-
Electric and magnetic fields as explicitly observer dependent four-dimensional vectors and their Lorentz transformations according to Minkowski-Ivezić
Authors:
Tomislav Ivezić
Abstract:
In this paper a geometric approach to the special relativity (SR) is used that is called the "invariant special relativity" (ISR). In the ISR it is considered that in the four-dimensional (4D) spacetime physical laws are geometric, coordinate-free relationships between the 4D geometric, coordinate-free quantities. It is mathematicaly proved that in the ISR the electric and magnetic fields are prop…
▽ More
In this paper a geometric approach to the special relativity (SR) is used that is called the "invariant special relativity" (ISR). In the ISR it is considered that in the four-dimensional (4D) spacetime physical laws are geometric, coordinate-free relationships between the 4D geometric, coordinate-free quantities. It is mathematicaly proved that in the ISR the electric and magnetic fields are properly defined vectors on the 4D spacetime. According to the first proof the dimension of a vector field is mathematicaly determined by the dimension of its domain. Since the electric and magnetic fields are defined on the 4D spacetime they are properly defined 4D vectors, the 4D geometric quantities (GQs). As shown in an axiomatic geometric formulation of electromagnetism with only one axiom, the field equation for the bivector field F [33], [T. Ivezić, Found. Phys. Lett. 18, 401 (2005), arXiv: physics/0412167], the primary quantity for the whole electromagnetism is the bivector field F. The electric and magnetic fields 4D vectors E and B are determined in a mathematically correct way in terms of F and the 4D velocity vector v of the observer who measures E and B fields. Furthermore, the proofs are presented that under the mathematicaly correct Lorentz transformations, which are first derived by Minkowski and reinvented and generalized in terms of 4D GQs, e.g., in [23], [T. Ivezić, Phys. Scr. 82, 055007 (2010)], the electric field 4D vector transforms as any other 4D vector transforms, i.e., again to the electric field 4D vector; there is no mixing with the magnetic field 4D vector B, as in the usual transformations (UT) of the 3D fields. This formulation with the 4D GQs is in a true agreement with experiments in electromagnetism, e.g., the motional emf.
△ Less
Submitted 13 September, 2022;
originally announced September 2022.
-
Nature of Electric and Magnetic Fields; How the Fields Transform
Authors:
Tomislav Ivezic
Abstract:
In this paper the proofs are given that the electric and magnetic fields are properly defined vectors on the four-dimensional (4D) spacetime (the 4-vectors in the usual notation) and not the usual 3D fields. Furthermore, the proofs are presented that under the mathematically correct Lorentz transformations (LT), e.g., the electric field vector transforms as any other vector transforms, i.e., again…
▽ More
In this paper the proofs are given that the electric and magnetic fields are properly defined vectors on the four-dimensional (4D) spacetime (the 4-vectors in the usual notation) and not the usual 3D fields. Furthermore, the proofs are presented that under the mathematically correct Lorentz transformations (LT), e.g., the electric field vector transforms as any other vector transforms, i.e., again to the electric field vector; there is no mixing with the magnetic field vector B, as in the usual transformations (UT) of the 3D fields. The derivations of the UT from some well-known textbooks are discussed and objected.
△ Less
Submitted 12 November, 2016; v1 submitted 10 August, 2015;
originally announced August 2015.
-
The manifestly covariant Aharonov-Bohm effect in terms of the 4D fields
Authors:
Tomislav Ivezic
Abstract:
In this paper it is presented a manifestly covariant formulation of the Aharonov-Bohm (AB) phase difference for the magnetic AB effect . This covariant AB phase is written in terms of the Faraday 2-form F and using the decomposition of F in terms of the electric and magnetic fields as four-dimensional (4D) geometric quantities. It is shown that there is a static electric field outside a stationary…
▽ More
In this paper it is presented a manifestly covariant formulation of the Aharonov-Bohm (AB) phase difference for the magnetic AB effect . This covariant AB phase is written in terms of the Faraday 2-form F and using the decomposition of F in terms of the electric and magnetic fields as four-dimensional (4D) geometric quantities. It is shown that there is a static electric field outside a stationary solenoid with resistive conductor carrying steady current, which causes that the AB phase difference in the magnetic AB effect may be determined by the electric part of the covariant expression, i.e. by the local influence of the 4D electric field and not, as generally accepted,in terms of nonzero vector potential.
△ Less
Submitted 21 November, 2014; v1 submitted 14 July, 2014;
originally announced July 2014.
-
Comment on "Trouble with the Lorentz Law of Force: Incompatibility with Special Relativity and Momentum Conservation [arXiv:1205.0096]"
Authors:
Tomislav Ivezic
Abstract:
In this Comment it is shown that the principle of relativity is naturally satisfied and there is no paradox if an independent physical reality is attributed to the four-dimensional (4D) geometric quantities (GQs) and not, as usual, to the 3D quantities. Hence, there is no need either for the change of the expression for the Lorentz force, but as a 4D GQ, or for the introduction of some "hidden" 3D…
▽ More
In this Comment it is shown that the principle of relativity is naturally satisfied and there is no paradox if an independent physical reality is attributed to the four-dimensional (4D) geometric quantities (GQs) and not, as usual, to the 3D quantities. Hence, there is no need either for the change of the expression for the Lorentz force, but as a 4D GQ, or for the introduction of some "hidden" 3D quantities.
△ Less
Submitted 1 August, 2013;
originally announced October 2013.
