See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: [Link]

net/publication/270822862

Modern Helmholtzian Electrodynamics as a Covering Classical

Electromagnetic Theory

Article · January 2001

CITATION READS

1 466

2 authors:

Roman Smirnov-Rueda Andrew Chubykalo

Complutense University of Madrid Autonomous University of Zacatecas
51 PUBLICATIONS 631 CITATIONS 118 PUBLICATIONS 569 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Classical theory of fields View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Andrew Chubykalo on 13 January 2015.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

[Link]
R. Smirnov-Rueda, A.E. Chubykalo
Departamento de Matematica Aplicada, Facultad de Informatica,
Universidad Complutense de Madrid
28040 Madrid, Spain &
Escuela de Fisica, Facultad de Matematicas
Universidad Autonoma de Zacatecas
Apartado Postal C-580
98068 Zacatecas, Mexico

Modern Helmholtzian Electrodynamics as a Covering

Classical Electromagnetic Theory
Contents
1. Introduction 540

2. Historical background of classical electrodynamics 540

3. Conventional and alternative interpretations of Hertz’s crucial experiments 543

4. Arguments in favour of alternative Helmholtz-type theory of electromagnetism 547

5. An example of ambiguity of Faraday-Maxwell’s concept of local (contact) field in the

conventional electromagnetic theory 548

6. Mathematical foundations of Helmholtz-type electrodynamics 549

7. Mathematical inconsistencies in the formulation of Maxwell-Lorentz equations for one charge

system 552

8. Reconsidered Maxwell-Hertz theory and relativistically invariant formulation of generalized

Maxwell’s equations 556

9. Analysis of classical difficulties and the Hamiltonian form of generalized Maxwell’s equations560

[Link]-radiation condition for free electromagnetic field 563

[Link] 565

Abstract
The discussion of the historical background of the 19th century electromagnetic theory has shown that from the standpoint
of modern scientific method, the Hertz experiments on propagation of electromagnetic interactions cannot be considered
as conclusive at many points as it is generally implied. It has been found that alternative Helmholtz’s electrodynamics did
not contradict Hertz’s experimental observations. Mathematical analysis of the conventional electromagnetic theory showed
that numerous ambiguities are related to the treatment of time behaviours. Those difficulties turn out to be cleared up by
distinguishing between implicit and explicit time dependencies. It provides self-consistency for mathematical description of
electromagnetic theory by advocating the explicit use of full time derivatives in the mathematical formulation of Maxwell’s
equations. This approach covers conventional electromagnetic theory based on partial time derivatives. The covering theory
is showed to possess all necessary relativistic invariance properties for inertial frames of references. The idea of non-
local interactions is enclosed into the framework of Helmholtzian electromagnetic theory as unambiguous mathematical
feature. In this work we make a point that Helmholtz’s foundations and modern Helmholtz-type electrodynamics recently
developed by the authors and reviewed here promise, in general, an altogether more logical solution to self-consistent
classical electrodynamics and its reconciliation with quantum mechanics.

539
 R. Smirnov-Rueda, A.E. Chubykalo

1. Introduction the existence of radial forces as a basic assumption of

instantaneous action-at-a-distance (IAAAD) theories
There is no need to argue that classical was confirmed by Ampere experimentally to the
electrodynamics is one of the corner-stones of degree of accuracy available at that time. Thus,
modern physics. At first stages the development of electric and magnetic interactions were thought to
electromagnetic theory proceeded in accordance with be completely analogous to gravitational attractions
Newtonian traditional outlook on the world based which, according to astronomical observations, had
on the instantaneous action-at-a-distance (IAAAD). no detectable aberration and always acted along the
Faraday’s discovery of induction highlighted limited line joining the simultaneous positions of two bodies.
validity of IAAAD in describing electromagnetic Bearing in mind the accuracy-limit of astronomical
phenomena. A notion of local (contact) field was data at that time, Laplace (1799) [2] calculated,
proposed by Faraday not to incorporate but to measuring possible aberration effects, that the speed
replace Newtonian IAAAD. As a result, the state of of propagation of gravitational interaction had to
electrodynamics in the middle of the 19th century exceed at least eight orders of magnitude the speed
was characterised by opposition of a few alternatives. of light. (Recently, Van Flandern claimed to rise that
Hertz’s discovery of electromagnetic waves played a limit two orders of magnitude [3]: ”...Perhaps contact
crucial role in choosing a definitive modern version of binary star systems place the tightest constraints on
classical electrodynamics. However, nowadays only a a lower limit to the speed of propagation of gravity.
few researchers are aware of the fact that Helmholtz’s Unless the speed of gravity exceeds 1010 times the
electrodynamics was also consistent with Hertz’s speed of light, such systems would fly apart within a
experiments as well as with all known 19th century’s few hundred years...”).
experimental data (see, for instance, [1]). Why and Laplace’s respectable conclusion gave major
how Maxwell’s electrodynamics became a favourite support to the validity of the IAAAD concept, leaving
needs to be revisited in detail. open the question of the physical cause of gravity.
On this latter subject, a conceptual arm-wrestle
2. Historical background of was initiated between supporters and detractors of
classical electrodynamics IAAAD. Newton himself had already thought that
some physical mediator must exist [4]. ”It is absurd,”
In order to appreciate the difficulty and the he said, ”to suppose that gravity is innate and acts
importance of the task undertaken by Hertz in without a medium, either material or immaterial”.
his experimental investigations, it is worth recalling Many eminent scientists like Laplace explained the
the uncertain and highly controversial state of phenomenon as due to an ’impulsion’ of some
electrodynamics at that time. Hertz himself was immaterial fluid, but did not find it appropriate at
trained in the research tradition of the Berlin school the time to search for a reliable physical explanation
headed by Helmholtz who from the middle 1860’s, had of the cause of interaction, and so they bequeathed
sought to clarify existing principles in electromagnetic this task to future generations. ”There is no need
theory and to reach a consensus between the two at all,” declared Laplace (1796) [5], ”to posit vague
major directions in electromagnetic research of that causes, impossible to submit to analysis, and which the
time, namely, Newton’s instantaneous action-at-a- imagination modifies to its liking in order to explain
distance concept as used by Weber, and Faraday’s these phenomena”.
contact action concept as developed by Maxwell. By At that stage, it is not surprising that for many
the time of Helmholtz’s first attempt at reconciliation of the adversaries of IAAAD these suggestions of
(1870), the theoretical schemes of Weber and Maxwell ’immateriality’ could not be dissociated from spiritual,
had successfully incorporated all previously well- religious and other non-scientific notions. This path
established descriptions and empirical facts, such as of reasoning led them to conclude that if the
the electric potential theory (electrostatics), Ampere’s IAAAD concept did not imply any material mediator,
magnetostatics and Faraday’s theory of induction. then it did not imply any physical mediator at all
Weber developed his theory (1848) in accordance (compare it, for instance, with nowadays explanation
with the Newtonian program, which prescribed of interaction mediated by material as well as by
that all forces between pairs of particles should non-material virtual particles). Thus, in their opinion
be radial, acting directly through space (i.e. IAAAD became inconceivable from the point of view
along the line between the particles) without any of common-sense logic. This prepared the ground
observable material mediator. Restriction on this for the reappearance of an alternative Aristotelian
radial description of electromagnetic forces came concept, namely, that of action by local contact (or
from Ampere, who understood that instantaneity contact action). Thought-provoking examination of
means no delay, hence no aberration. Any aberration that resurgence and related modern topics on the
attending the finite propagational velocity of debate between far- and local actions can be found
interactions would imply non-radial forces. However, in a well-written book by Graneau’s [6].

540 "Электромагнитные Явления", Т.2, №4 (8), 2001 г.

 Modern Helmholtzian Electrodynamics as a Covering Classical Electromagnetic Theory

