )dξ � dη � dζ �
A (rr , 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, η � = ρ sin θ, ζ � = z.

In these coordinates

dξ � dη � dζ � = ρdρdθdz, j 0 = Iδ(ρ − R)δ(z)eeθ

and (19) is reached by an elementary calculation. QED

[8] One would expect that E + v × B = 0 at the considered point, at the
instant t = 0, since in the so-called Galilean limit of RED the electric field in
�
the Srf frame E � = E + v × B and equals zero. However, it is obvious from
equation (26) that E + v × B �= 0 in MT. We point out that it is not very
obvious how to find the electric and magnetic fields E � and B � in the Srf
�

frame in the framework of MT. A possible prescription is due to Maxwell:

59
 Let V be the instantaneous velocity of a charge q with respect to the
laboratory frame S (that is, in Maxwell, in the ether frame), 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 , vy , vz ) relatively to S. On
the basis of the Galilei transformation x� = x − vx t, y � = y − vy t, z � =
z − vz t we have V = V � + v . We take that A � (x� , y � , z � , t) = A (x, y, z, t), and
Φ� (x� , y � , z � , t) = Φ(x, y, z, t) where r � = r − v t. It is not difficult to verify
that now one has
A
∂A A�
∂A
− − gradΦ = − − grad� Φ� + (vv · grad� )A
A�
∂t ∂t
and consequently
A
∂A
− A=
− gradΦ + V × curlA
∂t
A�
∂A
− − grad� Φ� + V � × curl�A� + grad� (vv · A� ),
∂t
V ×B
that is E +V V � × B � + grad� (vv ·A
B = E � +V A� ); the meaning of the symbols
we used is obvious. Maxwell’s interpretation of this result is very interesting:
“[...] in all phenomena relating to closed (emphasis added by D. R.) circuits
and the currents in them, it is indifferent whether the axes to which we re-
fer the system be at rest or in motion,” that is, 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. Maxwell
(1891), vol. 2, p 601). It should be stressed, however, that Maxwell’s pre-
scription makes it possible to find A � and Φ� only when A and Φ are already
known. As can be seen from the example of equation (19), finding of A and
Φ can be a cumbersome task. Formally, the Faraday-Neumann-Lenz law of
electromagnetic induction is Galilei-invariant in the above, Maxwell’s, inter-
pretation. Essentially, of course, Maxwell is wrong here since in the S � frame
his E � and B � fields do not satisfy Maxwell’s equations.

60
 AR /∂t on the
[9] The problem of finding the vector potential A R , i. e. ∂A
z-axis at the instant t = 0 in RED, up to the second order quantities in β,
can be solved in another, less formal way based on intuition and symme-
try arguments. Namely, on the basis of the transformation law, within the
considered approximation, one has A R (x, y, z, t) = A� R (x − vt, y, z), and A� R
at any point of space has only azimuthal component (the symmetry!, with
respect to the axis of the circular loop, of course), and can be found in the
immediate vicinity of the axis by applying Stokes’ theorem, 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). The partial time derivative can be expressed through
AR /∂t = −v∂A
the partial derivative over the x coordinate, ∂A AR /∂x, since the
AR /dt = ∂A
convective (Eulerian) derivative of A R , dA AR /∂t + (vv · grad)A
AR ,
obviously vanishes in the problem we consider. This alternative, more beau-
tiful method of determining the solenoidal component of the electric field
of the loop in motion was proposed by Rosser (1993). [A historical remark
is in order. The vanishing of the convective derivative of the quantities de-
scribing an electromagnetic system in uniform translation, stationary in its
proper reference frame, was used by Heaviside (1889, 1892), and also by
Lorentz (1895) in his Versuch, 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 Pois-
son equation, cf Panofsky and Phillips 1955, Jammer 1961, Miller 1981, pp
32-33; the method was recently “rediscovered” by Dmitriyev (2002).]
The irrotational component of the electric field, −gradΦR , can be eval-
uated directly, because one has exactly ΦR = vARx . On the other hand, as
is well known (Panofsky and Phillips 1955), the electric field of an electro-
static (in its proper frame) charge distribution that is uniformly moving at
speed v equals, up to the second order terms in β, the Coulomb field of the