-
Is there a "Charge - Magnet Paradox"
Authors:
Tomislav Ivezic
Abstract:
In this paper it is shown that in the approach to special relativity which exclusively deals with the four-dimensional geometric quantities (4D GQs), the invariant special relativity (ISR), there is not recently posed paradox that in a static electric field a magnetic dipole moment (MDM) is subject to a torque in some frames and not in others. In the ISR, there is no need either for the change of…
▽ More
In this paper it is shown that in the approach to special relativity which exclusively deals with the four-dimensional geometric quantities (4D GQs), the invariant special relativity (ISR), there is not recently posed paradox that in a static electric field a magnetic dipole moment (MDM) is subject to a torque in some frames and not in others. In the ISR, there is no need either for the change of the Lorentz force, but as a 4D GQ, or for the introduction of some "hidden" 3D quantities. Furthermore, in the ISR, contrary to all previous approaches, an electrically neutral current-loop in its rest frame possesses not only a MDM m, but also an electric dipole moment (EDM) p and a stationary permanent magnet possesses not only an intrinsic magnetization M but also an intrinsic electric polarization P. Hence, in a static electric field, both, a current-loop and a permanent magnet experience the Lorentz force K_{L} and the torque N in all relatively moving inertial frames. The quantities m, p, M, P, K_{L}, N are the 4D GQs.
△ Less
Submitted 1 August, 2013; v1 submitted 13 December, 2012;
originally announced December 2012.
-
The Lorentz transformations of the vectors E, B, P, M and the external electric fields from a stationary superconducting wire with a steady current and from a stationary permanent magnet
Authors:
Tomislav Ivezic
Abstract:
In the first part of this paper we review the fundamental difference between the usual transformations of the three-dimensional (3D) vectors of the electric field $\mathbf{E}$, the magnetic field $\mathbf{B}$, the polarization $\mathbf{P}$, the magnetization $\mathbf{M}$ and the Lorentz transformations of the 4D geometric quantities, vectors E, B, P, M, with many additional explanations and severa…
▽ More
In the first part of this paper we review the fundamental difference between the usual transformations of the three-dimensional (3D) vectors of the electric field $\mathbf{E}$, the magnetic field $\mathbf{B}$, the polarization $\mathbf{P}$, the magnetization $\mathbf{M}$ and the Lorentz transformations of the 4D geometric quantities, vectors E, B, P, M, with many additional explanations and several new results. In the second part, we have discussed the existence of the electric field vector E outside a stationary superconducting wire with a steady current and also different experiments for the detection of such electric fields. Furthermore, a fundamental prediction of the existence of the external electric field vector E from a stationary permanent magnet is considered. These electric fields are used for the resolution of the "charge-magnet paradox" with 4D geometric quantities for a qualitative explanation of the Aharonov-Bohm effect in terms of fields and not, as usual, in terms of the vector potential and for a qualitative explanation that the particle interference is not a test of a Lorentz-violating model of electrodynamics according to which a magnetic solenoid generates not only a static magnetic field but also a static electric field.
△ Less
Submitted 2 November, 2012; v1 submitted 19 April, 2012;
originally announced April 2012.
-
The Constitutive Relations and the Magnetoelectric Effect for Moving Media
Authors:
Tomislav Ivezic
Abstract:
In this paper the constitutive relations for moving media with homogeneous and isotropic electric and magnetic properties are presented as the connections between the generalized magnetization-polarization bivector $%\mathcal{M}$ and the electromagnetic field F. Using the decompositions of F and $\mathcal{M}$, it is shown how the polarization vector P(x) and the magnetization vector M(x) depend on…
▽ More
In this paper the constitutive relations for moving media with homogeneous and isotropic electric and magnetic properties are presented as the connections between the generalized magnetization-polarization bivector $%\mathcal{M}$ and the electromagnetic field F. Using the decompositions of F and $\mathcal{M}$, it is shown how the polarization vector P(x) and the magnetization vector M(x) depend on E, B and two different velocity vectors, u - the bulk velocity vector of the medium, and v - the velocity vector of the observers who measure E and B fields. These constitutive relations with four-dimensional geometric quantities, which correctly transform under the Lorentz transformations (LT), are compared with Minkowski's constitutive relations with the 3-vectors and several essential differences are pointed out. They are caused by the fact that, contrary to the general opinion, the usual transformations of the 3-vectors $% \mathbf{E}$, $\mathbf{B}$, $\mathbf{P}$, $\mathbf{M}$, etc. are not the LT. The physical explanation is presented for the existence of the magnetoelectric effect in moving media that essentially differs from the traditional one.
△ Less
Submitted 31 March, 2012;
originally announced April 2012.
-
The electromagnetic field equations for moving media
Authors:
Tomislav Ivezic
Abstract:
In this paper a formulation of the field equation for moving media is developed by the generalization of an axiomatic geometric formulation of the electromagnetism in vacuum (Ivezić T 2005 Found. Phys. Lett. 18 401. First, the field equations with bivectors F(x) and \mathcal{M}(x) are presented and then these equations are written with vectors E(x), B(x), P(x) and M(x). The latter ones contain bot…
▽ More
In this paper a formulation of the field equation for moving media is developed by the generalization of an axiomatic geometric formulation of the electromagnetism in vacuum (Ivezić T 2005 Found. Phys. Lett. 18 401. First, the field equations with bivectors F(x) and \mathcal{M}(x) are presented and then these equations are written with vectors E(x), B(x), P(x) and M(x). The latter ones contain both the velocity vector u of a moving medium and the velocity vector v of the observers who measure E and B fields. They do not appear in the entire previous literature. All these equations are written in the standard basis and compared with Maxwell's equations with 3-vectors. In this approach the Ampèr-Maxwell law and Gauss's law are inseparably connected in one law and the same happens with Faraday's law and the law that expresses the absence of magnetic charge. It is shown that Maxwell's equations with 3-vectors and our field equations with 4D geometric quantities are not equivalent in the 4D spacetime.
△ Less
Submitted 27 February, 2017; v1 submitted 17 January, 2011;
originally announced January 2011.
-
Comment on "Limit on the Electron Electric Dipole Moment in Gadolinium-Iron Garnet" [arXiv:physics/0509106]
Authors:
Tomislav Ivezic
Abstract:
In the paper being commented on it is proposed a new method for the detection of the electron EDM using the solid GdIG. There, it is argued that a sample electric polarization appears when the sample is magnetized; the common belief is that the electron EDM must be collinear with its magnetic moment. All this is objected and it is suggested that the polarization of the sample can be explained by t…
▽ More
In the paper being commented on it is proposed a new method for the detection of the electron EDM using the solid GdIG. There, it is argued that a sample electric polarization appears when the sample is magnetized; the common belief is that the electron EDM must be collinear with its magnetic moment. All this is objected and it is suggested that the polarization of the sample can be explained by the direct, Lorentz covariant, interaction between B^{a} and an EDM d^{a}.