In its modern form, the concept of local (contact) hydrodynamics, the attitude towards IAAAD changed
field was reintroduced by Faraday and it appeared from the summary rejection of its unphysical status
to give a more realistic physical description of to an awareness of a deep similarity between the
the phenomena, based on the causality of local potential function and the velocity-field of a fluid. It
interactions. This way of reasoning attracted Maxwell, had been realised that the main difference between
who tried to work out his own comprehensive field IAAAD and Faraday’s ‘field’ was the fact that in
theory based on Faraday’s concept. However, Maxwell IAAAD a potential need not necessarily describe a
himself was aware of the provisional, ’scaffolding’ material property of anything, whereas for Faraday
status of his rationale. Moreover, he encountered it was the property of a material substance which
some conceptual difficulties, since he had incorporated could be observed in ways familiar to ordinary matter
all the basic IAAAD results such as electrostatics such as, for instance, liquids and gases. Like any
and magnetostatics without any modification. With other material substance, therefore, Faraday’s ‘field’
regard to the lines of force treated by Faraday could be regarded as something movable with positive
as the representation of a material field, Maxwell’s kinetic energy and, therefore, detectable empirically.
own position was still undefined, but he cautiously This suggests that an important criterion, as Hesse
dealt with them as if they were lines of flow of an puts it [10]: ”...in deciding whether or not a field
incompressible, imaginary fluid. As Maxwell stated [7]: is to be regarded as a physically continuous medium
”The substance here treated of must not be assumed rather than a mere mathematical device lies in its
to possess any of the properties of ordinary fluids possession of detectable properties other than the one
except those of freedom of motion and resistance to property for which it was introduced. A condition of
compression. It is not even a hypothetical fluid which this kind is often suggested as a of the physical ‘reality’
is introduced to explain actual phenomena. It is merely of a theoretical entity, and it led Faraday to express
a collection of imaginary properties which may be his dissatisfaction with Newtonian gravitation. But
employed for establishing certain theorems in pure independent detection was not the only consideration
mathematics in a way more intelligible to many minds which weighed with the nineteenth- century physicists.
and more applicable to physical problems than that in They were prepared to regard a field as a physically
which algebraic symbols alone are used”. continuous medium on other and less stringent terms,
Consequently, being in a static limit, for example, if propagation was affected by material
mathematically equivalent to older IAAAD theories, changes in the intervening space, if it took time,
the status of contact field theory could not have been if a mechanical model could be imagined for the
considered free of ambiguity [8]. In other words, in action of a medium in producing the observed effect,
this static limit, electric and magnetic fields behaved or if energy could be located in the space between
very much as flows of an ideal, incompressible fluid, interacting bodies. Any of these three conditions might
in which case they were indistinguishable from be regarded as sufficient and no one of them was
IAAAD. These uncertainties in Maxwell’s original individually necessary. Thus, gravitation remained
theoretical scheme were later summarised clearly and an action at a distance throughout the nineteenth
concisely by Hertz, who wrote [9]: ”...Maxwell’s own century, in spite of its description by a potential
representation does not indicate the highest attainable theory, because it did not satisfy any of these criteria,
goal; it frequently wavers between the conceptions whereas the electromagnetic field theory began to take
which Maxwell found in existence, and those at which on the characteristics of continuous action because
he arrived. Maxwell starts with the assumption of it satisfied all of them. It is sometimes suggested in
direct actions-at-a-distance; he investigates the laws modern (post-relativity) works that a finite velocity
according to which hypothetical polarisations of the of propagation is a necessary as well as sufficient
dielectric ether vary under the influence of such condition for continuous action, and that this is
distance- forces; and he ends by asserting that these why instantaneous gravitation could not be regarded
polarisations do really vary in this way, but without as such an action, but in classical physics there
being actually caused to do so by distance-forces. This is instantaneous transmission of pressure and of
procedure leaves behind it the unsatisfactory feeling longitudinal waves in an incompressible medium, and
that there must be something wrong about either the this would certainly be regarded as continuous action”.
final result or the way which led to it.” From this survey of the two opposite conceptual
As an approach to clarifying these uncertainties, foundations, we may conclude that the nineteenth-
let us examine the essential distinction between century physicists considered as sufficient conditions
the conceptual foundations of IAAAD and those for validity of Faraday-Maxwell’s field concept:
of contact-field doctrines. At the beginning of
the nineteenth century, the possibility of a final 1. propagation of fields producing material changes
explanation of IAAAD as the basis of gravitational in the surrounding space;
and electric forces had not been completely ruled out.
Moreover, due to the rapid development of theoretical 2. time-delay in propagation;

"Electromagnetic Phenomena", V.2, №4 (8), 2001 541

 R. Smirnov-Rueda, A.E. Chubykalo

3. experimental observation of the energy located instantaneous at the Maxwellian limit (k = 0).
between interacting bodies. Interpretation of this conclusion and its consequences
became a hard nut to crack for all contemporary
Nevertheless, as will be discussed later, the above- electrodynamicists. Maxwellian followers (Heaviside,
mentioned conditions should be considered only as FitzGerald, Lodge etc.) refused to accept Helmholtz’s
necessary, not sufficient for establishing the existence theory because they found his conceptions entirely
of Faraday-type contact fields, since there might foreign to Maxwell’s view of the transmission of
be a third alternative which would combine both interaction but ignored the fact that both theories
IAAAD and Faraday’s contact-field features in a single could be considered mathematically equivalent.
scheme. In fact, examining the historical background (A comprehensive discussion on this mathematical
of nineteenth century electrodynamics, such a third equivalence was made by O’Rahilly [15]).
alternative did actually exist and this was the so-called Helmholtz’s attempt at a more consistent
compromise theory of Helmholtz. reformulation of the contemporary electrodynamics
By the time Helmholtz became actively involved in theories could not, however, resolve the problem of
resolving problems of electromagnetism, in the middle which approach to favour. Therefore, the need for
of the 1860’s, Weber’s and Maxwell’s supporters had decisive and reliable experimental data was urgent
already been locked in a lengthy and futile conflict. when Hertz became interested in electromagnetic
Helmholtz attempted to make a decisive choice research.
between them by constructing his own mathematical
scheme and designing crucial experiments to weigh
in favour of either Weber’s theory or Maxwell’s. 3. Conventional and alternative
Being aware of their respective advantages and
disadvantages, Helmholtz [11] attempted to elaborate
interpretations of Hertz’s
his compromise approach aimed at combining the crucial experiments
important elements of the two theories. However,
he did not accept the idea of Maxwell’s light- In 1879 Helmholtz proposed a prize competition,
ether and adopted, instead, the concept of the ”To establish experimentally a relation between
dielectric and diamagnetic medium. The condition of electromagnetic action and the polarisation of
infinite polarizability, in this ether model, required dielectrics” and urged his student Hertz to take up
the charge to behave like an incompressible fluid, the challenge. At first, Hertz declined, discouraged by
making all circuits closed as in Maxwell’s theory. the poor prospects of success at that time. Later on, he
When trying to arrive at results similar to Maxwell’s began investigating the problem for his own interest.
without losing the elements of action-at-a-distance, In 1886–88, at Karlsruhe, he attempted to establish
Helmholtz assumed that the electrostatic forces are the compatibility of the theories of Helmholtz and
constantly present as a field in space and that the Maxwell in a new series of experiments. He designed
change in the polarisation or the displacement of the his measurement-procedure, taking into account
charges signalled the change in the electrostatic field. Helmholtz’s separation of the total electric force into
As discussed in [12, 13], under these assumptions, the electrostatic and electrodynamic parts to which
Helmholtz successfully derived generalised equations different velocities of propagation were ascribed. In
very similar to those of Maxwell and found that Hertz’s words [16]: ”The total force may be split up
in a limited case they yield equations identical to into the electrostatic part and electrodynamic part;
Maxwell’s. Solving these equations for a homogeneous there is no doubt that at short distances the former,
dielectric medium, he arrived at the wave equations at great distances the latter, preponderates and settles
for electric and magnetic polarisations, respectively, the direction of the total force”.
with undetermined constant k (see, for instance, [12, He was aware of the different rate of decrease
13], or [14]). Equations for electric polarisation and with distance for each of these forces. According
magnetic polarisation have solutions for transverse to Coulomb’s law, the electrostatic component was
waves whereas equation for electric polarisation also thought to be proportional to the inverse square
defines longitudinal waves. of the distance, whereas the electrodynamic part
The conciliatory aspect of Helmholtz’s approach was only proportional to the inverse of the distance
resulted in the following peculiarity. The results (in the conventional theory of the Lienard-Wiechert
of Maxwell’s theory can be obtained by setting potential it would correspond to decreasing rates of
k = 0 (and, of course, by setting the values of the bound-field, or longitudinal, component and the
electromagnetic constants in correspondence with the radiation field, or transverse component, respectively).
model of the light-ether). In addition to the ordinary It is not surprising, therefore, that the systematic
transverse electromagnetic waves already confirmed identification of the components of the total force
by Maxwell, Helmholtz discovered the existence of appeared to be an extremely difficult task for
longitudinal electric waves which turned out to be any reliable experiment of that time because the

542 "Электромагнитные Явления", Т.2, №4 (8), 2001 г.

 Modern Helmholtzian Electrodynamics as a Covering Classical Electromagnetic Theory

magnitude and the phase of the total force as forces possess different velocities”.
a superposition of components propagating with It should be especially stressed that Hertz at
different speeds and decreasing rates would be this stage was fully aware of the need for additional
constantly changing with distance. Even for modern experiments to cast some light of certainty on the
experimental techniques this task is not an easy one electrostatic part [18]: ”It is certainly remarkable that
because in addition to the knowledge of the total the proof of a finite rate of propagation should have
force, one of the components should also be verified been first brought forward in the case of a force
quantitatively. which diminishes in inverse proportion to the distance
Hertz decided to carry out experiments. Despite [electrodynamic part], and not to the square of the
the uncertainty of some of the results of his first distance [electrostatic part]. But it is worth while
experiments, Hertz [17] could already make an pointing out that this proof must also affect such forces
important, albeit only qualitative, conclusion: ”There as are inversely proportional to the square of the
are already many reasons for believing that the distance”.
transversal waves of light are electromagnetic waves; It is interesting briefly to follow Hertz’s gradual
a firm foundation for this hypothesis is furnished shift towards accepting Maxwell’s field concepts. He
by showing the actual existence in free space of started with Helmholtz’s theory, and his conversion to
electromagnetic transversal waves which propagated Maxwell’s viewpoint was an uneasy process, possibly
with a velocity akin to that of light”. This qualitative never fully completed due to his (Hertz’s) premature
result was published in a paper entitled ”On the death. He began analysing the underlying concepts
Finite Velocity of Propagation of Electromagnetic in the Maxwellian limit of Helmholtz’s theory but
Action” (1888) which nowadays, according to the his final interpretation became essentially different
established historiography of physics, is considered a in form from what had been commonly accepted
classical reference in which the difficult task of proving by Helmholtz and his supporters. More specifically,
the finite propagation velocity of electromagnetic Hertz uncritically assumed that in Maxwell’s limit
interactions in air has been achieved. the instantaneous longitudinal component should
Nevertheless, it should be noted that the title be excluded from consideration in Helmholtz’s
of Hertz’s paper is perhaps misleading nowadays, original theory. All forces then became explicitly
because conventional Maxwellian electrodynamics time dependent. This was a drastic departure from
does not employ the Helmholtzian ’action’ his mentor’s philosophical foundations because
terminology, nor does it split?up the total electric Helmholtz rejected time dependent forces (he
force into electromagnetic and electrostatic parts. admitted only implicit time dependence upon space
However, for Hertz’s contemporaries who supported position) and was deeply convinced that ”..nature
the Helmholtz theory, the underlying meaning of could only be comprehended through invariable causes
the presented results was clear enough: Hertz’s ... Helmholtz viewed electromagnetic interactions
experiment could qualitatively conclude about the — indeed, all interactions, — as instantaneous and
finite propagation of the electromagnetic (transverse) bipartite...” [20] and, therefore, could attribute
part, but could say nothing definite about the interactions only to longitudinal components
electrostatic (longitudinal) component. Looking (electrostatic forces). In Hertz’s own words [21]:
carefully through the same paper, we find Hertz ”...Helmholtz distinguishes between two forms
declaring [18]: ”From this it follows that the absolute of electrical force the electromagnetic and the
value of the first of these is of the same order as the electrostatic to which, until the contrary is proved
velocity of light. Nothing can as yet be decided as to by experience, two different velocities are attributed.
the propagation of electrostatic actions”. An interpretation of the experiments from this point
Moreover, some of Hertz’s measurements [19] of view could certainly not be incorrect, but it might
tended towards the instantaneous nature of the perhaps be unnecessarily complicated. In a special
electrostatic mode, but he was still not convinced limiting case Helmholtz’s theory becomes considerably
of this instantaneity and preferred to be cautious, simplified, and its equations in this case become the
since his method was unable to provide him with any same as those of Maxwell’s theory; only one form
reliable quantitative results: ”Since the interferences of the force remains, and this is propagated with the
undoubtedly change sign after 2.8 meters in the velocity of light. I had to try whether the experiments
neighbourhood of the primary oscillation, we might would not agree with these much simpler assumptions
conclude that the electrostatic force which here of Maxwell’s theory. The attempt was successful. The
predominates is propagated with infinite velocity. But result of the calculation are given in the paper on
this conclusion would in the main depend upon a ‘The Forces of Electric Oscillations, treated according
single change of phase... If the absolute velocity to Maxwell’s Theory.”
of the electrostatic force remains for the present This paper was published in 1889, one year
unknown, there may yet be adduced definite reasons after the discussion of Hertz’s first results, which
for believing that the electrostatic and electromagnetic apparently were not sufficient to conclude which of