61
same charge distribution that would be at rest in the instantaneous position
of the considered charge distribution in motion. This is the true meaning
of Rosser’s (1993) statement that when evaluating the irrotational compo-
nent of the electric field of the moving current loop retardation effects may
be ignored. [It is not difficult to verify that the contribution of the vector
potential to the electric field due to a charge distribution in uniform trans-
lation (this potential arises from the corresponding convection current) is a
second order quantity in β, and thus negligible.] Having in mind that the
Lorentz contraction is a second order effect, we come to a conclusion that the
charge distribution which, according to RED, exists on the current loop in
motion contributes to the irrotational component of the electric field of the
loop, −gradΦR , in a simple way, through the corresponding Coulomb field.
(As is mentioned above, A R ≈ A� R , 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; the convection
current arising from the charge distribution in motion may be ignored.) The
result reached in this way coincides with that evaluated directly, −gradΦR ,
where ΦR = vARx .
The alternative method described above of finding −gradΦR was also
proposed by Rosser (1993). In the view of the present author, this method,
while efficacious, is conceptually tricky since it necessitates some non-obvious
steps (not even mentioned by Rosser). For example, the real charge distri-
�
bution on the current loop in motion vanishes in the Srf frame; the real
distribution is replaced by an equivalent (in the sense of finding −gradΦR )
fictive charge distribution which is “one-component” (there is no current in
� �
the Srf frame for that distribution), and which “exists” in the Srf frame too.
Incidentally, it seems that the general form of the time-dependent Coulomb
law (Jefimenko 1989, Griffiths and Heald 1991, Lorrain et al 1988) would be
of no use here.

62
[10] The force by which the field of the charge q is acting on the loop in
motion at the instant t = 0 equals (−µ0 qIvR2 /4(R2 + L2 )3/2 )eey , which is
obtained by applying the Coulomb law, since q is stationary at (0, 0, L), and
the charge distribution over the loop in motion is given by a relatively simple
expression within the considered approximation. The preceding conclusion
contradicts Rosser’s (1993) statement that the force vanishes. (Professor
Geraint Rosser in a letter to the present author of 20. March 2003. agreed
that in his original paper a mistake was made, and that the force is indeed
given by the above expression.) 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), it seems that the principle of action and reaction is not
satisfied. The explanation is conventional: the electromagnetic interaction
between the current loop and the point charge is not a direct one. Namely,
as it is well known, there is a third “body”, a medium in the interaction, the
electromagnetic field, which also possesses a momentum, so that the total
linear momentum of the system the current loop + the point charge + the
electromagnetic field is conserved (cf Tamm 1979). Unfortunately, it is not
possible to verify by a direct calculation whether in this example the equation
� �
dppf /dt = −µ0 qIvR2 /4(R2 + L2 )3/2 e y applies at the instant t = 0, where
�
pf = ε0 (E E × B ) dV is the linear momentum of the total electromagnetic
field. Simple calculations seem to be reserved for exotic systems (cf Butoli
1989). (The situation is much more pleasing with illustrations for the angular
momentum of the electromagnetic field. Cf Griffiths (1989) and references
therein.)
[11] It is of some interest here to answer the question of what is the equation
of motion of a charged point, with a charge q and with a mass m, in the
electromagnetic field, in MT (in its original, “ether” variant, of course). It
E +u ×
would be natural to take the conventional form d(m0u )/dt = q(E
B ), where u is the instantaneous velocity of the particle, and assume that

63
the mass of the particle m0 is time-independent. However, appealing to
Kaufmann’s experiments (cf Miller 1981), one could postulate that in the
ether frame the equation of motion has the form