△ Less
Submitted 14 June, 2010;
originally announced June 2010.
-
Comment on "Prospects for a new search for the electron electric-dipole moment in solid gadolinium-iron-garnet ceramics"
Authors:
Tomislav Ivezic
Abstract:
In a recent paper [A. O. Sushkov, S. Eckel and S. K. Lamoreaux, Phys. Rev. A 79, 022118 (2009), arXiv:0810.2756 ] the authors measured the EDM-induced magnetization M that is given by Eq. (1) in their paper. Such an expression for M is a consequence of the generally accepted opinion that both dipole moments, a MDM m and an EDM d, are proportional to the spin S. Recently [T. Ivezic, Phys. Scr. 81,…
▽ More
In a recent paper [A. O. Sushkov, S. Eckel and S. K. Lamoreaux, Phys. Rev. A 79, 022118 (2009), arXiv:0810.2756 ] the authors measured the EDM-induced magnetization M that is given by Eq. (1) in their paper. Such an expression for M is a consequence of the generally accepted opinion that both dipole moments, a MDM m and an EDM d, are proportional to the spin S. Recently [T. Ivezic, Phys. Scr. 81, 025001 (2010)] the Uhlenbeck-Goudsmit hypothesis is generalized in a Lorentz covariant manner using the four-dimensional (4D) geometric quantities. From the viewpoint of such formulation there is no EDM-induced magnetization M; in the 4D spacetime the EDM d^{a} is not proportional to S^{a}. It is argued that the induced M can come from the direct interaction between the applied electric field E^{a} and a MDM m^{a}.
△ Less
Submitted 17 May, 2010;
originally announced May 2010.
-
Lorentz Transformations of the Electric and Magnetic Fields According to Minkowski
Authors:
Tomislav Ivezic
Abstract:
The usual transformations (UT) of the 3-vectors E and B that are found by Lorentz, Poincaré and independently by Einstein in 1905. are generally considered to be the Lorentz transformations (LT) of E and B. According to the UT E in one frame is 'seen' as E' and B' in a relatively moving frame. In Minkowski's last paper, in 1908. in section 11.6, he defined the vectors (with four components) of t…
▽ More
The usual transformations (UT) of the 3-vectors E and B that are found by Lorentz, Poincaré and independently by Einstein in 1905. are generally considered to be the Lorentz transformations (LT) of E and B. According to the UT E in one frame is 'seen' as E' and B' in a relatively moving frame. In Minkowski's last paper, in 1908. in section 11.6, he defined the vectors (with four components) of the electric $Φ$ and magnetic $Ψ$ fields and discovered that, e.g., $Φ$ correctly transforms by the LT again to $Φ^{\prime}$. His correct LT are reinvented in, e.g., [11] ([11] Ivezić T 2005 Found. Phys. Lett. 18 301). In this paper we show the essential similarity and some differences between Minkowski's relations in section 11.6 and the results obtained in [11]. The low-velocity limit of the UT and the LT is briefly examined. A short discussion of the comparison with the Trouton-Noble experiment is presented.
△ Less
Submitted 6 March, 2010; v1 submitted 17 June, 2009;
originally announced June 2009.
-
Simple Proof that the Usual Transformations of the Electric and Magnetic Fields are not the Lorentz Transformations and EDM Searches
Authors:
Tomislav Ivezić
Abstract:
The usual transformations of the three-dimensional (3D) fields E and B that are found in [1] ([1] A. Einstein, Ann. Physik \17, 891 (1905)) are always considered to be the relativistically correct Lorentz transformations (LT) of E and B. However, as proved in, e.g., [2] ([2] T. Ivezić, Found. Phys. Lett. 18, 301 (2005)), these transformations drastically differ from the LT of the relativisticall…
▽ More
The usual transformations of the three-dimensional (3D) fields E and B that are found in [1] ([1] A. Einstein, Ann. Physik \17, 891 (1905)) are always considered to be the relativistically correct Lorentz transformations (LT) of E and B. However, as proved in, e.g., [2] ([2] T. Ivezić, Found. Phys. Lett. 18, 301 (2005)), these transformations drastically differ from the LT of the relativistically correct 4D electric and magnetic fields. In this paper a simple proof of that difference will be presented and the consequences for EDM experiments and for some quantum phase shifts experiments are briefly examined. In all such experiments the usual 3D quantities, e.g., E, B, ... are measured and their relativistically incorrect transformations are used, but not the relativistically correct 4D geometric quantities, e.g., E^a, B^a, ... and their LT.
△ Less
Submitted 30 September, 2008;
originally announced September 2008.
-
Generalized Uhlenbeck-Goudsmit hypothesis 'Magnetic' S^{a} and 'Electric' Z^{a} Spins
Authors:
Tomislav Ivezic
Abstract:
In this paper, the connection between the dipole moment tensor D^{ab} and the spin four-tensor S^{ab} is formulated in the form of the generalized Uhlenbeck-Goudsmit hypothesis, D^{ab}=g_{S}S^{ab}. It is also found that the spin four-tensor S^{ab} can be decomposed into two 4-vectors, the usual `space-space' intrinsic angular momentum S^{a}, which will be called `magnetic' spin (mspin), and a new…
▽ More
In this paper, the connection between the dipole moment tensor D^{ab} and the spin four-tensor S^{ab} is formulated in the form of the generalized Uhlenbeck-Goudsmit hypothesis, D^{ab}=g_{S}S^{ab}. It is also found that the spin four-tensor S^{ab} can be decomposed into two 4-vectors, the usual `space-space' intrinsic angular momentum S^{a}, which will be called `magnetic' spin (mspin), and a new one, the `time-space' intrinsic angular momentum Z^{a}, which will be called `electric' spin (espin). Both spins are equally good physical quantities. Taking into account the generalized Uhlenbeck-Goudsmit hypothesis, the decomposition of S^{ab} and the decomposition of D^{ab} into the dipole moments m^{a} and d^{a}, we find that an electric dipole moment (EDM) of a fundamental particle, as a four-dimensional (4D) geometric quantity, is determined by Z^{a} and not, as generally accepted, by the spin $\mathbf{S}$ as a 3-vector. Also it is shown that neither the T inversion nor the P inversion are good symmetries in the 4D spacetime. In this geometric approach, only the world parity W, Wx^{a}=-x^{a}, is well defined in the 4D spacetime. Some consequences for elementary particle theories and experiments that search for EDM are briefly discussed.