"Electromagnetic Phenomena", V.2, №4 (8), 2001 543

 R. Smirnov-Rueda, A.E. Chubykalo

the two theoretical descriptions was more adequate. Maxwell contact-field doctrine. The prediction would
Already discouraged by the complexity of Helmholtz’s imply the existence of a small but macroscopic
approach for a careful account of the experimental region where the notion of Faraday locality becomes
data, Hertz tried in this paper to show how the invalid. On the other hand, it also shows some
observed singularities in the propagation of the electric possible ’fuzziness’ in the relationship between static
force could be described by Maxwell’s theoretical and dynamic limits in Maxwell’s theory, as already
scheme. As Hertz explained [22]: ”The results of mentioned earlier. Bearing that ambiguity in mind,
the experiments on rapid electric oscillations which it would not be surprising if Maxwell’s theoretical
I have carried out appear to me to confer upon predictions for static and quasistatic phenomena were
Maxwell’s theory a position of superiority to all found to be similar to the older IAAAD views. It
others. Nevertheless, I based my first interpretation is obvious that phenomena in the near field zone
of these experiments upon the older views, seeking (less than half wavelength) should be regarded as
partly to explain phenomena as resulting from co- quasi-static in the Hertzian analysis and therefore,
operation of electrostatic and electromagnetic forces. implicit time dependent that is not Maxwellian but
To Maxwell’s theory in its pure development such a Helmholtzian feature for longitudinal components.
distinction is foreign. Hence I now wish to show that This reasoning should have cast doubt on Hertz’s
the phenomena can be explained in terms of Maxwell’s explanation of the experimental results as not being
theory without introducing this distinction. Should this completely in the spirit of the Faraday-Maxwell’s
attempt succeed, it will at the same time any question conceptual foundations. It is surprising, then, that
as to a separate propagation of electrostatic force, almost no-one seemed to have been worried by the
which is meaningless in Maxwell’s theory.” presence of non-Faraday’s elements in Maxwell’s
In this famous paper, Hertz wrote Maxwell’s approach. By the same token, it is no less surprising
equations in the form in which they are known that Hertz’s explanation was so unconditionally
today (the Hertz-Heaviside form) and also derived accepted by Maxwell’s followers. But although Hertz
the distribution of force lines for the radiating was satisfied that his calculations had accounted
oscillator (Hertz vibrator). In other words, this for the majority of the observed phenomena, he
important contribution to the Faraday-Maxwell field stressed that he had not succeeded in removing all
theory consisted in the development of the general the difficulties from his experimental verification of
source-field relation previously unknown. (Today Maxwell’s theory. He confessed that [25]: ”...I hoped
this method bears Hertz’s name and is based to be able to devise some way of making observations
on Fourier analysis of dipole and multi-dipole on waves in free air, that is to say, in such a manner
radiation). Using these calculations, Hertz found an that any disturbances which might be observed could
explanation (alternative to that based exclusively in no wise be referred to any action-at-a- distance.
on Helmholtz’s ideas) of the singularities he had This last hope was frustrated by the feebleness of the
observed in the distribution of radiation in the near effects produced under the circumstances.”
field (the apparently instantaneous behaviour of the Although Hertz’s satisfaction with Maxwell’s
electrostatic component) In Hetrz’s words [23]: ”Let theory was understandable, there were still insufficient
us now investigate whether the present [Maxwell’s] arguments for making a truly decisive choice, bearing
theory leads to any explanation of the phenomena... in mind that the Helmholtzian approach remained in
At great distances the phase is smaller by the value ? qualitative agreement with the observed singularities.
than it would have been if the waves had proceeded However, no further experiments or calculations for
with constant velocity from the origin; the waves, testing the quantitative predictions of Helmholtz’s
therefore, behave at great distances as if they had theory have been attempted. In our retrospective view
travelled through the first half wavelength with infinite of these stated reservations of Hertz, as well as of so
velocity.” many other thinkers of the time, the unconditional
Interestingly, this prediction of Maxwell’s theory acceptance with which Hertz’s experiments and their
concerning the infinite phase-velocity for the interpretations were received might seem somewhat
near-field zone based on straightforward Fourier unjustified. Hertz himself did not expect such support
analysis (Hertz’s method) appears in the modern and attributed it to the heavy philosophical burden of
literature [24]. Surprisingly, however, there is no the old and unresolved dilemma of the choice between
interpretation of it in the conventional text-books. the IAAAD and contact-action doctrines.
Hertz himself paid no attention to this prediction Another detail which may also have contributed to
beyond the fact that it gave him a new interpretation the unconditional approval of Hertz’s results among
of his results, different from that provided by the the scientific community was, as already stated, the
Helmholtzian approach. It is possible that Hertz rather misleading title of his paper on the finite
did not realise (or had no time to realise) all the propagation of electromagnetic interactions, possibly
conceptual implications of the new prediction, which due to unawareness of Helmholtz’s classification of
has no clear meaning in the framework of the Faraday- electrostatic and electromagnetic forces. However, in

544 "Электромагнитные Явления", Т.2, №4 (8), 2001 г.

 Modern Helmholtzian Electrodynamics as a Covering Classical Electromagnetic Theory

contrast to this general enthusiasm for Hertz’s results, observation may ’verify’ any number of different, yet
Helmholtz’s supporters adopted rather lukewarm equally valid theories sharing that same prediction.
attitude, although there was also some strong The only reliable way, therefore, of deciding between
opposition from such as P. Duhem, an eminent French theories is not to ‘verify’ any one of them in particular,
mathematician, physicist and philosopher of science which might just as well verify any number of them
at the beginning of the twentieth century. He was one but, if possible, to eliminate all but one of the
of a small group of scientists who refused to accept contenders. The only way of doing this is, of course, by
Hertz’s experiments as conclusive. Moreover, Duhem the method of refutation. This method may be carried
was the first to raise doubts about the whole concept of out logically, by pure ratiocination (as by pointing
’crucial’ experiments [26]. A good mathematician and out some logical or mathematical contradiction) or
outspoken critic of the inconsistencies in Maxwell’s by demonstrating that empirical predictions made by
theory, he became one of the principle advocates of some logically consistent theory are false. However,
Helmholtz’s approach [27]: ”...Physicists are caught even if a theory is logically sound, if it makes no
in this dilemma: Abandon the traditional theory falsifiable predictions, it cannot be refuted. Such a
of electric and magnetic distribution (electro- and theory, according to Popper, cannot qualify as a
magnetostatics), or else give up the electromagnetic scientific theory. This criterion, introduced by Popper
theory of light. Can they not adopt a third solution? in the late 1920s, thus provided a reliable criterion
Can they not imagine a doctrine in which there would for separating genuine scientific theories from pseudo-
be a logical reconciliation of the old electrostatics, scientific or ‘metaphysical’ theories by which, Popper
of the old magnetism, and of the new doctrine that meant theories which make no predictions that can,
electric actions are propagated in dielectrics? This even in principle, be empirically falsified (it appears
doctrine exists; it is one of the finest achievements of to be the case of some of the modern quantum field
Helmholtz; the natural prolongation of the doctrines theories such as quantum gravity, string theory etc.).
of Poisson, Ampere, Weber and Neumann, it logically It may be of interest, then, to consider how this
leads from the principles laid down at the beginning more modern criterion of falsifiability might have been
of the nineteenth century to the most fascinating applied to Hertz’s decision, had it been available
consequences of Maxwell’s theories, from the laws of at the time. Qualitatively, as we have seen, both
Coulomb to the electromagnetic theory of light; without Maxwell’s and Helmholtz’s theories fit equally well all
losing any of the recent conquests of electrical science, the observations made by Hertz, namely:
it re-establishes the continuity of tradition.” 1. material changes in the surrounding space;
However, it appears that this call of Duhem’s for
a ’third solution’ fell mainly on deaf ears. So, whilst 2. finite propagation of transverse components
appreciating the difficulties of Hertz’s pioneering with the speed of light;
investigations, and taking into consideration his
struggle through the uncertainties and controversies 3. empirical observation of energy between
of the electrodynamics of his time, the fact remains interacting bodies etc.
that his final opting for Maxwell’s theory was not
based on strict scientific logic. What needs to be The present-day scientific method suggests that
done, therefore, is clearly to identify the criteria for the next step is to explore the difference between the
acceptance and apply these to the existing alternative experimental predictions of the two theories, beyond
theories. The detailed examination of how and why a those that are already known, and to separate-out the
certain theory is confirmed or refuted by experimental different, non-compatible but empirically verifiable
tests is, of course, a matter of the methodology predictions that is, to determine which of them, if
and philosophy of science. Hertz was apparently not any, are sufficient to explain all the known facts, as
fully aware of the need to test his choice from distinct from those that are merely necessary. Thus,
this systematic, methodological and philosophical in the case of alternative electrodynamics theories,
standpoint. the core of the new ‘crucial’ experiment should
As did the majority of his contemporaries, Hertz be to test, experimentally, statements specifically
intuitively applied a criterion of empirical verification, describing the character of the longitudinal electric
in the hypothetico-deductive manner prevailing in components which distinguish the Helmholzian from
19-th century science. This method consisted of the Maxwellian theory. With regard to the latter,
creating hypotheses in the form of postulates and then no decisive, unambiguous information of the kind
making deductions from these which could be either necessary to refute Helmholtz’s theory has yet been
confirmed or rejected by experiment. However, from found in Hertz’s experimental papers. As a result,
the modern methodological standpoint, as it is now by this same reasoning Helmholtz’s theory could
well recognised, empirical verification is a condition not be conclusively ruled out, since it remained
that is necessary but not sufficient for establishing perfectly falsifiable and did not contradict any known
the truth of a theory. The fact is that an empirical observational fact.