E + qu
d(m0u γu )/dt = qE u × B, (A)

by making the same assumption on the mass. (This postulate might, in the
long run, lead to discovery of special relativity, as Bell (1987) pointed out.)
By using the identity
d du deeu
(m0u γu ) = γu3 m0 eu + γu m0 u ,
dt dt dt
where eu = u /u, one obviously has d(m0u γu )/dt = d(m0u )/dt, up to second
order terms in βu (the last equation is exact for u = 0). In this way, for
the problem discussed here it is irrelevant which one of the two equations of
motion we use. By the way, 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, m0 , is a time-
independent Lorentz-scalar. (This neglected fact was recently pointed out
by the present author (Redžić 2002).) As can be seen, the fundamental
assumption on the time-independence of the Lorentz-scalar m0 , together
with the “spatial” equation of motion (A) imply the “zeroth” component

d(m0 c2 γu )/dt = qE
E · u,

of the corresponding quadri-vectorial equation of motion. Thus, the quadri-

vectorial “Lorentz force equation” is tantamount to equation (A) comple-
mented by the assumption that m0 is a time-independent Lorentz-scalar.
[12] It happens sometimes that ideas and discoveries of “old” physicists sink
into oblivion. The present author feels that it is indispensable to point out
the fact neglected by Bartocci and Mamone Capria (1991a,b): the here dis-
cussed problem of the electrodynamical interaction of the charge and the cur-
rent loop at relative rest, that are moving with respect to the ether, was also

64
the topic of discussions among the physicists in late 19th century (Budde,
FitzGerald, Lorentz, see Miller (1981)). Somewhat unexpectedly, their solu-
tion to the problem coincides, in a certain sense, with what we think today
to be the correct solution, and represents another illustration of Wigner’s
statement that sometimes intuition is more important than knowledge. The
basic idea of the “old” physicists was simple: “it is highly improbable that
anything depends on the absolute motion” (FitzGerald 1882), that is on the
motion with respect to the ether; physical effects depend only on the relative
motion between ponderable bodies and on their mutual relative positions.
One recognizes here the principle of relative motion which, together with the
assumption of the validity of Galilei transformation, is in classical mechan-
ics tantamount to the principle of relativity (“identical systems in any two
inertial frames behave in the same way under the same initial conditions”).
[The equivalence of the two principles is presumably the reason for ignoring
the principle of relative motion in textbooks devoted to classical mechanics;
an exception is V. I. Arnold, Mathematical Methods of Classical Mechan-
ics, transl. K. Vogtmann and A. Weinstein (Springer, New York, 1978) p
10. Relationships among the principle of relative motion, the corresponding
principle of slow relative motion, MT and RED were analyzed in detail by
Bartocci and Mamone Capria (1991a). They have shown that the principle
of relative motion does not apply in MT nor in RED; the principle of slow
relative motion, however, applies in RED but not in MT.]
The “old” physicists instinctively applied the powerful principle of rela-
tivity to MT. Since in the considered problem MT predicts a nonzero force
(our equation (26)) depending on unobservable speed v (the speed of the
system with respect to the ether) Budde (1880) and Lorentz (1895, 1904,
1912) (these references are given in Miller (1981), 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
the loop and the point charge. Their result for density of charges induced
on the loop, up to second order terms in β, reads �i = v · J r /c2 , where J r
denotes the conduction current density in the proper frame of the loop and
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, after the publication of his speculation that
Maxwellians were on the threshold of a discovery of special relativity (Redžić
2004a).
[13] Cf. E. H. Kennard, “On unipolar induction - another experiment and
its significance as evidence for the existence of the aether, “Philos. Mag.
33, 179-190 (1917), and also Stefan Marinov, The Thorny Way of Truth, I-
IX, International Publishers “East-West”, Graz, 1982-1991. Having in mind
the preceding note, it seems that Bartocci and Mamone Capria should not
have ignored Budde, FitzGerald, Lorentz, the true authors of the proposed
experimentum crucis.
[14] A variant of that experiment has been realized, now in the context of
a different “philosophy” (Bartocci et al 2001); as the authors cautiously
mention, preliminary experimental results indicate a violation of the local
Lorentz-invariance.
[15] Numerous references are given in a paper by Shishkin et al (2002). For
example, Ivezić (1990) attempted to explain the Edwards I 2 - potential, by
analyzing the classical illustration of the relationship between electromag-
netism and special relativity, an infinite straight cylindrical conductor with
a stationary current (Feynman et al 1964, Ugarov 1979, Purcell 1985, and
perhaps most completely French 1968), introducing an ad hoc assumption on
the Lorentz-contraction of the distance between electrons-current carriers in
the laboratory reference frame. It is difficult to discuss the validity of Ivezić’s
attempt because of the obviously didactical nature of the considered model

