A part of the scientific literature consists of intermediate results within a longer project. Scientists often publish a first result in the course of their work, while aware that they should soon achieve a more advanced result from this preliminary result. Should they follow the proverb “a bird in the hand is worth two in the bush”, and publish any intermediate result they get? This is the normative question addressed in this paper. My aim is to clarify, to refine, and (...) to assess informal arguments about the choice whether to publish intermediate results. To this end, I adopt a rational decision framework, supposing some utility or preferences, and I propose a formal model. The best publishing strategy turns out to depend on the research situation. In some simple circumstances, even selfish and short-minded scientists should publish their intermediate results, and should thus behave like their altruistic peers, i. e. like society would like them to behave. In other research situations, with inhomogeneous reward or difficulty profiles, the best strategy is opposite. These results suggest qualified philosophical morals. (shrink)

We draw a distinction between the Aharonov–Bohm phase shift and the Aharonov–Bohm effect. Although the Aharonov–Bohm phase shift occurring when an electron beam passes around a magnetic solenoid is well-verified experimentally, it is not clear whether this phase shift occurs because of classical forces or because of a topological effect occurring in the absence of classical forces as claimed by Aharonov and Bohm. The mathematics of the Schroedinger equation itself does not reveal the physical basis for the effect. However, the (...) experimentally observed Aharonov–Bohm phase shift is of the same form as the shift observed due to electrostatic forces for which the consensus view accepts the role of the classical forces. The Aharonov–Bohm phase shift may well arise from classical electromagnetic forces which are simply more subtle in the magnetic case since they involve relativistic effects of the order v 2 /c 2 . Here we first review the experimentally observable differences between phenomena arising from classical forces and phenomena arising from the quantum topological effect suggested by Aharonov and Bohm. Second we point out that most discussions of the classical electromagnetic forces involved when a charged particle passes a solenoid are inaccurate because they omit the Faraday induction terms. The subtleties of the relativisitic v 2 /c 2 classical electromagnetic forces between a point charge and a solenoid have been explored by Coleman and Van Vleck in their analysis of the Shockley–James paradox; indeed, we point out that an analysis exactly parallel to that of Coleman and Van Vleck suggests that the Aharonov–Bohm phase shift is actually due to classical electromagnetic forces. Finally we note that electromagnetic velocity fields penetrate even excellent conductors in a form which is unfamiliar to many physicists. An ohmic conductor surrounding a solenoid does not screen out the magnetic field of the passing charge, but rather the time-integral of the magnetic field is an invariant; this time integral is precisely what is involved in the classical explanation of the Aharonov–Bohm phase shift. Thus the persistence of the Aharonov–Bohm phase shift when the solenoid is surrounded by a conductor does not exclude a classical force-based explanation for the phase shift. At present there is no experimental evidence for the Aharonov–Bohm effect. (shrink)

Although there is good experimental evidence for the Aharonov–Bohm phase shift occurring when a solenoid is placed between the beams forming a double-slit electron interference pattern, there has been very little analysis of the relevant classical electromagnetic forces. These forces between a point charge and a solenoid involve subtle relativistic effects of order v 2 /c 2 analogous to those discussed by Coleman and Van Vleck in their treatment of the Shockley–James paradox. In this article we show that a treatment (...) exactly analogous to that given by Coleman and Van Vleck predicts classical electromagnetic forces which provide the basis for the Aharonov–Bohm phase shift. The magnetic force on the solenoid due to the passing charge leads to a displacement of the solenoid center of energy which must be balanced by the displacement of the passing charge. This classical displacement of the passing charge is exactly what is required to account for the Aharonov–Bohm phase shift. Also, we discuss a magnetic moment model which appears frequently in the literature and note that although the model provides conservation of linear momentum, it does not satisfy the general requirements for relativistic theories. We give an example suggesting that the new equation of motion for a magnetic moment proposed by Aharonov, Pearle, and Vaidman based upon the hidden momentum of the magnetic moment is completely inappropriate. Finally, we emphasize that the Aharonov–Casher phase shift is also explained by classical electromagnetic forces exactly parallel to those explaining the Aharonov–Bohm phase shift. (shrink)