"Electromagnetic Phenomena", V.2, №4 (8), 2001 545

 R. Smirnov-Rueda, A.E. Chubykalo

4. Arguments in favour of last edition of The Meaning of Relativity he added the

following [32]: ”...A field theory is not yet completely
alternative Helmholtz-type determined by the system of field equations: Should
theory of electromagnetism one postulate boundary conditions?: Without such
a postulate, the theory is much too vague. In my
As already mentioned, the criterion of falsifiability opinion the answer to the question is that postulation
requires any truly scientific alternative theory to be of boundary condition is indispensable.”
logically self-consistent. Logical inconsistencies lead Thus, a different choice of a boundary condition
to bogus predictions. In this way it is interesting to can result in a different approach (Maxwellian or
remind that several aspects of standard conventional Helmholtzian) in the framework of the same system
electrodynamics are found to be unsatisfactory, of Maxwell’s equations (a limit case of Helmholtz’s
despite all the advances claimed by relativity and equations). It, therefore, results in a different time
quantum mechanics. Conventional electrodynamics is dependence of forces: explicit time dependence for
thus still not free from untreatable inconsistencies, longitudinal and transverse components in Maxwell’s
as in its implications regarding self-interaction, theory and explicit/implicit time dependence for
infinite contribution of self-energy, the concept of transverse/longitudinal components in Helmholtz’s
electromagnetic mass, indefiniteness in the flux of theory. As far as it is reflected in the history
electromagnetic energy, etc. These internal difficulties of electromagnetism literature, Hertz did not
explain why, from the beginning to the middle of attribute any importance to the choice of boundary
the 20-th century, there were unceasing efforts to conditions and believed that the same differential
modify either Maxwell’s equations or the underlying equations should have only one basic interpretational
conceptual premises of electromagnetism. The present background.
status of classical electrodynamics can by expressed by In respect to the longitudinal components of
words of R. Feynman [28]: ”...this tremendous edifice electromagnetic field, it is noteworthy that they
[classical electrodynamics], which is such a beautiful turn out to be in agreement with the requirements
success in explaining so many phenomena, ultimately of relativistic invariance in the neo-Helmholtzian
falls on its face. When you follow any of our physics approach [29–31]. Moreover, they behave in the
too far, you find that it always gets into some kind of same manner as it is accepted by conventional
trouble. ...the failure of the classical electromagnetic relativistic theory for fields and potentials of one
theory. ...Classical mechanics is a mathematically uniformly moving charge under Lorentz relativistic
consistent theory; it just doesn’t agree with experience. transformations. With regard to the latter, it is well-
It is interesting though, that the classical theory of known that field lines of one uniformly moving charge
electromagnetism is an unsatisfactory theory all by are radial, i.e. exhibit IAAAD features. However, in
itself. There are difficulties associated with the ideas the traditional interpretation, this radial character
of Maxwell’s theory which are not solved by and not of field-lines is considered fictitious (as a class of
directly associated with quantum mechanics...”. legitimate singularities), whereas in the Helmholtz-
One of the latest systematic accounts of these type approach developed in [29–31] it is a perfectly
difficulties has been made recently in [29–31]. realistic representation. Thus, contrary to what
In particular, the old problem of Maxwell’s could have been expected from the point of view
electrodynamics, concerning the uncertain of the conventional electrodynamics, instantaneous
relationship between static and dynamic limits, has longitudinal fields can behave in accordance with
been brought into greater relief. Pure mathematical required Lorentz relativistic symmetry.
analysis [29] has shown that the conventional theory In the approach reviewed below, longitudinal
does not ensure a continuous transition between components do not take part in a local energy transfer
static and dynamic limits, which is, surely, in itself, avoiding possible conflict with the special relativity
strange to contemplate in the context of the Faraday- theory. A local energy transfer is an exclusive
Maxwell continuous-field concept. Interestingly, it has prerogative of transversal components associated with
also been found that if the condition of continuous radiation. In fact, it is well-known that Einstein’s
transition between static and dynamic limits is theory does not limit phase velocities, if there is no
imposed explicitly in mathematical terms, then local energy transfer. Thus, a purely mathematical
conventional boundary condition should be replaced analysis of a self-consistency of electromagnetic
by generalised boundary conditions. As a result, the theory with required relativistic properties leads
structure of general solutions to Maxwell’s equations automatically to the alternative approach very similar
have to be modified to include non-local longitudinal by spirit to the Helmholtzian doctrine based on a
components. It is interesting to note that the possible superposition of local transversal and instantaneous
difficulty with conventional boundary conditions in longitudinal forces.
the classical field theory was realised by A. Einstein In summarising this discussion it is interesting to
himself a few month before his death in 1955. In the note another possible attractiveness of Helmholtz’s

546 "Электромагнитные Явления", Т.2, №4 (8), 2001 г.

 Modern Helmholtzian Electrodynamics as a Covering Classical Electromagnetic Theory

conceptual foundations. As well as having these incorporating IAAAD longitudinal components in the
above-mentioned difficulties, Maxwell’s theory also same framework of Maxwell’s equations.
could not provide any reliable model of the atom.
This left a theoretical gap which had to be filled
5. An example of ambiguity of
independently. This, of course, is what led to the Faraday-Maxwell’s concept
current quantum mechanical theory of the atom,
with its implications of essential non-locality. Thus
of local (contact) field in the
was created the other serious dilemma of present-day conventional electromagnetic
physics: significant incommensurability between the
classical relativistic theory with its basic concept of
theory
local field, and quantum mechanics with its essential At the beginning of this Section we show one of the
non-locality. This fundamental conflict is such that, confusions of classical electrodynamics in describing
for some people, the only way of resolving it seems electromagnetic field of an accelerated charge. The
to be to combine or superimpose these incompatible attractiveness of this example consists in the way it
requirements for locality and non-locality in some lightens the main conventional theory difficulties and
purely expedient and compromising way. In view the way it leads to the Helmholtzian-type foundations
of these reasoning it also can be suggested that of classical electrodynamics. Let us consider a charge e
any physical theory of interaction might not be moving in a laboratory reference system with constant
pure conventional field theory (in the sense of local acceleration a along the positive direction of the X-
field) but be complemented by non-local longitudinal axis. An electric field created by an arbitrarily moving
components (in the sense of non-local potential field). charge is given by the following expression obtained
In modern physics, as it is well-known, longitudinal directly from Lienard-Wiechert potentials [33]:
components are responsible for the appearance of
infinities that in special cases and with enormous v2
µ ¶
³ v´
difficulties can be eliminated by mathematical R−R 1− 2
c c
means, leaving nevertheless some kind of conceptual E(R, t) = e +
³ v ´3
insatisfaction. In some cases such as quantum gravity R−R
ch h
the infinities resist to be removed indicating that vi i
there is no unified conceptual approach to the R, R − R ,v
e c . (1)
infinities problems and it appears to have more ³ v ´ 3
mathematical convenience than physical justification. R−R
c
In Helmholtz’s and neo-Helmholtz’s theory [29–
31] with the clear distinction between transverse All values in the right-hand are taken in the
and longitudinal component, the latter one does moment of time t0 = t − τ , where τ is the retarded
not contribute infinite amount of self-energy as it time. Since all vectors are collinear, the second term
does not in every classical (newtonian) non-local in (1) is zero. In the conventional theory, the Poynting
potential theory with bipartite type of interactions. vector represents electromagnetic field energy flow per
This property of longitudinal components allowed unit area per unit time across a given surface,
a formulation of non- radiation condition in [29] c 1
which states that ”...a limited class of motion S= [E, H] , P= S, (2)
4π c2
exists when accelerated charged particles do not
produce electromagnetic radiation.” It means that where S is the Poynting vector, P is momentum
within Helmholtz’s foundations it is even possible to density, and E and B are electric and magnetic field
formulate a classical model of the atom contrary to strengths, respectively. Analysing (2), one can easily
Maxwell’s electrodynamics where all such attempts note that S and P (and, therefore, all electromagnetic
failed. All these developments will be reviewed in this energy flow) are exactly zero (S = 0) along the X-axis.
work. On the other hand, from the energy conservation law,
Thus, as the relevant historical literature shows, E2 + B2 ∂W
Helmholtz’s foundations promise an altogether more W = , = −(∇, S) (3)
8π ∂t
logical solution to fundamental problems of modern
physics. This may suggest a way of reconciling classical we conclude that W and ∂W/∂t should differ from
electrodynamics and quantum mechanics in a less zero everywhere along X-axis because there is a linear
ad hoc and altogether more rational way than has, relationship between W and E 2 changing in time along
up till now, seemed obligatory. Recent experimental X-axis. An ambiguity takes place if, for instance, the
confirmations of the violation of Bell’s inequalities in charge is moving in some arbitrary way along the X-
quantum mechanical measurements and entanglement axis. As a result the energy density W should also
in quantum optics shed some light on a possible alter as a function of changing electric field E. Then
alternative foundations of classical electrodynamics the question logically arises: what is the mechanism