△ Less
Submitted 23 March, 2010; v1 submitted 6 January, 2008;
originally announced January 2008.
-
The Intrinsic Electric Dipole Moment and the "Time-Space" Intrinsic Angular Momentum
Authors:
Tomislav Ivezic
Abstract:
In this paper it is found that the spin four-tensor $S^{ab}$ can be decomposed into two 4-vectors, the usual ``space-space'' intrinsic angular momentum $S^{a}$ and a new one, the ``time-space'' intrinsic angular momentum $Z^{a}$, which are both equally well physical quantities. It is shown that an electric dipole moment (EDM) of a fundamental particle, as a four-dimensional geometric quantity, i…
▽ More
In this paper it is found that the spin four-tensor $S^{ab}$ can be decomposed into two 4-vectors, the usual ``space-space'' intrinsic angular momentum $S^{a}$ and a new one, the ``time-space'' intrinsic angular momentum $Z^{a}$, which are both equally well physical quantities. It is shown that an electric dipole moment (EDM) of a fundamental particle, as a four-dimensional geometric quantity, is determined by $Z^{a}$ and not, as generally accepted, by the spin $\mathbf{S}$. Also it is proved that neither the $T$ inversion nor the $P$ inversion are good symmetries in the 4D spacetime. In our geometric approach only the world parity $W$, $% x^{a}\to -x^{a}$, is well-defined in the 4D spacetime. The consequences for elementary particle theories and experiments that search for EDM are briefly discussed.
△ Less
Submitted 25 September, 2007; v1 submitted 13 March, 2007;
originally announced March 2007.
-
Comment on "Röntgen Quantum Phase Shift: A Semiclassical Local Electrodynamical Effect?''
Authors:
Tomislav Ivezic
Abstract:
This paper is Comment on the paper: S.A.R. Horsley and M. Babiker, Phys. Rev. Lett. 95, 010405 (2005).
This paper is Comment on the paper: S.A.R. Horsley and M. Babiker, Phys. Rev. Lett. 95, 010405 (2005).
△ Less
Submitted 15 March, 2007; v1 submitted 3 December, 2006;
originally announced December 2006.
-
Comment on "Classical and Quantum Interaction of the Dipole"
Authors:
Tomislav Ivezic
Abstract:
In this paper I have presented Comment on Anandan's paper (J. Anandan, Phys. Rev. Lett. 85, 1354 (2000)) [hep-th/9910018].
In this paper I have presented Comment on Anandan's paper (J. Anandan, Phys. Rev. Lett. 85, 1354 (2000)) [hep-th/9910018].
△ Less
Submitted 15 March, 2007; v1 submitted 1 November, 2006;
originally announced November 2006.
-
Jackson's paradox and its resolution by the four-dimensional geometric quantities
Authors:
Tomislav Ivezic
Abstract:
In this paper it is shown that the real cause of Jackson's paradox is the use of three-dimensional (3D) quantities, e.g., $\mathbf{E}$, $% \mathbf{B}$, $\mathbf{F}$, $\mathbf{L}$, $\mathbf{T}$, their transformations and equations with them. The principle of relativity is naturally satisfied and there is no paradox when the physical reality is attributed to the 4D geometric quantities, e.g., to t…
▽ More
In this paper it is shown that the real cause of Jackson's paradox is the use of three-dimensional (3D) quantities, e.g., $\mathbf{E}$, $% \mathbf{B}$, $\mathbf{F}$, $\mathbf{L}$, $\mathbf{T}$, their transformations and equations with them. The principle of relativity is naturally satisfied and there is no paradox when the physical reality is attributed to the 4D geometric quantities, e.g., to the 4D torque $N$ (bivector) or, equivalently, to the 4D torques $N_{s}$ and $N_{t}$ (1-vectors), which together contain the same physical information as the bivector $N$.
△ Less
Submitted 4 August, 2006;
originally announced August 2006.
-
Lorentz and "apparent" transformations of the electric and magnetic fields
Authors:
Tomislav Ivezic
Abstract:
It is recently discovered that the usual transformations of the three-dimensional (3D) vectors of the electric and magnetic fields differ from the Lorentz transformations (LT) (boosts) of the corresponding 4D quantities that represent the electric and magnetic fields. In this paper, using geometric algebra formalism, this fundamental difference is examined representing the electric and magnetic…
▽ More
It is recently discovered that the usual transformations of the three-dimensional (3D) vectors of the electric and magnetic fields differ from the Lorentz transformations (LT) (boosts) of the corresponding 4D quantities that represent the electric and magnetic fields. In this paper, using geometric algebra formalism, this fundamental difference is examined representing the electric and magnetic fields by bivectors.
△ Less
Submitted 21 July, 2006;
originally announced July 2006.
-
Trouton-Noble paradox revisited
Authors:
Tomislav Ivezic
Abstract:
An apparent paradox is obtained in all previous treatments of the Trouton-Noble experiment; there is a three-dimensional torque in an inertial frame S in which a thin parallel-plate capacitor is moving, but there is no 3D torque in S', the rest frame of the capacitor. In this paper instead of using 3D quantities and their ``apparent'' transformations we deal with 4D geometric quantities their Lo…
▽ More
An apparent paradox is obtained in all previous treatments of the Trouton-Noble experiment; there is a three-dimensional torque in an inertial frame S in which a thin parallel-plate capacitor is moving, but there is no 3D torque in S', the rest frame of the capacitor. In this paper instead of using 3D quantities and their ``apparent'' transformations we deal with 4D geometric quantities their Lorentz transformations and equations with them. We introduce a new decomposition of the torque N (bivector) into 1-vectors N_{s} and N_{t}. It is shown that in the frame of ``fiducial'' observers, in which the observers who measure N_{s} and N_{t} are at rest, and in the standard basis, only the spatial components N_{s}^{i} and N_{t}^{i} remain, which can be associated with components of two 3D torques. In such treatment with 4D geometric quantities the mentioned paradox does not appear. The presented explanation is in a complete agreement with the principle of relativity and with the Trouton-Noble experiment without the introduction of any additional torque.