66
(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, Gabuzda 1993, Redžić
1998).) On the one 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 station-
ary current, and thus annuls indirectly Ivezić’s assumption. On the other
hand, the present author agrees with Bartlett and Edwards (1990) that what
Ivezić considers a fatal defect of the standard relativistic electrodynamics
(Lorentz - 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. A discussion on
this topic, in which also some other authors took part, lasted some time in
the same journal, without reaching some new essential conclusion.

67
References
Abraham M 1904,“Zur Theorie der Strahlung und des Strahlungsdruckes,”
Ann. Phys., Lpz. 14 236-287

Bachman R A 1982,“Relativistic acoustic Doppler effect,” Am. J. Phys.

50 816-8. A useful reference is also Reynolds R E 1990,“Doppler effect for
sound via classical and relativistic space-time diagrams,” Am. J. Phys. 58
390-4

Bartlett D F i Edwards W F 1990,“Invariance of charge to Lorentz trans-

formation,” Phys. Lett. A 151 259-262

Bartocci U i Mamone Capria M 1991a,“Symmetries and asymmetries in

classical and relativistic electrodynamics,” Found. Phys. 21 787-801

Bartocci U i Mamone Capria M 1991b,“Some remarks on classical electro-

magnetism and the principle of relativity,” Am. J. Phys. 59 1030-2

Bartocci U, Cardone F i Mignani R 2001,“Looking for a possible breakdown

of local Lorentz invariance for electromagnetic phenomena: theory and first
experimental results,” Found. Phys. Lett. 14 51-64

Bell J S 1976,“How to teach special relativity,” Prog. Sci. Cult. 1 (2),

reprinted in

Bell J S 1987 Speakable and Unspeakable in Quantum Mechanics (Cam-

bridge: Cambridge U P)

Blackford B L 1994,“Electric field of a slowly moving rectangular current

loop: A microscopic approach,” Am. J. Phys. 62 1005-8

Bohm D i Hiley B J 1985,“Active interpretation of the Lorentz ‘boosts’ as

a physical explanation of different time rates,” Am. J. Phys. 53 720-3

Born M 1963,“Special theory of relativity,” Nature 197 1287

68
Bridgman P W 1963 A Sophisticate’s Primer on Relativity (London: Rout-
ledge &Kegan)

Bringuier E 2004,“Reply to Redžić’s Comment: Electrostatic charges in v ×

B fields without special relativity,” Eur. J. Phys. 25 L13-L15

Brown H R 2001,“The origin of length contraction: I. The FitzGerald -

Lorentz deformation hypothesis,” Am. J. Phys. 69 1044-54

Brown H R 2003,“Michelson, FitzGerald and Lorentz: the origins of rela-

tivity revisited,” Bull. Soc. Sci. Lett. Lodz 53 Ser. Rech. Deform. 39
23-35

Budde E A 1880,“Das Clausius’sche Gesetz und die Bewegung der Erde im

Raume,” Ann. Phys. 10 553-560, ibid. 12 644-7 (1881)

Burrows M L 1997,”Comment on Maxwell’s equations in a rotating medium:

Is there a problem?,” Am. J. Phys. 65 929-31

Butoli A 1989,“Action et réaction en électrodynamique,” Eur. J. Phys. 10

59-60

Carini G 1965,“Sulla dinamica relativistica di un corpuscolo con massa di

quiete variabile,” Atti. Soc. Peloritana Sci. Fis. Mat. Nat. 11 401-413

Cornille P 1988,“The twin paradox and the Hafele and Keating experiment,”
Phys. Lett. A 131 156-162

Cullwick E G 1959 Electromagnetism and Relativity 2nd edn (London: Long-

mans Green)

Dewan E 1963,“Stress effects due to Lorentz contraction,” Am. J. Phys. 31

383-6

Dewan E i Beran M 1959,“Note on stress effects due to relativistic contrac-

tion,” Am. J. Phys. 27 517-8

69
Dingle H 1962,“Special theory of relativity,” Nature 195 985-6

Dmitriyev V P 2002,“The easiest way to the Heaviside ellipsoid,” Am. J.

Phys. 70 717-8

Dodd J N 1983,“The Compton effect - a classical treatment,” Eur. J. Phys.

4 205-211

Edwards W F, Kenyon C S i Lemon D K 1976,“Continuing investigation

into possible electric fields arising from steady conduction currents,” Phys.
Rev. D 14 922-938

Einstein A 1905a,“Zur Elektrodynamik bewegter Körper,” Ann. Phys., Lpz.

17 891-921

Einstein A 1905b,“Ist die Trägheit eines Körpers von seinem Energieinhalt

abhänging?,” Ann. Phys., Lpz. 18 639-641

Einstein A 1907,“Bemerkungen zu der Notiz von Hrn. Paul Ehrenfest ‘Die

Translation deformierbaren Elektronen und der Flächensatz,’” Ann. Phys.,
Lpz. 23 206-8

Einstein A 1911,“Zum Ehrenfestschen Paradoxon,” Physik. Z. 12 509-510

Einstein A 1935,“Elementary derivation of the equivalence of mass and en-

ergy,” Am. Math. Soc. Bull. 41 223-230

Einstein A i Laub J 1908a,“Über die elektromagnetischen Grundgleichungen

für bewegte Körper,” Ann. Phys., Lpz. 26 532-540

Einstein A i Laub J 1908b,“Bemerkungen zu unserer Arbeit ‘Über die elek-

tromagnetischen Grundgleichungen für bewegte Körper,’” Ann. Phys., Lpz.
28 445-7

Eriksen E i Vøyenli K 1976,“The classical and relativistic concepts of mass,”

Found. Phys. 6 115-124

70
Evett A A 1972,“A relativistic rocket discussion problem,” Am. J. Phys.
40 1170-1

Evett A A i Wangsness R K 1960,“Note on the separation of relativistically

moving rockets,” Am. J. Phys. 28 566

Feigenbaum M J i Mermin N D 1988,“E = mc2 ,” Am. J. Phys. 56 18-21

Feynman R P, Leighton R B i Sands M 1964 The Feynman Lectures on

Physics vol 2 (Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley)

Field J H 2000,“Two novel special relativistic effects: Space dilatation and

time contraction,” Am. J. Phys. 68 367-374

FitzGerald G F 1882,“On electromagnetic effects due to the motion of the

Earth,” Trans. R. Dublin Soc. 1 319-324

French A P 1968 Special Relativity (London: Nelson)

Gabuzda D C 1993,“The charge densities in a current - carrying wire,” Am.

J. Phys. 61 360-2

Griffiths D J 1989,“Note on ‘Field versus action-at-a-distance in a static

situation,’ by N L Sharma,” Am. J. Phys. 57 558

Griffiths D J 1999 Introduction to Electrodynamics 3rd edn (Upper Saddle

River, NJ: Prentice - Hall)

Griffiths D J i Heald M A 1991,“Time - dependent generalizations of the

Biot - Savart and Coulomb laws,” Am. J. Phys. 59 111-7

Hafele J C i Keating R E 1972,“Around - the - world atomic clocks: predicted

relativistic time gains,” Science 177 166-8; “Around - the - world atomic
clocks: observed relativistic time gains,” ibid 168-170