"Electromagnetic Phenomena", V.2, №4 (8), 2001 547

 R. Smirnov-Rueda, A.E. Chubykalo

that changes electric and magnetic field components at ...This term appears automatically when we
some fixed distance from the charge on X-axis if there make the transformation of the elimination of
is apparently no electromagnetic field energy transfer the longitudinal waves.” As we know from the
in that direction (S = 0)? This ambiguity is due to classical physics, (5) means the existence of bipartite
the fact that in the conventional theory based on the instantaneous longitudinal interaction with no
concept of local (contact) field, which energy has to be potential energy stored locally in the interparticle
stored locally in space, any change of field components space. What is then the meaning of the elimination
is indispensable without field energy flux. This is of longitudinal components in the conventional
obviously violated in the above-mentioned example theory? In the following we will try to show that the
that brings into question an assumed sufficiency of problem of longitudinal components is unreasonably
transverse solutions alone to describe all properties of underestimated in classical electrodynamics (perhaps
electromagnetic field. At least, the resolution of this by historical reasons). There should be a change
ambiguity cannot be based on transverse solutions to of attitude towards its status. Mathematical and
Maxwell’s equations because it is well-established that physical reasons in favour of Helmholtz-type
any moving charge does not radiate electromagnetic foundations will be given to show a paramount
waves along the direction of motion. Only longitudinal importance of longitudinal components to build up
components, if they exist, can be useful in that a self-consistent classical electrodynamics and its
respect. possible reconciliation with quantum mechanics.
Let us make several qualitative observations on
the possible role of longitudinal fields components.
6. Mathematical foundations of
The solution (1) indicates the existence of longitudinal Helmholtz-type
perturbations along the X-axis. The energy transfer
(the Poynting vector) S is a product of the energy
electrodynamics
density and its spreading velocity v, Let us recall that a complete set of Maxwell’s
S = Wv (4) equations in vacuum is

then either the spreading velocity v or the energy (∇, E) = 4πρ, (6)
density W must be zero along the X-axis. The first (∇, B) = 0, (7)
assumption neglects any possibility of interaction 4π 1 ∂E
transfer. The second one (W = 0) is uncomprehensing [∇, H] = j+ , (8)
c c ∂t
in the framework of Faraday-Maxwell local field which 1 ∂B
should be locally stored in space with non-zero energy. [∇, E] = − . (9)
c ∂t
We can assume that longitudinal modes possess no
local energy (in other words, cannot be stored locally If this system of equations is really complete and
in space (W = 0) contrary to what their transverse boundary conditions are adequate, it should describe
counterpart do) but arrive to the conclusion that their all electromagnetic phenomena without exceptions
spreading velocity v may be any positive value even and ambiguities. It is often convenient to introduce
infinite. This is, of course, only our hypothesis here potentials, satisfying the Lorentz condition
to resolve above-mentioned ambiguity but as we will
show later on it has solid mathematical foundations. 1 ∂φ
(∇, A) + = 0. (10)
At the end of this Section, we stress that in c ∂t
the conventional electrodynamics longitudinal field As a result, the set of coupled first-order partial
components in vacuo do not play any role at all differential equations (6)–(9) can be reduced to
and, in fact, they are eliminated from consideration the equivalent pair of uncoupled inhomogeneous
by means of appropriate gauge. In Dirac’s own D’Alembert’s equations:
words [34]: ”...As long as we are dealing only with
transverse waves, we cannot bring in the Coulomb 1 ∂2ϕ
interactions between particles. To bring them in, we ∆ϕ − = −4πρ(r, t), (11)
c2 ∂t2
have to introduce longitudinal electromagnetic waves: 1 ∂2A 4π
The longitudinal waves can be eliminated by means ∆A − 2 2 = − j(r, t). (12)
c ∂t c
of mathematical transformation. Now, when we do
make this transformation which results in eliminating Differential equations have, generally speaking, an
the longitudinal electromagnetic waves, we get a new infinite number of possible solutions. An uniquely
term appearing in the Hamiltonian. This new term is determined solution is selected by laying down
just the Coulomb energy of interaction between all the sufficient additional conditions. Different forms of
charged particles, additional conditions are possible for the second
X e1 e2
, (5) order partial differential equations: initial value and
1,2
r1,2 boundary-value conditions. A general solution of the

548 "Электромагнитные Явления", Т.2, №4 (8), 2001 г.

 Modern Helmholtzian Electrodynamics as a Covering Classical Electromagnetic Theory

D’Alembert equation is considered as an explicit time- Thus, we can conclude that D’Alembert equations
dependent function of the type g(R, t). Let us discuss a have general solutions in form of explicit time-
very subtle point related to the use and interpretation dependent functions whereas Poisson’s equations have
of implicit and explicit time dependencies in the only implicit time dependent solutions. The following
conventional electrodynamics. We think that as far as question becomes obvious: how any transition from
this problem is not cleared up, the classical theory will D’Alembert and Poisson’s equations is described in
remain beset of ambiguities. Helmholtz-type approach the conventional formalism? As a matter of fact,
reviewed below makes that distinction very clear. this question has not even been asked because
Special relativity well established that in the Poisson’s equation has not been recognised as covering
stationary approximation (charge moving with a implicit time-dependent phenomena (it was applied
constant velocity) all fields components are implicit exclusively in electro- and magnetostatics with no
time-dependent functions of the type f (R(t)). Field time dependence at all). This question, unexplored
lines remain radial in all inertial frames of references by the conventional approach, contains a very serious
and, hence, depend on the instant position of the difficulty.
charge. As a consequence, time t is not an independent As we shall demonstrate below, a continuous
variable any more in this case and enters as a transition between solutions of D’Alembert’s
parameter through space position of the charge R(t). and Poisson’s equations, respectively, is not
Hence, the use of partial time derivatives ∂/∂t, mathematically ensured in classical electromagnetism.
∂ 2 /∂t2 etc. (according to their formal mathematical Based on the premises of a continuous nature of
definition) is inadequate if a function has not two electromagnetic phenomena, one can assume that any
or more independent variables. Nevertheless, in basic general implicit time solution of Poisson’s equation
texts on classical electromagnetic theory partial time should be continuously transformed into explicit
derivatives are indiscriminately applied even for time solutions of D’Alembert’s equations (and vice
implicit time dependent functions in the proper sense versa). This requirement can also be formulated
of total time derivatives. (Some clear examples will as a mathematical condition on the continuity of
be done in the next Section discussing the use of general solutions of Maxwell’s equations at every
continuity equation). moment of time. By force of the uniqueness theorem
Looking back at D’Alembert’s equations (11),(12), for the second order partial differential equations,
space variable R should be fixed under the action only one solution exists satisfying given initial and
of partial time derivative ∂ 2 /∂t2 . Fixing R(t), means boundary conditions. Consequently, the continuous
that there is no change with time t playing the role of a transition from solutions of D’Alembert’s equation
parameter. Thus, partial time derivatives vanish from into solutions of Poisson’s equation (and vice versa)
D’Alembert equation in the case of uniformly moving should be ensured by the continuous transition
charge. Poisson’s equation for four-vector (φ, A) with between respective initial and boundary conditions.
implicit time dependence appears to be appropriate This is the point where the conventional approach
one. We especially made a detailed analysis because fails again. Only implicit time-dependent function
of a confusion in conventional texts on classical f (R(t)) can be unique solution of Poisson’s equations
electromagnetism about explicit use of Poisson’s and boundary conditions for external problem are
equations for uniformly moving charge (but as we to be formulated in the infinity. On the other hand,
have seen, they do it tacitly). It is commonly thought the solution of D’Alembert’s equation is an explicit
that only D’Alembert’s equation (i.e. that only time-dependent function g(R(t), t) since only it fits
D’Alembert’s operator ∆ − ∂ 2 /∂t2 ) is relativistically requirements of Faraday- Maxwell’s electrodynamics
invariant under Lorentz’s transformations. As we as a physically sound solution for the notion of local
will discuss later in the Section VII in connection (contact) field. The boundary conditions in this case
with gauge invariance and summarising it up in are given in a finite region. It makes no sense to
the Section VIII, Poisson’s equation in four- vector establish them at the infinity if it cannot be reached
representation (φ, A) (as well as Poisson’s differential by any perturbations with finite spread velocity. As
operator ∆) can also be considered relativistically far as one deals with large external region, effects of
invariant when applied to implicit time-dependent boundaries are still insignificant over a small interval
potentials, reproducing all results of special relativity of time, and, therefore, it is convenient to consider
for inertial frames of reference. Poisson’s differential the limiting problem with initial conditions for an
operator ∆ is not covariant but invariant under infinite region (initial Cauchy’s problem). This is how
Lorentz’s transformations. Time variable is not any in mathematical physics areas of infinite dimensions
more independent in this case and cannot be used for are introduced into consideration.
covariant representation of D’Alembert’s differential Let us look carefully at the standard formulation
operator. It is endorsed by the well-known fact that of respective boundary-value problems in a region
covariance is not necessary, it is only sufficient for extending to infinity. There are three external
relativistic invariance. boundary-value problems for Poisson’s equation.