△ Less
Submitted 20 June, 2006;
originally announced June 2006.
-
Lorentz Invariant Majorana Formulation of the Field Equations and Dirac-like Equation for the Free Photon
Authors:
Tomislav Ivezic
Abstract:
In this paper we present a new geometric formulation (Clifford algebra formalism) of the field equations, which is independent of the reference frame and of the chosen system of coordinates in it. This formulation deals with the complex 1-vector $Ψ=E-icB$ ($i$ is the unit imaginary), which is four-dimensional (4D) geometric generalization of Majorana's complex 3D quantity…
▽ More
In this paper we present a new geometric formulation (Clifford algebra formalism) of the field equations, which is independent of the reference frame and of the chosen system of coordinates in it. This formulation deals with the complex 1-vector $Ψ=E-icB$ ($i$ is the unit imaginary), which is four-dimensional (4D) geometric generalization of Majorana's complex 3D quantity $\mathbfΨ=\mathbf{E}-ic\mathbf{B}$. When the sources are absent the field equations with the complex $Ψ$ become Dirac-like relativistic wave equations for the free photon. In the frame of ``fiducial'' observers (the observers who measure fields are at rest) and in the standard basis the component form of the field equations with 4D $Ψ$ reproduces the component form of Majorana-Maxwell equations with 3D field $\mathbfΨ$. The important differences between the approach with the 4D $Ψ$ and that one with the 3D $\mathbfΨ$ are discussed.
△ Less
Submitted 3 May, 2006;
originally announced May 2006.
-
The 4D geometric quantities versus the usual 3D quantities. The resolution of Jackson's paradox
Authors:
Tomislav Ivezic
Abstract:
In this paper we present definitions of different four-dimensional (4D) geometric quantities (Clifford multivectors). New decompositions of the torque N and the angular momentum M (bivectors) into 1-vectors N_{s}, N_{t} and M_{s}, M_{t} respectively are given. The torques N_{s}, N_{t} (the angular momentums M_{s}, M_{t}), taken together, contain the same physical information as the bivector N (t…
▽ More
In this paper we present definitions of different four-dimensional (4D) geometric quantities (Clifford multivectors). New decompositions of the torque N and the angular momentum M (bivectors) into 1-vectors N_{s}, N_{t} and M_{s}, M_{t} respectively are given. The torques N_{s}, N_{t} (the angular momentums M_{s}, M_{t}), taken together, contain the same physical information as the bivector N (the bivector M). The usual approaches that deal with the 3D quantities $\mathbf{E}$, $\mathbf{B}$, $\mathbf{F}$, $\mathbf{L}$, $\mathbf{N}$, etc. and their transformations are objected from the viewpoint of the invariant special relativity (ISR). In the ISR it is considered that 4D geometric quantities are well-defined both theoretically and \emph{experimentally} in the 4D spacetime. This is not the case with the usual 3D quantities. It is shown that there is no apparent electrodynamic paradox with the torque, and that the principle of relativity is naturally satisfied, when the 4D geometric quantities are used instead of the 3D quantities.
△ Less
Submitted 15 February, 2006;
originally announced February 2006.
-
Comment on ``Torque or no torque? Simple charged particle motion observed in different inertial frames,'' by J. D. Jackson [Am. J. Phys. 72 (12), 1484-1487 (2004)]
Authors:
Tomislav Ivezic
Abstract:
In this paper it is shown that the real cause of the apparent electrodynamic paradox discussed by Jackson [J. D. Jackson, Am. J. Phys. 72, 1484 (2004)] is the use of three-dimensional (3D) quantities E, B, F, L, N, .. . When 4D geometric quantities are used then there is no paradox and the principle of relativity is naturally satisfied.
In this paper it is shown that the real cause of the apparent electrodynamic paradox discussed by Jackson [J. D. Jackson, Am. J. Phys. 72, 1484 (2004)] is the use of three-dimensional (3D) quantities E, B, F, L, N, .. . When 4D geometric quantities are used then there is no paradox and the principle of relativity is naturally satisfied.
△ Less
Submitted 5 May, 2005;
originally announced May 2005.
-
Torque or no torque?! The resolution of the paradox using 4D geometric quantities with the explanation of the Trouton-Noble experiment
Authors:
Tomislav Ivezic
Abstract:
In this paper we have resolved the apparent paradox of different mechanical equations for force and torque governing the motion of a charged particle in different inertial frames. The same paradox arises in all usual ``explanations'' of the Trouton-Noble experiment. It is shown that the real cause of the paradoxes is - \emph{the use of three dimensional (3D) quantities}, e.g., $\mathbf{E}$,…
▽ More
In this paper we have resolved the apparent paradox of different mechanical equations for force and torque governing the motion of a charged particle in different inertial frames. The same paradox arises in all usual ``explanations'' of the Trouton-Noble experiment. It is shown that the real cause of the paradoxes is - \emph{the use of three dimensional (3D) quantities}, e.g., $\mathbf{E}$, $\mathbf{B}$, $\mathbf{F}$, $\mathbf{L}$, $% \mathbf{N}$, \emph{their transformations and equations with them.} Instead of using 3D quantities we deal with \emph{4D geometric quantities, their Lorentz transformations and equations with them}. In such treatment the paradoxes do not appear. The explanation with \emph{4D geometric quantities}% is in a complete agreement with the principle of relativity and with the Trouton-Noble experiment.
△ Less
Submitted 2 May, 2005;
originally announced May 2005.