At present classical physics contains two contradictory groups of derivations of the equilibrium spectrum of random classical electromagnetic radiation. One group of derivations finds Planck's spectrum based upon the use of classical electromagnetic zero-point radiation and fundamental ideas of thermodynamics. The other group of derivations finds the Rayleigh-Jeans spectrum from scattering equilibrium for non-linear mechanical systems in the limit of small charge coupling to radiation. Here we examine the scaling symmetries of classical thermal radiation. We find that, in general, classical (...) mechanical systems do not share the scaling symmetries of thermal radiation. In particular, this is true for the mechanical scattering systems used in the derivations of the Rayleigh-Jeans law. Indeed, relativistic hydrogenlike systems with Coulomb potentials of fixed charge are the only mechanical potential systems which do share the scaling symmetries of thermal radiation. We propose that only these last mechanical systems are allowed in a classical electromagnetic description of nature. (shrink)

Classical electromagnetic forces can account for the experimentally observed phase shifts seen in an electron interference pattern when a line of electric dipoles or a line of magnetic dipoles (a solenoid) is placed between the electron beams forming the interference pattern.

Recent experiments undertaken by Caprez, Barwick, and Batelaan should clarify the connections between classical and quantum theories in connection with the Aharonov–Bohm phase shift. It is pointed out that resistive aspects for the solenoid current carriers play a role in the classical but not the quantum analysis for the phase shift. The observed absence of a classical lag effect for a macroscopic solenoid does not yet rule out the possibility of a lag explanation of the observed phase shift for a (...) microscopic solenoid. (shrink)

The two-point correlation functions of classical electromagnetic zero-point radiation fields are evaluated in four-vector notation. The manifestly Lorentz-covariant expressions are then shown to be invariant under scale transformations and under the conformal transformations of Bateman and Cunningham. As a preliminary to the electromagnetic work, analogous results are obtained for a scalar Gaussian random classical field with a Lorentz-invariant spectrum.

The analysis of this article is entirely within classical physics. Any attempt to describe nature within classical physics requires the presence of Lorentz-invariant classical electromagnetic zero-point radiation so as to account for the Casimir forces between parallel conducting plates at low temperatures. Furthermore, conformal symmetry carries solutions of Maxwell’s equations into solutions. In an inertial frame, conformal symmetry leaves zero-point radiation invariant and does not connect it to non-zero-temperature; time-dilating conformal transformations carry the Lorentz-invariant zero-point radiation spectrum into zero-point radiation (...) and carry the thermal radiation spectrum at non-zero temperature into thermal radiation at a different non-zero temperature. However, in a non-inertial frame, a time-dilating conformal transformation carries classical zero-point radiation into thermal radiation at a finite non-zero-temperature. By taking the no-acceleration limit, one can obtain the Planck radiation spectrum for blackbody radiation in an inertial frame from the thermal radiation spectrum in an accelerating frame. Here this connection between zero-point radiation and thermal radiation is illustrated for a scalar radiation field in a Rindler frame undergoing relativistic uniform proper acceleration through flat spacetime in two spacetime dimensions. The analysis indicates that the Planck radiation spectrum for thermal radiation follows from zero-point radiation and the structure of relativistic spacetime in classical physics. (shrink)

It is pointed out that relativistic classical electron theory with classical electromagnetic zero-point radiation has a scaling symmetry which is suitable for understanding the equilibrium behavior of classical thermal radiation at a spectrum other than the Rayleigh-Jeans spectrum. In relativistic classical electron theory, the masses of the particles are the only scale-giving parameters associated with mechanics while the action-angle variables are scale invariant. The theory thus separates the interaction of the action variables of matter and radiation from the scale-giving parameters. (...) Due to this separation, classical zero-point radiation is invariant under scattering by the charged particles of relativistic classical electron theory. The basic ideas of the matter-radiation interaction are illustrated in a simple relativistic classical electromagnetic example. (shrink)

