Microphysics Needs an Invariant Electrodynamics: Difference between revisions
infobox: unlink bare volume/issue numbers (removes redlinks to numeric titles) |
fix apostrophes lost to the character-encoding bug (Einstein?s -> Einstein's); URLs left untouched |
||
| Line 11: | Line 11: | ||
==Abstract== | ==Abstract== | ||
A first-order Galilean-invariant covering theory of Maxwell | A first-order Galilean-invariant covering theory of Maxwell's equations of vacuum electromagnetism, first proposed by Heinrich Hertz, is reappraised in modern context. Physically, when properly formulated and interpreted for electromagnetic description, Hertz? theory is found to be both necessary, and ? insofar as the empirical facts are presently known ? sufficient. Mathematically, its use of the total time derivative instead of the Maxwellian partial time derivative is shown to be logically necessary under broadly applicable conditions. The physical superiority of the Hertzian formulation in the weak-field limit is emphasized. | ||
[[Category:Scientific Paper|microphysics needs invariant electrodynamics]] | [[Category:Scientific Paper|microphysics needs invariant electrodynamics]] | ||
[[Category:Electrodynamics|microphysics needs invariant electrodynamics]] | [[Category:Electrodynamics|microphysics needs invariant electrodynamics]] | ||
Latest revision as of 09:00, 22 July 2026
| Scientific Paper | |
|---|---|
| Title | Microphysics Needs an Invariant Electrodynamics |
| Author(s) | Thomas E Phipps, Harold W Milnes |
| Published | 2002 |
| Journal | Galilean Electrodynamics |
| Volume | 13 |
| Number | 4 |
| Pages | 63-70 |
Abstract
A first-order Galilean-invariant covering theory of Maxwell's equations of vacuum electromagnetism, first proposed by Heinrich Hertz, is reappraised in modern context. Physically, when properly formulated and interpreted for electromagnetic description, Hertz? theory is found to be both necessary, and ? insofar as the empirical facts are presently known ? sufficient. Mathematically, its use of the total time derivative instead of the Maxwellian partial time derivative is shown to be logically necessary under broadly applicable conditions. The physical superiority of the Hertzian formulation in the weak-field limit is emphasized.