-
Axiomatic geometric formulation of electromagnetism with only one axiom: the field equation for the bivector field F with an explanation of the Trouton-Noble experiment
Authors:
Tomislav Ivezic
Abstract:
In this paper we present an axiomatic, geometric, formulation of electromagnetism with only one axiom: the field equation for the Faraday bivector field F. This formulation with F field is a self-contained, complete and consistent formulation that dispenses with either electric and magnetic fields or the electromagnetic potentials. All physical quantities are defined without reference frames, th…
▽ More
In this paper we present an axiomatic, geometric, formulation of electromagnetism with only one axiom: the field equation for the Faraday bivector field F. This formulation with F field is a self-contained, complete and consistent formulation that dispenses with either electric and magnetic fields or the electromagnetic potentials. All physical quantities are defined without reference frames, the absolute quantities, i.e., they are geometric four dimensional (4D) quantities or, when some basis is introduced, every quantity is represented as a 4D coordinate-based geometric quantity comprising both components and a basis. The new observer independent expressions for the stress-energy vector T(n)(1-vector), the energy density U (scalar), the Poynting vector S and the momentum density g (1-vectors), the angular momentum density M (bivector) and the Lorentz force K (1-vector) are directly derived from the field equation for F. The local conservation laws are also directly derived from that field equation. The 1-vector Lagrangian with the F field as a 4D absolute quantity is presented; the interaction term is written in terms of F and not, as usual, in terms of A. It is shown that this geometric formulation is in a full agreement with the Trouton-Noble experiment.
△ Less
Submitted 20 May, 2005; v1 submitted 27 December, 2004;
originally announced December 2004.
-
The Proof that the Standard Transformations of E and B are not the Lorentz Transformations. Application to Motional EMF
Authors:
Tomislav Ivezic
Abstract:
In this paper it is proved by using the Clifford algebra formalism that the standard transformations (ST) of the three-dimensional (3D) vectors of the electric and magnetic fields E and B are not the Lorentz transformations (LT) of well-defined quantities from the 4D spacetime. This difference between the ST and the LT is obtained regardless of the used algebraic objects (1-vectors or bivectors)…
▽ More
In this paper it is proved by using the Clifford algebra formalism that the standard transformations (ST) of the three-dimensional (3D) vectors of the electric and magnetic fields E and B are not the Lorentz transformations (LT) of well-defined quantities from the 4D spacetime. This difference between the ST and the LT is obtained regardless of the used algebraic objects (1-vectors or bivectors) for the representation of the electric and magnetic fields in the usual observer dependent decompositions of F. The LT correctly transform the whole 4D quantity, e.g., E_{f}=F\cdot γ_{0}, whereas the ST are the result of the application of the LT only to the part of E_{f}, i.e., to F, but leaving gamma_{0} unchanged. The new decompositions of F in terms of 4D quantities that are defined without reference frames, i.e., the absolute quantities, are introduced and discussed. It is shown that the LT of the 4D quantities representing electric and magnetic fields correctly describe the motional electromotive force (emf) for all relatively moving inertial observers, whereas it is not the case with the ST of the 3D E and B.
△ Less
Submitted 18 November, 2004;
originally announced November 2004.
-
The Proof that Maxwell Equations with the 3D E and B are not Covariant upon the Lorentz Transformations but upon the Standard Transformations. The New Lorentz Invariant Field Equations
Authors:
Tomislav Ivezic
Abstract:
In this paper the Lorentz transformations (LT) and the standard transformations (ST) of the usual Maxwell equations (ME) with the three-dimensional (3D) vectors of the electric and magnetic fields, E and B respectively, are examined using both the geometric algebra and tensor formalisms. Different 4D algebric objects are used to represent the usual observer dependent and the new observer indepen…
▽ More
In this paper the Lorentz transformations (LT) and the standard transformations (ST) of the usual Maxwell equations (ME) with the three-dimensional (3D) vectors of the electric and magnetic fields, E and B respectively, are examined using both the geometric algebra and tensor formalisms. Different 4D algebric objects are used to represent the usual observer dependent and the new observer independent electric and magnetic fields. It is found that the ST of the ME differ from their LT and consequently that the ME with the 3D E and B are not covariant upon the LT but upon the ST. The obtained results do not depend on the character of the 4D algebric objects used to represent the electric and magnetic fields. The Lorentz invariant field equations are presented with 1-vectors E and B, bivectors E_{Hv} and B_{Hv} and the abstract tensors, the 4-vectors E^{a} and B^{a}. All these quantities are defined without reference frames, i.e., as absolute quantities. When some basis has been introduced, they are represented as coordinate-based geometric quantities comprising both components and a basis. It is explicitly shown that this geometric approach agrees with experiments, e.g., the Faraday disk, in all relatively moving inertial frames of reference, which is not the case with the usual approach with the 3D E and B and their ST.
△ Less
Submitted 18 November, 2004; v1 submitted 23 September, 2004;
originally announced September 2004.
-
The exact proof that Maxwell equations with the 3D E and B are not Lorentz covariant equations. The new Lorentz invariant field equations
Authors:
Tomislav Ivezic
Abstract:
In this paper it will be exactly proved both in the geometric algebra and tensor formalisms that the usual Maxwell equations with the three-dimensional (3D) vectors of the electric and magnetic fields, E{bold} and B{bold} respectively, are not, contrary to the general opinion, Lorentz covariant equations. Consequently they are not equivalent to the field equations with the observer independent q…
▽ More
In this paper it will be exactly proved both in the geometric algebra and tensor formalisms that the usual Maxwell equations with the three-dimensional (3D) vectors of the electric and magnetic fields, E{bold} and B{bold} respectively, are not, contrary to the general opinion, Lorentz covariant equations. Consequently they are not equivalent to the field equations with the observer independent quantities, the electromagnetic field tensor Fsup{ab} (tensor formalism) or with the bivector field F (the geometric algebra formalism). Different 4D algebric objects are used to represent the standard observer dependent and the new observer independent electric and magnetic fields. The proof of a fundamental disagreement between the standard electromagnetism and the special relativity does not depend on the character of the 4D algebric object used to represent the electric and magnetic fields. The Lorentz invariant field equations are presented with 1-vectors E and B, bivectors Esub{HL} and Bsub{HL} and the abstract tensors, the 4-vectors Esup{a} and Bsup{a}. All these quantities are defined without reference frames. Such field equations are in a complete agreement with experiments.