A fundamentally new understanding of the classical electromagnetic interaction of a point charge and a magnetic dipole moment through order v 2 /c 2 is suggested. This relativistic analysis connects together hidden momentum in magnets, Solem's strange polarization of the classical hydrogen atom, and the Aharonov–Bohm phase shift. First we review the predictions following from the traditional particle-on-a-frictionless-rigid-ring model for a magnetic moment. This model, which is not relativistic to order v 2 /c 2 , does reveal a connection between (...) the electric field of the point charge and hidden momentum in the magnetic moment; however, the electric field back at the point charge due to the Faraday-induced changing magnetic moment is of order 1/c 4 and hence is negligible in a 1/c 2 analysis. Next we use a relativistic magnetic moment model consisting of many superimposed classical hydrogen atoms (and anti-atoms) interacting through the Darwin Lagrangian with an external charge but not with each other. The analysis of Solem regarding the strange polarization of the classical hydrogen atom is seen to give a fundamentally different mechanism for the electric field of the passing charge to change the magnetic moment. The changing magnetic moment leads to an electric force back at the point charge which (i) is of order 1/c 2 , (ii) depends upon the magnetic dipole moment, changing sign with the dipole moment, (iii) is odd in the charge q of the passing charge, and (iv) reverses sign for charges passing on opposite sides of the magnetic moment. Using the insight gained from this relativistic model and the analogy of a point charge outside a conductor, we suggest that a realistic multi-particle magnetic moment involves a changing magnetic moment which keeps the electromagnetic field momentum constant. This means also that the magnetic moment does not allow a significant shift in its internal center of energy. This criterion also implies that the Lorentz forces on the charged particle and on the point charge are equal and opposite and that the center of energy of each moves according to Newton's second law F=Ma where F is exactly the Lorentz force. Finally, we note that the results and suggestion given here are precisely what are needed to explain both the Aharonov–Bohm phase shift and the Aharonov–Casher phase shift as arising from classical electromagnetic forces. Such an explanation reinstates the traditional semiclassical connection between classical and quantum phenomena for magnetic moment systems. (shrink)

The Aharonov–Bohm phase shift in a particle interference pattern when electrons pass a long solenoid is identical in form with the optical interference pattern shift when a piece of retarding glass is introduced into one path of a two-beam optical interference pattern. The particle interference-pattern deflection is a relativistic effect of order $$1/c^{2}$$, though this relativity aspect is rarely mentioned in the literature. Here we give a thorough analysis of the classical electromagnetic aspects of the interaction between a solenoid or (...) toroid and a charged particle. We point out the magnetic Lorentz force which the solenoid or toroid experiences due to a passing charge. Although analysis in the rest frame of the solenoid or toroid will involve back Faraday fields on the charge, the analysis in the inertial frame in which the charge is initially at rest involves forces due to only electric fields where forces are equal in magnitude and opposite in direction. The classical analysis is made using the Darwin Lagrangian. We point out that the classical analysis suggests an angular deflection independent of Planck’s constant $$\hbar $$, where the deflection magnitude is identical with that given by the traditional quantum analysis, but where the deflection direction is unambiguous. (shrink)

Les théories physiques sont aujourd'hui très mathématisées, et ce que les scientifiques manipulent pour décrire, prédire et contrôler les phénomènes, ce sont (entre autres) des équations, comportant de nombreux symboles mathématiques. Ces objets mathématiques n'ont pas de signification physique en eux-mêmes : ils ne « parlent » pas d'eux-mêmes des phénomènes. Une interprétation est nécessaire. Ce qui nous intéresse dans cet article est ainsi l'interprétation dont une théorie physique doit faire l'objet pour remplir son rôle. Nous commençons par expliciter une (...) distinction traditionnelle : l'interprétation « pauvre » (simple instrument permettant d'assigner aux symboles de la théorie un sens physique strictement limité aux résultats des expériences) diffère de l'interprétation « riche » (laquelle compose une image du monde compatible avec la façon dont la théorie décrit mathématiquement les résultats des expériences). Notre but dans cet article est de montrer que cette distinction doit être amendée. Nous nous appuyons sur l'exemple de la mécanique quantique, mais la distinction se veut valable en général pour toute théorie physique. (shrink)