71
Heaviside O 1889,“On the electromagnetic effects due to the motion of elec-
trification through a dielectric,” Philos. Mag. 27 324-339

Heaviside O 1892 Electrical Papers vol 2 (London: MacMillan)

Hertzberg J B et al 2001,“Measurement of the relativistic potential difference

across a rotating magnetic dielectric cylinder,” Am. J. Phys. 69 648-654

Ivezić T 1990,“The ‘relativistic’ electric fields arising from steady conduction

currents,” Phys. Lett. A 144 427-431

Jammer M 1961 Concepts of Mass in Classical and Modern Physics (Cam-

bridge, MA: Harvard U P)

Jammer M 2000 Concepts of Mass in Contemporary Physics and Philosophy

(Princeton, NJ: Princeton U P )

Janossy L 1971 Theory of Relativity Based on Physical Reality (Budapest:

Académiaia Kiado)

Jefimenko O D 1989 Electricity and Magnetism 2nd edn (Star City: Electret
Scientific Company)

Jefimenko O D 1996a,“Derivation of relativistic force transformation equa-

tions from Lorentz force law,” Am. J. Phys. 64 618-620

Jefimenko O D 1996b,“Direct calculation of time dilation,” Am. J. Phys.

64 812-4

Kalman G 1961,“Lagrangian formalism in relativistic dynamics,” Phys. Rev.

123 384-390

Krotkov R V et al 1999,“Relativity and the electric dipole moment of a

moving, conducting magnetized sphere,” Am. J. Phys. 67 493-8

Lampa A 1924,“Wie erscheint nach der Relativitätstheorie ein bewegter Stab

72
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’évolution de l’espace et du temps,” Scientia 10 31-54

Le Bellac M i Lévy-Leblond J-M 1973,“Galilean electromagnetism,” Nuovo

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 Körpern (Leiden: Brill)

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 - Wes-
ley)

Minkowski H 1908,“Die Grundgleichungen für die elektromagnetischen Vorgänge

in bewegten Körpern,” Göt. Nachr. 53-111 (reprinted in Minkowski H 1967

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)

Nikolić H 1999,“Relativistic contraction of an accelerated rod,” Am. J. Phys.

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 Relativität und die Grundgleichungen der

Mechanik,” Verh. Deutsch. Phys. Ges. 4 136-141

Poincaré H 1906,“Sur la dynamique de l’électron,” Rend. Circ. Mat. Palermo

21 129-175 (reprinted in Poincaré H 1989 La Mécanique Nouvelle (Sceaux:
Éditions 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)

Redžić D V 1990a,“Problem koncepta mase,” Galaksija, broj 221, 74-5

Redžić D V 1990b,“The Doppler effect and conservation laws revisited,” Am.

J. Phys. 58 1205-8

Redžić D V 1992a,“On the electromagnetic field close to the surface of a

moving conductor,” Am. J. Phys. 60 275-7

Redžić D V 1992b,“Image of a moving spheroidal conductor,” Am. J. Phys.

60 506-8

Redžić D V 1993,“Comment on ‘Some remarks on classical electromagnetism

and the principle of relativity,’ by U Bartocci and M Mamone Capria,” Am.
J. Phys. 61 1149

Redžić D V 1996,“Derivation of relativistic force transformation equations

via four - vectors,” unpublished

Redžić D V 1998,“A current - carrying conductor, mini pinch and special

relativity,” unpublished

Redžić D V 2000,“Comment on the Compton effect,” Eur. J. Phys. 21 L9

Redžić D V 2002,“Electromagnetism of rotating conductors revisited,” Eur.