△ Less
Submitted 10 November, 2003;
originally announced November 2003.
-
Lorentz invariant relativistic electrodynamics in the Clifford algebra formalism. The formulation with bivector field F
Authors:
Tomislav Ivezic
Abstract:
In this paper we present the formulation of relativistic electrodynamics (independent of the reference frame and of the chosen system of coordinates in it) that uses the Faraday bivector field F. This formulation with F field is a self-contained, complete and consistent formulation that dispenses with either electric and magnetic fields or the electromagnetic potentials. All physical quantities…
▽ More
In this paper we present the formulation of relativistic electrodynamics (independent of the reference frame and of the chosen system of coordinates in it) that uses the Faraday bivector field F. This formulation with F field is a self-contained, complete and consistent formulation that dispenses with either electric and magnetic fields or the electromagnetic potentials. All physical quantities are defined without reference frames or, when some basis is introduced, every quantity is represented as a coordinate-based geometric quantity comprising both components and a basis. The new, observer independent, expressions for the stress-energy vector T(n), the energy density U, the Poynting vector S and the momentum density g, the angular momentum density M and the Lorentz force K are directly derived from the field equations with F.
△ Less
Submitted 21 May, 2003;
originally announced May 2003.
-
The Proof that the Standard Transformations of E and B are not the Lorentz Transformations. Clifford Algebra Formalism
Authors:
Tomislav Ivezic
Abstract:
In this paper it is exactly proved by using the Clifford algebra formalism that the standard transformations of the three-dimensional (3D) vectors of the electric and magnetic fields E and B are not the Lorentz transformations of well-defined quantities from the 4D spacetime but the 'apparent' transformations of the 3D quantities. Thence the usual Maxwell equations with the 3D E and B are not in…
▽ More
In this paper it is exactly proved by using the Clifford algebra formalism that the standard transformations of the three-dimensional (3D) vectors of the electric and magnetic fields E and B are not the Lorentz transformations of well-defined quantities from the 4D spacetime but the 'apparent' transformations of the 3D quantities. Thence the usual Maxwell equations with the 3D E and B are not in agreement with special relativity. The 1-vectors E and B, as well-defined 4D quantities, are introduced instead of ill-defined 3D E and B.
△ Less
Submitted 21 July, 2003; v1 submitted 22 April, 2003;
originally announced April 2003.
-
An Invariant Formulation of Special Relativity, or the "True Transformation Relativity," and its Comparison with Experiments
Authors:
Tomislav Ivezic
Abstract:
Different formulations of special relativity are theoretically discussed. First an invariant formulation, i.e., the ''true transformations (TT) relativity,'' is exposed. There a physical quantity is represented by a true tensor which comprises both components and a basis. Also the usual covariant formulation and the ''apparent transformations (AT) relativity'' are considered. It is shown that al…
▽ More
Different formulations of special relativity are theoretically discussed. First an invariant formulation, i.e., the ''true transformations (TT) relativity,'' is exposed. There a physical quantity is represented by a true tensor which comprises both components and a basis. Also the usual covariant formulation and the ''apparent transformations (AT) relativity'' are considered. It is shown that all the experiments are in agreement with the ''TT relativity'' but not always with the ''AT relativity.''
△ Less
Submitted 9 March, 2001;
originally announced March 2001.
-
Relatively Moving Systems in "True Transformations Relativity"
Authors:
Tomislav Ivezic
Abstract:
In this paper the physical systems consisting of relatively moving subsystems are considered in the "true transformations relativity." It is found in a manifestly covariant way that there is a second-order electric field outside stationary current-carrying conductor. It is also found that there are opposite charges on opposite sides of a square loop with current and these charges are invariant cha…
▽ More
In this paper the physical systems consisting of relatively moving subsystems are considered in the "true transformations relativity." It is found in a manifestly covariant way that there is a second-order electric field outside stationary current-carrying conductor. It is also found that there are opposite charges on opposite sides of a square loop with current and these charges are invariant charges.
△ Less
Submitted 27 April, 2012; v1 submitted 6 February, 2001;
originally announced February 2001.
-
Covariant Formulation of Electromagnetic 4-Momentum in Terms of 4-Vectors E^αand B^α
Authors:
Tomislav Ivezic
Abstract:
The fundamental difference between the true transformations (TT) and the apparent transformations (AT) is explained. The TT refer to the same quantity, while the AT refer, e.g., to the same measurement in different inertial frames of reference. It is shown that the usual transformations of the three-vectors E and B are - the AT. The covariant electrodynamics with the four-vectors E(sup alpha) an…
▽ More
The fundamental difference between the true transformations (TT) and the apparent transformations (AT) is explained. The TT refer to the same quantity, while the AT refer, e.g., to the same measurement in different inertial frames of reference. It is shown that the usual transformations of the three-vectors E and B are - the AT. The covariant electrodynamics with the four-vectors E(sup alpha) and B(sup alpha) of the electric and magnetic field is constructed. It is also shown that the conventional synchronous definitions of the electromagnetic energy and momentum contain both, the AT of the volume, i.e.,the Lorentz contraction, and the AT of E and B, while Rohrlich's expressions contain only the AT of E and B. A manifestly covariant expression for the energy-momentum density tensor and the electromagnetic 4-momentum is constructed using E(sup alpha) and B(sup alpha). The "4/3" problem is discussed and it is shown that all previous treatments either contain the AT of the volume, or the AT of E and B, or both of them. In our approach all quantities are four-dimensional spacetime tensors whose transformations are the TT.
△ Less
Submitted 6 February, 2001;
originally announced February 2001.