It is suggested that an understanding of blackbody radiation within classical physics requires the presence of classical electromagnetic zero-point radiation, the restriction to relativistic (Coulomb) scattering systems, and the use of discrete charge. The contrasting scaling properties of nonrelativistic classical mechanics and classical electrodynamics are noted, and it is emphasized that the solutions of classical electrodynamics found in nature involve constants which connect together the scales of length, time, and energy. Indeed, there are analogies between the electrostatic forces for groups (...) of particles of discrete charge and the van der Waals forces in equilibrium thermal radiation. The differing Lorentz- or Galilean-transformation properties of the zero-point radiation spectrum and the Rayleigh-Jeans spectrum are noted in connection with their scaling properties. Also, the thermal effects of acceleration within classical electromagnetism are related to the existence of thermal equilibrium within a gravitational field. The unique scaling and phase-space properties of a discrete charge in the Coulomb potential suggest the possibility of an equilibrium between the zero-point radiation spectrum and matter which is universal (independent of the particle mass), and an equilibrium between a universal thermal radiation spectrum and matter where the matter phase space depends only upon the ratio mc 2/k B T. The observations and qualitative suggestions made here run counter to the ideas of currently accepted quantum physics. (shrink)

Classical electron theory with classical electromagnetic zero-point radiation (stochastic electrodynamics) is the classical theory which most closely approximates quantum electrodynamics. Indeed, in inertial frames, there is a general connection between classical field theories with classical zero-point radiation and quantum field theories. However, this connection does not extend to noninertial frames where the time parameter is not a geodesic coordinate. Quantum field theory applies the canonical quantization procedure (depending on the local time coordinate) to a mirror-walled box, and, in general, each (...) non-inertial coordinate frame has its own vacuum state. In particular, there is a distinction between the “Minkowski vacuum” for a box at rest in an inertial frame and a “Rindler vacuum” for an accelerating box which has fixed spatial coordinates in an (accelerating) Rindler frame. In complete contrast, the spectrum of random classical zero-point radiation is based upon symmetry principles of relativistic spacetime; in empty space, the correlation functions depend upon only the geodesic separations (and their coordinate derivatives) between the spacetime points. The behavior of classical zero-point radiation in a noninertial frame is found by tensor transformations and still depends only upon the geodesic separations, now expressed in the non-inertial coordinates. It makes no difference whether a box of classical zero-point radiation is gradually or suddenly set into uniform acceleration; the radiation in the interior retains the same correlation function except for small end-point (Casimir) corrections. Thus in classical theory where zero-point radiation is defined in terms of geodesic separations, there is nothing physically comparable to the quantum distinction between the Minkowski and Rindler vacuum states. It is also noted that relativistic classical systems with internal potential energy must be spatially extended and can not be point systems. The classical analysis gives no grounds for the “heating effects of acceleration through the vacuum” which appear in the literature of quantum field theory. Thus this distinction provides (in principle) an experimental test to distinguish the two theories. (shrink)

The coexistence of several interpretations of one theory is considered through the example of non-relativistic quantum mechanics. The problem considered is whether physicists manage to work properly in spite of the several interpretations. The criterion adopted is the possibility of re-using others' works for another research: this is called "fruitfulness of works". It is argued that such a fruitfulness is possible between works made in different quantum interpretations.

The physicists of the early twentieth century were unaware of two aspects which are vital to understanding some aspects of modern physics within classical theory. The two aspects are: the presence of classical electromagnetic zero-point radiation, and the importance of special relativity. In classes in modern physics today, the problem of atomic collapse is still mentioned in the historical context of the early twentieth century. However, the classical problem of atomic collapse is currently being treated in the presence of classical (...) zero-point radiation where the problem has been transformed. The presence of classical zero-point radiation indeed keeps the electron from falling into the Coulomb potential center. However, the old collapse problem has been replaced by a new problem where the zero-point radiation may give too much energy to the electron so as to cause “self-ionization.” Special relativity may play a role in understanding this modern variation on the atomic collapse problem, just as relativity has proved crucial for a classical understanding of blackbody radiation. (shrink)