J. Phys. 23 127-134

Redžić D V 2004a,“Image of a moving sphere and the FitzGerald - Lorentz

contraction,” Eur. J. Phys. 25 123-6

Redžić D V 2004b,“Electrostatic charges in v × B fields: with or without

special relativity?,” Eur. J. Phys. 25 L9-L11

75
Redžić D V 2004c,“Conductors moving in magnetic fields: approach to equi-
librium,” to appear

Redžić D i Strnad J 2004,“Einstein’s light complex,” submitted

Ridgely C T 1998,“Applying relativistic electrodynamics to a rotating ma-

terial medium,” Am. J. Phys. 66 114-121

Ridgely C T 1999,“Applying covariant versus contravariant electromagnetic

tensors to rotating media,” Am. J. Phys. 67 414-421

Rindler W 1989,“Relativity and electromagnetism: The force on a magnetic

monopole,” Am. J. Phys. 57 993-4

Rindler W 1991 Introduction to Special Relativity 2nd edn (Oxford: Claren-

don)

Rohrlich F 2002,“Causality, the Coulomb field, and Newton’s law of gravi-

tation,” Am. J. Phys. 70 411-4

Rosser W G V 1960,“The electric and magnetic fields of a charge moving

with uniform velocity,” Contemp. Physics 1 453-466

Rosser W G V 1964 An Introduction to the Theory of Relativity (London:

Butterworths)

Rosser W G V 1993,“Classical electromagnetism and relativity: A moving

magnetic dipole,” Am. J. Phys. 61 371-5

Rothenstein B et al 2002,“Doppler shift in a spherical wave: The game with

very small and the very big,” unpublished

Sandin T R 1991,“In defense of relativistic mass,” Am. J. Phys. 59 1032-6

Sangster K et al 1995,“Aharonov - Casher phase in an atomic system,” Phys.

Rev. A 51 1776-1786

76
Sansbury R 1985,“Detection of a force between a charged metal foil and a
current - carrying conductor,” Rev. Sci. Instrum. 56 415-7

Schrödinger E 1922,“Dopplerprinzip und Bohrsche Frequenzbedingung,” Physik.

Z 23 301-3

Schwartz H M 1977,“Einstein’s comprehensive 1907 essay on relativity, part

II,” Am. J. Phys. 45 811-7

Searle G F C 1897,“On the steady motion of an electrified ellipsoid,” Philos.

Mag. 44 329-341

Shishkin et al 2002,“Investigation of possible electric potential arising from a

constant current through a superconducting coil,” J. Phys. D: Appl. Phys.
35 497-502

Sommerfeld A 1952 Electrodynamics transl. E G Ramberg (New York: Aca-

demic)

Stachel J i Torretti R 1982,“Einstein’s first derivation of mass - energy equiv-

alence,” Am. J. Phys. 50 760-3

Strnad J 1991,“Velocity - dependent mass or proper time,” Eur. J. Phys.

12 69-73

Tamm I E 1979 Fundamentals of the Theory of Electricity (Moscow: Mir)

Terrell J 1959,“Invisibility of the Lorentz contraction,” Phys. Rev. 116

1041-5

Teukolsky S A 1996,“The explanation of the Trouton - Noble experiment

revisited,” Am. J. Phys. 64 1104-9

Ugarov V A 1979 Special Theory of Relativity (Moscow: Mir)

77
Van Meter J R et al 2001,“Reflection of plane waves from a uniformly ac-
celerating mirror,” Am. J. Phys. 69 783-7

Vigier J P 1990,“Evidence for nonzero mass photons associated with a vac-

uum - induced dissipative red - shift mechanism,” IEEE Trans. Plasma.
Sci. 18 64-72

Weber T A 1997,“Measurements on a rotating frame in relativity and the

Wilson and Wilson experiment,” Am. J. Phys. 65 946-953

Weinstein R 1960,“Observation of length by a single observer,” Am. J. Phys.

28 607-610

Wilson M i Wilson H A 1913,“On the electric field of rotating a magnetic

insulator in a magnetic field,” Proc. R. Soc. London Ser. A 89 99-106

Zapolsky H S 1988,“On electric fields produced by steady currents,” Am. J.

Phys. 56 1137-1141

Žigman V J 1997 Specijalna teorija relativnosti - Mehanika II izdanje (Beograd:

Studentski trg)

78