-
The "True Transformations Relativity" Analysis of the Michelson_morley Experiment
Authors:
Tomislav Ivezic
Abstract:
In this paper we present an invariant formulation of special relativity, i.e., the ''true transformations relativity.'' It deals either with true tensor quantities (when no basis has been introduced) or equivalently with coordinate- based geometric quantities comprising both components and a basis (when some basis has been introduced). It is shown that this invariant formulation, in which specia…
▽ More
In this paper we present an invariant formulation of special relativity, i.e., the ''true transformations relativity.'' It deals either with true tensor quantities (when no basis has been introduced) or equivalently with coordinate- based geometric quantities comprising both components and a basis (when some basis has been introduced). It is shown that this invariant formulation, in which special relativity is understood as the theory of a four-dimensional spacetime with the pseudo-Euclidean geometry, completely explains the results of the Michelson-Morley experiment. Two noncovariant approaches to the analysis of the Michelson-Morley experiment are discussed; the coventional one in which only the path lengths (optical or geometrical) are considered, and Driscoll's approach (R.B. Driscoll, Phys. Essays \QTR{bf}{10,}394 (1997)), in which the increment of phase is determined not only by the segment of geometric path length, but also by the wavelength in that segment. Because these analyses belong to the ''apparent transformations relativity,'' they do not agree with the results of the Michelson-Morley experiment.
△ Less
Submitted 26 January, 2001;
originally announced January 2001.
-
"True Transformations Relativity" and Electrodynamics
Authors:
Tomislav Ivezic
Abstract:
Different approaches to special relativity (SR) are discussed. The first approach is an invariant approach in which physical quantities in the four-dimensional spacetime are represented by true tensors or equivalently by coordinate-based geometric quantities comprising both components and a basis. This approach we call the ''true transformations (TT) relativity.'' It is compared with the usual c…
▽ More
Different approaches to special relativity (SR) are discussed. The first approach is an invariant approach in which physical quantities in the four-dimensional spacetime are represented by true tensors or equivalently by coordinate-based geometric quantities comprising both components and a basis. This approach we call the ''true transformations (TT) relativity.'' It is compared with the usual covariant approach, which mainly deals with the basis components of true tensors. The third approach is the usual noncovariant approach to SR in which some quantities are not tensor quantities, but rather quantities from ''3+1'' space and time, e.g., the synchronously determined spatial length. This formulation is called the ''apparent transformations (AT)\ relativity.'' The spacetime length is considered in the ''TT relativity'' and spatial and temporal distances in the ''AT relativity.'' It is also found that the usual transformations of the three-vectors of the electric and magnetic fields $\QTR{bf}{E}$ and $\QTR{bf}{B}$ are the AT. The Maxwell equations with $F^{ab}$ are written in terms of the 4-vectors of the electric $E^{a}$ and magnetic $B^{a}$ fields. The covariant Majorana electromagnetic field 4-vector $Ψ^{a}$ is constructed by means of 4-vectors $E^{a}$ and $B^{a}$ and the covariant Majorana formulation of electrodynamics is presented. A Dirac like relativistic wave equation for the free photon is obtained.
△ Less
Submitted 20 December, 2000;
originally announced December 2000.
-
True Transformations of Spacetime Lengths and Apparent Transformations of Spatial and Temporal Distances. II. the Comparison with Experiments
Authors:
Tomislav Ivezic
Abstract:
Some of the well-known experiments: the ''muon'' experiment, the Michelson-Morley type experiments, the Kennedy-Thorndike type experiments and the Ives-Stilwell type experiments are analyzed using the nonrelativistic theory, the ''apparent transformations (AT) relativity'' and the ''true transformations (TT) relativity.'' It is shown that all the experiments (when they are complete from the ''TT…
▽ More
Some of the well-known experiments: the ''muon'' experiment, the Michelson-Morley type experiments, the Kennedy-Thorndike type experiments and the Ives-Stilwell type experiments are analyzed using the nonrelativistic theory, the ''apparent transformations (AT) relativity'' and the ''true transformations (TT) relativity.'' It is shown that all the experiments (when they are complete from the ''TT relativity'' viewpoint) are in agreement with the ''TT relativity'' in which the special relativity is understood as the theory of a four-dimensional spacetime with the pseudo-Euclidean geometry. It is also explicitly shown that, in contrast to the usual opinion, the commonly used ''AT relativity'' does not always agree with experiments. The concept of sameness of a physical quantity is essential for the distinction between the two forms of relativity both in the theory and in experiments. The difference in this concept causes the agreement of the ''TT relativity'' with the experiments and the disagreement of the ''AT relativity.''
△ Less
Submitted 10 July, 2000;
originally announced July 2000.
-
True Transformations of Spacetime Lengths and Apparent Transformations of Spatial and Temporal Distances. I. the Theory
Authors:
Tomislav Ivezic
Abstract:
It is shown in this paper that the difference between the two forms of relativity - the ''true transformation (TT) relativity'' and - the ''apparent transformation (AT) relativity'' is essentially caused by the difference in the concept of \emph{sameness} of a physical system, i.e., of a physical quantity, for different, relatively moving, observers. In the ''TT relativity'' the same quantity fo…
▽ More
It is shown in this paper that the difference between the two forms of relativity - the ''true transformation (TT) relativity'' and - the ''apparent transformation (AT) relativity'' is essentially caused by the difference in the concept of \emph{sameness} of a physical system, i.e., of a physical quantity, for different, relatively moving, observers. In the ''TT relativity'' the same quantity for different inertial frames of reference is covariantly defined four-dimensional (4D) tensor quantity, which transforms according to the Lorentz transformation as the TT. In the ''AT relativity'' parts of a 4D tensor quantity are often considered as the same quantity for different observers, although they correspond to different quantities in 4D spacetime, and they are not connected by the Lorentz transformation than by the AT. Then the true transformations of a spacetime length and the apparent transformations of a spatial distance (the Lorentz contraction) and of a temporal distance (the usual dilatation of time) are examined in detail. It is proved that only the true transformations of the spacetime length are in agreement with the special relativity as the theory of a 4D spacetime with the pseudo-Euclidean geometry.
△ Less
Submitted 10 July, 2000;
originally announced July 2000.