In this paper, I address a question in social epistemology about the unity of a scientic community to- wards its inner groups (teams, labs...). I investigate the reasons why these groups might want to \go it alone", working among themselves and hiding their discoveries from other groups. I concentrate on the intermediate results of a longer project, where the first steps can help to achieve a more advanced result. I study to what extent the isolation of research groups might be (...) damaging to the epistemic progress of the whole community. In order to get an idea of the reason why scientists might not share their intermediate results with others, consider for example Schawlow and Townes in the summer of 1958 (the historical material is drawn from Broberg, 1991, chap. 3): together they had just designed the principle of functioning of what would be known as the laser, with the intention of constructing the rst laser, relying on their theoretical ideas. Should they have published their theoretical discovery, or rather taken advantage of their advance on possible oppo- nents and start the experimental work? They chose to publish their theoretical ideas in a scientic journal, and they also led a patent application. On the one hand, it was a valuable choice: the patent was granted and their paper was published, making them soon famous. Further- more, another scientist called Gould was to le a simi- lar patent application a few months later, in March 1959; it was refused, because of the priority of Schawlow and Townes. If the latter had not submitted their idea in 1958, the patent would certainly have been acknowl- edged to Gould. In this sense, publishing their intermediate result was a worthy strategy. On the other hand, history showed that their publication had also some drawbacks for them. Schawlow and Townes' publication triggered a race among many American laboratories for the rst experimental construction of the laser. In addition to bringing them competitors, their publication helped these competitors in crucial ways; so much so that it was another scientist, Maiman, and not Schawlow and Townes, who was able to build the rst working laser, in May 1960, and to publish the result. If Schawlow and Townes had not published their theoretical idea, there are chances that they would have been the first ones to build a laser. Their publication of the first theoretical result certainly prevented them from getting the second experimental one. In short, the best publishing strategy about an intermediate result is no easy question for a scientist. Consider now the whole community, concerned with the results available to all and with the pace of the epistemic progress. Schawlow and Townes' publication enabled the rst laser to be built quicker, as other teams could rely on their theoretical work. More generally, being able to reuse other's works seems to be a rm basis of scientic progress. Thus, for the whole community, it seems that there are only benets if intermediate results are published. As this is not necessarily the best strategy for those who reach these intermediate results, there might be a conflict between the interests of individuals and those of the whole community. The question Schawlow and Townes faced was whether they should make their discovery publicly known, or keep it for themselves to progress alone. This alternative can also arise for an entire lab, when competing with other labs on some long-run project: should it make its discoveries known to its opponents, or only share them internally among its members? At a higher level still, this question arises for what can be called scientic schools, which are groups of labs sharing some particular approach|methodological, experimental or interpre- tational, for example. At each level within the scientic community, there are competitive groups of scientists which may decide to go it alone and to prevent their results from being accessible to others. If they had good reasons for doing so, there would be dramatic consequences for the whole community: other groups would not be able to reuse their results, labour force would be wasted in achieving them again, and the progress of the eld would be slowered. 9 The aim of this paper is to investigate this risk of division: to assess the conditions under which it may oc- cur, its damage for the community, and to draw the limit of an acceptable pluralism. The reasoning with benets and drawbacks which has been sketched for Schawlow and Townes seems to be implicitly an informal economic argument. In order to clarify and to rene such an argument, I will investigate it in a rational decision framework, supposing some utility or preferences for the groups of scientists, and I will propose a formal model, in game theory. In social epistemology of science, formal models have been proposed for various questions (for example, Kitcher 1990, 1993, Goldman 2009, Strevens 2003, 2006, Weisberg and Muldoon, forthcoming, Zollman 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010), but not for the question of the division of the scientic community. I will concentrate on the normative aspect of the question, ignoring the descriptive and historical question of whether groups do go it alone or not. The model I propose is sequential: two groups are competing on a research program, which consists of several results which have to be obtained in order. The groups always carry out some research for the next result, which they reach with some probability per unit of time. When a group, say A, reaches a result, it can either make it public for the other group, or continue its research. After a result is made public, the competitor B can start from it so as to continue its own research. Thus, when A publishes it loses its lead, and its competitor will be able to compete with it in the near future. But it is also recognized as the rst to reach this step. I consider two dierent cases, one in which the number of steps is limited, another where the limit concerns the number of temporal intervals. In both cases, assuming that all steps are equally dicult and equally rewarding, it turns out that the best strategy for a group concerned with its own reward is to make public every step it takes. Thus, there is no risk that groups might separate: a scientist, whatever its group, will publish for all. Finally, I turn to more complex situations, where results have varying size or diculty: there, groups can indeed be better o going it alone. (shrink)