"Electromagnetic Phenomena", V.2, №4 (8), 2001 549

 R. Smirnov-Rueda, A.E. Chubykalo

They are known as the Dirichlet problem, the continuity in transition between solutions of
Neumann problem and their combination. The D’Alembert and Poisson’s equations), is the inclusion
mathematical formulation, for instance, for Dirichlet’s of the condition (iii) for every moment of time in
boundary conditions requires to find a function u(r) the standard mathematical formulation of Cauchy’s
satisfying [35]: initial problem. It obviously ensures the continuous
(i) Laplace’s equation ∆u = 0 everywhere outside transition into external boundary-value problem for
the given system of charges (currents). Poisson’s equation (and vice versa) and implies a
structure of a general solution as a superposition of
(ii) Solution u(r) is continuous everywhere in the separate non-reducible to each other functions of the
given region and takes
¯ the given value G on the type
internal surface S: u¯S = G. f (R(r)) + g(r, t). (13)
(iii) Solution u(r) converges uniformly to 0 at When applied to potentials, this statement takes a
infinity: u(r) → 0 as |r| → ∞. form:

The final condition (iii) is essential for a unique ϕ(r, t) = ϕ0 (R(t)) + ϕ∗ (r, t), (14)
solution! In the case of D’Alembert’s equation ∗
A(r, t) = A0 (R(t)) + A (r, t), (15)
the standard mathematical formulation is different.
Obviously, we are interested only in the problem for where for one charge system R(t) = r − rq (t); r is
an infinite region (initial Cauchy’s problem). So it is a fixed distance from the point of observation to the
required to find the function u(r(t), t) satisfying [35]: origin of the reference system and rq (t) is the position
of the charge at the instant t.
(j) homogeneous D’Alembert’s equation
The presence of the condition (iii) in the
everywhere outside the given system of charges
formulation of Cauchy’s problem turns out to be
(currents) for every moment of time t ≥ 0
meaningful for any moment of time, and the
(jj) initial¯conditions in all infinite corresponding boundary conditions keep continuity in
¯ regions as follows:
u(r, t)¯t=0 = G1 (r); ut (r, t)¯t=0 = G2 (r). respect of mutual transformation. That makes the
condition (iii) irremovable from the formulation of
The condition (iii) about the uniform convergence initial Cauchy’s problem resulting in fundamental
at infinity is not mentioned. Recall here that (irremovable) nature of implicit time-dependent (or
Cauchy’s problem is considered when one of the longitudinal) components φ0 , A0 responsible for the
boundaries is insignificant over all time of a process. interparticle interaction. Potentials with explicit time-
In conventional electrodynamics it means that any dependence φ∗ and A∗ vanish in the steady-state case,
perturbation with finite spread velocity will never leaving only implicit time-dependent functions φ0 and
reach the limits of the region under consideration A0 in the total potential (left-hand side of (14) and
during the time of observation. From the conventional (15)). Now, contrary to the conventional approach,
point of view, condition (iii) formally included into it is clear how the total solution φ (or A) in left-
Cauchy’s problem can never affect the solution and, hand side of (14),(15) with explicit time dependence
hence, might not be taken into account seriously undergoes transformations into solution with implicit
for selecting of adequate solutions. In fact in the time dependence (and vice versa).
context of local field, the inclusion of the condition Faraday-Maxwell’s approach does not allow to
(iii) becomes meaningless since only explicit time- take into account the first term in right-hand side
dependent solutions (retarded waves with finite spread of (14),(15) as full-value part of any general solution.
velocity) are allowed by conventional electrodynamics Turning to the above-mentioned ambiguity at the
to solutions of D’Alembert’s equation. beginning of the previous section, we see now that
On the other hand, we underline here that the the novel solution in form of (14),(15) can describe
absence of the condition (iii) for every moment the change of electric field component along the
of time in the standard mathematical formulation X-axis at any distance and at any time. It casts
of Cauchy’s initial problem does not ensure the doubts on the general belief that Lienard- Wiechert
continuous transition into external boundary-value potentials (as only explicit time-dependent solutions
problem for Poisson’s equation and, as a result, mutual of D’Alembert’s equations for Cauchy’s problem)
continuity between the corresponding solutions cannot should be considered as unique general solutions
be expected by force of the uniqueness theorem. This to Maxwell’s equations regardless the context of
unambiguous mathematical fact should be considered boundary conditions. In connection to the latter
as one of the most warning signals of possible it is worth reminding Einstein’s words (see the
flaws in the mathematical formalism of contemporary Section III) that field theory is not only determined
Maxwell’s electrodynamics. The only way that seems by the system of field equations but also by
to be obligatory to satisfy the property of continuity postulation of boundary conditions. In fact, Lienard
of electromagnetic field (in other words, to keep and Wiechert formulated the initial Cauchy problem

550 "Электромагнитные Явления", Т.2, №4 (8), 2001 г.

 Modern Helmholtzian Electrodynamics as a Covering Classical Electromagnetic Theory

for electromagnetic components several years before Thus, the initial set of Maxwell’s equations has
the appearance of Einstein’s principle of relativity. been decomposed into two pairs of equations with
Thus, a priori imposed boundary conditions were independent general solutions for each pair that are
not assumed to have adequate relativistic properties. coupled only through the partial solution of the whole
This is another open question in the conventional set of equations (16)–(19) or (11),(12). The first pair
approach whether relativistic requirements should be (16),(17) manifests the instantaneous and longitudinal
reflected in the mathematical formulation of the initial aspect of electromagnetic interactions (action-at-a-
boundary problem. In this respect, we only stress that distance) while the second one (18),(19) characterises
additional condition (iii) is such an invariant because explicit time-dependent phenomena related to the
it is irremovable and unchangeable in every frame of propagation of transverse waves (light, radiation etc.).
reference. It is obvious thus that Helmholtz’s basic ideas are
Let us consider again a pair of uncoupled fundamentally compatible with Maxwell’s equations.
inhomogeneous D’Alembert’s equations (11),(12) with The potential separation (14),(15) implies the
initial conditions (j), (jj) and (iii). For some purposes, same procedure with respect to the field strengths,
it is convenient to decompose (11),(12) into two
pairs of second order differential equations for each E(r, t) = E0 (R(t)) + E∗ (r, t), (23)
component of general solution (14),(15): B(r, t) = B0 (R(t)) + B∗ (r, t), (24)
∆ϕ0 = −4πρ(r, t), (16) where E0 and B0 are instantaneous longitudinal fields.
4π To finish this Section we would like to mention
∆A0 = − j(r, t) (17)
c that Villecco’s independent analysis endorsed our
and claims on discontinuity problem in the classical
electromagnetic theory. He found that [36]: ”...the
1 ∂ 2 ϕ∗ transition between two different states of uniform
∆ϕ∗ − = 0, (18)
c2 ∂t2 velocity via an intermediate state of acceleration
1 ∂ 2 A∗ results in a type of discontinuity in functional form:
∆A∗ − 2 = 0, (19)
c ∂t2 Though no known law is violated in this processes,
there is a sense of intrinsic continuity which is
with initial and boundary conditions given, for
nevertheless violated...”.
instance, in the case of electric potential. The
equation (16), apart from (iii), is supplemented by
¯
ϕ0 (r)¯S = G (20)
7. Mathematical inconsistencies
in the formulation of
whereas (18) has to be added with
Maxwell-Lorentz equations
ϕ∗ (r, t)¯t=0 = G1 − ϕ0 (r)¯t=0 ,
¯ ¯
(21)
d
for one charge system
ϕ∗τ (r, t)¯t=0 = G2 − ϕ0 (r)¯t=0 .
¯ ¯
(22)
dt Let us come back again to the original set of
In the theory of differential equations any Maxwell’s equations (6)–(9) for the reference system
complete solution of (11),(12) consists of a general at rest supplemented by the continuity equation
solution of homogeneous D’Alembert’s equation plus ∂ρ
some particular solution of the inhomogeneous one. + (∇, j) = 0. (25)
∂t
Thus, we can assume that the same procedure
can be applied to its equivalent formulation In the phenomenological theory of electromagnetism
in form (16)–(19). On one hand, a complete the hypothesis about the continuous nature of the
solution should be formed by two independent medium was one of the foundations of Maxwell’s
general solutions satisfying homogeneous Poisson’s theoretical scheme. This point of view succeeded in
and homogeneous wave equations, respectively, uniting so many electromagnetic phenomena without
and, on the other hand, it has to include the necessity to consider a specific structure of
one particular solution (as a linear combination matter. Nevertheless, a macroscopic character of the
of non-reducible components (14),(15), satisfying charge conception defines all well-known limitations
inhomogeneous D’Alembert’s equations (11),(12). on Maxwell’s theory. For instance, the system of
Relationship between both components (longitudinal equations (6)–(9) in a steady state approximation
and transverse) of electromagnetic field is guided corresponds to a quite particular case of continuous
by (21) and (22) and is contained in the particular and closed conduction currents (motionless as a
solution of inhomogeneous D’Alembert’s equations. A whole).
more comprehensive study of the matter will be done In 1895, the theory was extended by Lorentz for a
elsewhere. system of charged particles moving in vacuum. Since

