Is the relativity principle consistent with classical electrodynamics?
| Abstract | It is common in the literature on classical electrodynamics (ED) and relativity theory that the transformation rules for the basic electrodynamical quantities are derived from the hypothesis that the relativity principle (RP) applies to Maxwell’s electrodynamics. As it will turn out from our analysis, these derivations raise several problems, and certain steps are logically questionable. This is, however, not our main concern in this paper. Even if these derivations were completely correct, they leave open the following questions: (1) Is the RP a true law of nature for electrodynamical phenomena? (2) Are, at least, the transformation rules of the fundamental electrodynamical quantities, derived from the RP, true? (3) Is the RP consistent with the laws of ED in a single inertial frame of reference? (4) Are, at least, the derived transformation rules consistent with the laws of ED in a single frame of reference? Obviously, (1) and (2) are empirical questions. In this paper, we will investigate problems (3) and (4). First we will give a general mathematical formulation of the RP. In the second part, we will deal with the operational definitions of the fundamental electrodynamical quantities. As we will see, these semantic issues are not as trivial as one might think. In the third part of the paper, applying what J. S. Bell calls “Lorentzian pedagogy”—according to which the laws of physics in any one reference frame account for all physical phenomena— we will show that the transformation rules of the electrodynamical quantities are identical with the ones obtained by presuming the covariance of the equations of ED, and that the covariance is indeed satisfied. As to problem (3), the situation is much more complex. As we will see, the RP is actually not a matter of the covariance of the physical equations, but it is a matter of the details of the solutions of the equations, which describe the behavior of moving objects. This raises conceptual problems concerning the meaning of the notion “the same system in a collective motion”.. | |||||||||
| Keywords | No keywords specified (fix it) | |||||||||
| Categories | ||||||||||
| Options |
|
|||||||||
Download options| PhilPapers Archive |
Upload a copy of this paper Check publisher's policy on self-archival Papers currently archived: 5,705 |
| External links |
  Try with proxy. Try with proxy. Try with proxy. |
| Through your library | Only published papers are available at libraries |
Similar books and articlesLászló E. Szabó (2004). On the Meaning of Lorentz Covariance. Foundations of Physics Letters 17:479-496.
Carlo Giannoni (1978). Relativistic Mechanics and Electrodynamics Without One-Way Velocity Assumptions. Philosophy of Science 45 (1):17-46.
Mario Bacelar Valente (2011). The Relation Between Classical and Quantum Electrodynamics. Theoria 26 (70):51-68.
F. A. Muller (2007). Inconsistency in Classical Electrodynamics? Philosophy of Science 74 (2):253-277.
Albert Einstein (1923). On the Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies. In The Principle of Relativity. Dover.
Dennis Dieks (2006). Another Look at General Covariance and the Equivalence of Reference Frames. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part B 37 (1):174-191.
Analytics
Monthly downloads |
Added to index2010-10-13Total downloads18 ( #67,622 of 549,516 )Recent downloads (6 months)0How can I increase my downloads? |
My notes
Discussion