"Electromagnetic Phenomena", V.2, №4 (8), 2001 551

 R. Smirnov-Rueda, A.E. Chubykalo

then it has been widely assumed that the same basic 2. a non-zero value of ∂E/∂t and ∂B/∂t would
laws are valid microscopically as it is macroscopically imply a local variation of fields in time regardless
in the case of original Maxwell’s equations. This means any change in the position of the charge
that in Lorentz form all macroscopic values of charge (space co-ordinate is fixed when partial time
and current densities have to be substituted by their derivative is taken) and, hence, would imply the
microscopic values. Let us write explicitly the Lorentz propagation of those local variations in form of
field equations for one point-charged particle moving transverse electromagnetic waves.
in vacuum [33]:
This would strongly contradict the well-established
(∇, E) = 4πqδ(r − rq (t)), (26) in special relativity fact that one uniformly moving
charge does not produce any electromagnetic radiation
(∇, B) = 0, (27)
at all.
4π 1 ∂E
[∇, H] = qvδ(r − rq (t)) + , (28) Thus, a mathematically rigorous interpretation
c c ∂t of (28),(29) in the case of a charge moving with a
1 ∂B constant velocity leads to the following conclusion:
[∇, E] = − , (29)
c ∂t in a charge-free space the value of ∂E/∂t = 0 and,
where rq (t) is the coordinate of the charge at the therefore, the value of rot H is also equal to zero in
moment of time t. free space
In order to achieve a complete description 4π
of a system consisting of fields and charges in [∇, H] = qvδ(r − rq (t)). (31)
c
the framework of electromagnetic theory, Lorentz
supplemented (26)–(29) by the equation of motion: On the other hand, field components of one
uniformly moving charge can be treated exactly in the
dp e framework of Lorentz’s transformations. Therefore,
= eE + [v, B], (30)
dt c for any purpose exact relativistic expressions for
electric and magnetic fields and potentials should be
where p is the momentum of the particle.
applied [33]
The equation of motion (30) introduces an
expression for the mechanical force known as Lorentz ~
(1 − β 2 )(R − Rβ)
force which in the electron theory formulated by E=q , (32)
(R − Rβ)~ 3
Lorentz has a clear axiomatic and empirical status.
Later on we shall discuss some disadvantages related 1
H= [v, E], (33)
with the adopted status of the Lorentz force c
conception.
where β~ = v/c.
Macroscopic Maxwell’s equations (6)–(9) may be
Thus, we arrive here at the important conclusion:
obtained now from Lorentz’s equations (26)–(29) by
generally speaking, according to special relativity
some statistical averaging process, using the structure
theory the value of rot H is not equal to zero in any
of material media. The mathematical language for
point out of moving charge and takes a well-defined
equations (26)–(29) is nowadays widely accepted in
value
the conventional classical electrodynamics. However, 1
there is an ambiguity in the application of these [∇, H] = [∇, [v, E]]. (34)
c
equations to the case of one uniformly moving
For instance, this gives immediately a non-zero
charge. A simple charge translation in space produces
value of rot H along the direction of motion (X-axis):
alterations of field components. Nevertheless, they
cannot be treated in terms of Maxwell’s displacement 2β(1 − β 2 )
currents. Strictly speaking, in this case all Maxwell’s [∇, H](x, x > x0 ) = q . (35)
(1 − β)3 (x − x0 )3
displacement currents proportional to ∂E/∂t and
∂B/∂t vanish from (28)–(29). This statement can be The conflict with the previous statement of
reasoned in two different ways: the equation (31) is inevitable. In order to obtain
1. ∂E/∂t = 0 and ∂B/∂t = 0, since all field adequacy between the set of field equations (26)–
components of one uniformly moving charge (29) and their relativistic solutions in the case of
are implicit time-dependent functions (time uniformly moving charge, it is necessary to consider
does not enter as an independent parameter an additional term like that considered in (34).
but only through space variable) so that As will be shown in continuation, this assumption
from the mathematical standpoint only total for static and quasi-static fields is a supplement
time derivative makes sense in this case of Maxwell’s displacement currents introduced for
whereas partial time derivative turns out to explicitly time varying fields (explanation of the
be not adequate (time and distance are not light as the propagation of transverse electromagnetic
independent variables); waves).

552 "Электромагнитные Явления", Т.2, №4 (8), 2001 г.

 Modern Helmholtzian Electrodynamics as a Covering Classical Electromagnetic Theory

As it is well-known, the necessity of Maxwell’s the mathematical language common to all physical
displacement current was realised on the basis of theories it means that the rate of increase in the
the following formal reasoning. In order to make total quantity of electrostatic charge within any fixed
equation (8) consistent with the electric charge volume V is equal to the excess of the influx over
conservation law in form of continuity equation (25), the efflux of current through a closed surface S.
Maxwell supplemented (8) with an additional term. On contracting the surface to an infinitesimal sphere
However, for stationary processes, as we already have around a point one can arrive at the differential
seen, this term disappears and equation (8) becomes equation [37]
consistent only with closed (or continuous going off to µ ¶
infinity) currents dρ dQ
+ (∇, j) = 0, 6= 0 . (40)
(∇, j) = 0. (36) dt dt
It is also a direct consequence of continuity The balance equation (40) covers the continuity
equation (25) in any stationary state when all equation (38) as a particular case in which the amount
magnitudes have to be treated as implicit time- of something (charge or matter) is kept constant in
dependent functions. Thereby, we meet here another V during the course of time. Earlier we mentioned
difficulty of Lorentz’s equations: uniform movement that a single charge in motion, generally speaking,
of a single charged particle (as an example of open could not be treated in terms of the continuity
steady current), generally speaking, does not satisfy equation (38). When the particle leaves the given
the limitations imposed by (36). It implies some volume, it violates locally the charge conservation,
additional term to be taken into account in (36) to invalidating the continuity equation (38). Instead of
fulfil Maxwell’s hypothesis on the circuital character it the balance equation (40) has to be used. One
of total currents (conduction plus displacement simple method to prove that is to consider again
currents). the example of point-charge moving with a constant
Let us have a close look on the continuity velocity. In particular, the charge density is assumed
equation and its conventional interpretation. In to have implicit time dependence as follows
developing the mathematical formalism of his theory
Maxwell adopted Faraday’s idea of field tubes for ρ(r, rq (t)) = qδ(r − rq (t)), (41)
electric and magnetic fields as well as for electric
charge flow (conduction currents). As a consequence, where r is a fixed distance from the point of
in accordance with hydrodynamics language, the observation to the origin of the reference system at
continuity equation was accepted as valid to express rest; rq (t) and vq = drq /dt are the distance and the
the hypothesis that a net sum of electric charges velocity of the charge at the instant.
could not be annihilated. In this case, the continuity It is easy to show that the total density derivative
equation reproduces the charge conservation law in with respect to time consist of the convection term
the given fixed volume V only, since time enters in equation (41) as a parameter
(∂ρ/∂t = 0):
ZZZ ½ ¾
dQ ∂ρ
= + (∇, j) dV = 0 (37)
½ ¾
dρ ∂ρ d
dt ∂t = + (r − rq (t)) ∇ρ = −(vq , ∇ρ). (42)
V dt ∂t dt
or in the form of a differential equation Thus, the balance equation for a single charged
µ ¶ particle is fulfilled directly:
∂ρ dQ
+ (∇, j) = 0, =0 . (38)
∂t dt − (vq , ∇ρ) + ∇(ρvq ) = −(vq , ∇ρ)+
It should be remarked that equation (38) describes (vq , ∇ρ) = 0. (43)
exclusively the conservation but not the change of the
The next step is to analyse equation (43) in terms
amount of charge (or matter) in the given volume V .
of Maxwell’s hypothesis in respect to the circuital
In many scientific writings on electromagnetic theory
character of the total electric current (including
there is no clear distinction between these two aspects.
displacement current). In other words, the total
If one wants to describe the change of something in the
current of one uniformly moving charge has to be
given volume V , the equation (37) should be replaced
formed by two contributions: the motion of the charge
by a balance equation (see, for instance, [37])
itself (conduction current) and displacement current
dQ d
ZZZ ZZ in outer space:
= ρdV = − (∇, j)dS, (39)
dt dt
V S (∇, (jcond + jdispl )) = 0, (44)

here j is a total current of electric charges through where jcond and jdispl are conduction and
a surface S that bounds the given volume V . In displacement currents, respectively.

"Electromagnetic Phenomena", V.2, №4 (8), 2001 553

 R. Smirnov-Rueda, A.E. Chubykalo

Thus, we can rewrite (40) in the form of Let us stress here one subtle point which will be
equation (44) indispensable in the following discussion of relativistic
µ ¶ invariance properties of the present Helmholtz-type
dρ d 1 approach. The derivation of (47) has considered
(∇, jdispl ) = = (∇, E) =
dt dt 4π the partial time derivative to be independent
from the space derivative in full agreement with
µ ¶
1 dE
∇, . (45) the mathematical formalism of partial derivatives.
4π dt
Thus, the time parameter of implicit time-dependent
It may be easily verified that two field operations components (let us call it t) comes into consideration
∇ and d/dt are completely interchangeable in (45). as an afterthought through the space variable R(t)
Thus, for general motion of the charge when one and, therefore, can be, in principle, considered as
can disregard its size, Maxwell’s condition on a total independent from the time variable of explicit time-
current takes the following form (see for the sake of dependent components (in special relativity this is
comparison the formula (42)) taking into account the the so-called proper time τ ). As we will discuss later,
standard expansion of the total time derivative: special relativity does not distinguish these two time
µ ½ dependences and tacitly implies t = τ that leads
1 ∂E
(∇, jdispl ) = ∇, − to the Lorentz invariance of electromagnetic field
4π ∂t components.
(v, ∇r )E − (a, ∇v )E − . . . }) , (46) In order to come back to the previous discussion
of the displacement current concept, let us remind
here a is acceleration and further terms correspond to
that our initial aim was to find a reasonable form
derivatives of non-uniform acceleration.
for Maxwell’s circuital condition (44). It would allow
So far we have made use of the formal
to relate field alterations in free space produced
mathematical approach without any physical
by one moving charge with the Maxwell conception
interpretation. More specifically, in calculating
of displacement current. From the standpoint of
the full time derivative of E, the convective
conventional classical electrodynamics, the first term
term (second right-hand term in (46)) should be
represents the well-known Maxwell displacement
considered as implicit time-dependent (time variable
current coming up only in non-steady processes
is fixed when space partial derivative is taken)
whereas the second term can be interpreted only as
in agreement with the mathematical definition
quasistationary due to its dependence on a charge
of partial derivatives. In mathematical language
translation in space (with time as implicit parameter).
it means that all field alterations produced by
Further, we will call that term as ”convection
a simple charge translation (convective part of
displacement current”. By the same token, the third
the total derivative) take place at the same time
right-hand term is due to uniform acceleration and
in every space point (i.e. instantaneously). This
could be called ”uniform acceleration displacement
interpretation has no precedents in conventional
current” etc.
classical electrodynamics for the case of arbitrary
motion whereas for uniformly moving charge this The above results motivate an important extension
description is the only possible formalism (in special of displacement current concept. First, it postulates
relativity field lines of uniformly moving charge the circuital character of the total electric current as it
remain radial, i.e. exhibit no retardation in respect was originally assumed by Maxwell. Second, it permits
to the space position of the charge). Turning back to fulfil the circuital condition for non-steady as well
to (46), it is clear that the first right-hand term as for steady processes (static and quasistatic fields),
with partial time derivative describes explicit time- contrary to the conventional approach. Let us give an
dependent phenomena. Thus, in the same way equivalent mathematical expression of the convection
as it was independently concluded in the Section displacement current (in the case of single charged
VI, all field components can be split up into two particle):
independent classes with explicit E∗ and implicit E0
1 1 1
time dependencies, respectively: (v, ∇)E = v(∇, E) − [∇, [v, E]]. (49)
c c c
dE ∂E∗
= − (v, ∇r )E0 − (a, ∇v )E0 − . . . (47) Accordingly, for our purpose we need to remind
dt ∂t
that in the right-hand side of equation (28) the total
A general expression of full displacement current is
current (jtot = jcond + jdispl ) must be considered as:
then taken by the formula:

1 ∂E∗ 1 4π 1 ∂E
jdispl = − (v, ∇r )E0 − [∇, H] = qvδ(r − rq (t)) + −
4π ∂t 4π c c ∂t
1 1 1
(a, ∇v )E0 − . . . (48) v(∇, E) + [∇, [v, B] + . . . (50)
4π c c

554 "Электромагнитные Явления", Т.2, №4 (8), 2001 г.

 Modern Helmholtzian Electrodynamics as a Covering Classical Electromagnetic Theory

For the sake of simplicity we omit acceleration and with the traditional non-relativistic treatment of
other expansion terms in this general formula but they the integral form of Faraday’s law [40]. Namely, if
are tacitly implied. the circuit C is moving with a velocity v in some
This approach allows the treatment of direction, the total time derivative in (52),(53) must
equation (29) in the same way as (28): take into account this motion (convection derivative)
as well as the flux changes with time at a point
∂B 1 (partial time derivative) [40],
[∇, E] = − + (v, ∇)B =
∂t c
1 d
I ZZ
∂B 1 1 Edl = − BdS =
− + v(∇, B) − [∇, [v, B]] + . . . (51) c dt
∂t c c
C S
Turning back to the beginning of this Section we
½ ¾ ZZ
1 ∂
− + (v, ∇) BdS, (54)
note now that for uniform motion curl H is defined c ∂t
by (50) in every space point out of the charge in the S
expected way (see (34)). As a final remark, the set of where S is any surface bounded by circuit C, moving
equations (26),(27) and (50),(51) can be regarded as together with a medium.
a generalized form of Maxwell-Lorentz system of field This approach is valid only for non-relativistic
equations. In the next section they will be compared consideration and leads to Galilean field
with modified Maxwell-Hertz equations extended on transformation 43. In Hertz’s theory any motion
one charge system. of the ether relative to the material particles had not
been taken into account, so that the moving bodies
were regarded simply as homogeneous portions of the
8. Reconsidered Maxwell-Hertz medium distinguished only by special values of electric
theory and relativistically and magnetic constants. Among the consequences of
such assumption, Hertz saw the necessity to move
invariant formulation of the surface of integration in equations (52),(53) at
generalized Maxwell’s the same time with the moving medium. Thus the
generation of a magnetic (or electric) force within a
equations moving dielectric was calculated with implicit use of
Independently of Heaviside, the problem of the Galilean invariance in equation (54) unless one makes
modification of Maxwell’s equations for bodies in any additional assumptions on the special character
motion was posed by Hertz in his attempts to build up of transformations in a moving frame of reference.
a comprehensive and consistent electrodynamics [38, Recently, T. Phipps Jr. again drew attention to
39]. A starting point of that approach was the the failure of Maxwell’s equations in partial time
fundamental character of Faraday’s law of induction derivative to describe first-order effects related to
represented for the first time by Maxwell in the form convective terms of total time derivatives [41, 42]. He
of integral equations, proposed to revive Hertz’s Galilean-invariant version
of Maxwell’s theory written in total time derivatives.
4π 1 d He only differs from Hertz’s own interpretation of the
I ZZ ZZ
Hdl = jdS + EdS, (52) velocity parameter. However, in this review we shall
c c dt
C S S show how total time derivatives can be compatible
d
I ZZ
with the requirements of special relativity in inertial
Edl = − BdS (53)
dt frames of reference.
C S
Let us now examine the case of a point source
where C is a contour, S is a surface bounded by C. of electric and magnetic fields. In order to abstain
In qualitative physical language Faraday’s from the use of moving contour C and surface S that
observations had been expressed in form of the implies a priori application of some relativity principle
following statement: the effect of magnetic induction (Galileo’s or Einstein’s), we limit our consideration
in the circuit C takes place always with the change to a fixed region (C and S are at rest) whereas the
of the magnetic flux through the surface S regardless source is moving through a free space. According to
whether it relates to the change of intensity of Faraday’s law, there must be an electromotive force
adjacent magnet or occurs due to the relative motion. in the contour C due to the flux changes with time
More over, Faraday established that the same effect and convection derivatives simultaneously. Using the
was detected in a circuit at rest as well as in that mathematical language for total time derivatives, we
in motion. The latter fact provided the principal arrive at the expression analogous to the differential
basis of Hertz’s relativity principle based on Galileo form (47),
invariance. In order to avoid details of Hertz’s original dΦ ∂Φ∗
investigations [38, 39], let us only note its similarity = − (vs , ∇r )Φ0 − (as , ∇v )Φ0 − . . . (55)
dt ∂t

"Electromagnetic Phenomena", V.2, №4 (8), 2001 555

 R. Smirnov-Rueda, A.E. Chubykalo

making use of the definitions: at rest [30],

(∇, E) = 4πρ, (62)

ZZ
ΦE
0 = E0 (r − rs (t))dS, or,
(∇, B) = 0, (63)
S
(56) 4π 1 dE
[∇, H] = ρv + , (64)
ZZ
ΦB
0 = B0 (r − rs (t))dS c c dt
S
4π 1 ∂E
[∇, H] = j+ , (65)
c c ∂t
and ZZ where the total time derivative of any vector field value
Φ∗(E) = E∗ (r, t)dS, or, E (or B) is,

ZSZ (57) dE ∂E
= − (v, ∇)E − (a, ∇v )E − . . . (66)
Φ ∗(B)
= ∗
B (r, t)dS, dt ∂t
S The above-mentioned form (62)–(65) was for the
first time admitted by Hertz for electrodynamics of
where r is a fixed distance from the point of bodies in motion [38,39]. It was the covering theory for
observation to the origin of the reference systems at Maxwell’s original approach which became the limit
rest; rs (t), vs = drs /dt, as = dvs /dt are the distance, case of motionless medium (a reference system at rest)
instant velocity and instant acceleration of the electric when values of instant velocity v, instant acceleration
(or magnetic) field source. a etc. tend to zero in (66) leaving only partial time
For the sake of simplicity, we can conserve for the derivatives in agreement with (6)–(9). The difference
present the same denomination of field flux in two of the present approach [30] with Hertz’s covering
independent parts of total time derivative (56), taking theory (and with Phipps’ neo-Hertzian approach [41,
into account additional (fixed space and fixed time) 42]) consists in the definition of the total time
conditions, respectively, in the following expression: derivative (66) for a medium at rest (not in motion
½ ¾ with the possible implication of Galilean invariance).
d ∂ Below we shall demonstrate that the set (62)–(65)
Φ= − (vs , ∇r ) − (as , ∇v ) − . . . Φ. (58)
dt ∂t possesses invariance properties in any inertial frame
of reference.
Using a well-known representation for the convection There is no difficulty in extending this approach
part in equation (56), to a many particle system, assuming the validity
ZZ ZZ of the electrodynamics superposition principle. This
(v, ∇) EdS = v(∇, E)dS+ extension is important in order to find out whether
the generalised microscopic field equations cover the
S S
ZZ original (macroscopic) Maxwell’s theory as a limiting
[∇[E, v]]dS, (59) case. To do so one ought to take into account all
S
principal restrictions of Maxwell’s equations (6)–(9)
which deal only with a continuous and closed (or going
we obtain an alternative form of Maxwell’s integral off to infinity) conduction currents. They also have to
equations (52),(53) for a moving electric charge in the be motionless as a whole (static tubes of charge flow),
reference system at rest, admitting only the variation of current intensity.
Under these assumptions, it is quite easy to
I
4π
ZZ
1
ZZ ½
∂E show that the total (macroscopic) convection and
Hdl = jdS + − others displacement currents are cancelled by itself by
c c ∂t
C S S summing up all microscopic contributions,
v(∇, E) − [∇, [E, v]] − . . . } dS, (60) X
(vi , ∇)Ei + (ai , ∇v )Ei + · · · = 0,
ZZ ½ ¾ i
1 ∂E
I
(67)
Edl = − + [∇, [v, B]] + . . . dS. (61) X
(vi , ∇)Bi + (ai , ∇v )Bi + · · · = 0.
c ∂t
C S i

Here we omit, for the sake of simplicity, acceleration In other words, every additional terms in (50),(51)
and other expansion terms in general formula but they, (as well as in (60),(61) disappears and we obtain the
of course, are tacitly implied. original set of Maxwell macroscopic equations (6)–(9)
Before going on to a more general consideration of for continuous and closed (or going off to infinity)
a large number of sources, it is worth to draw attention conduction currents as a valid approximation.
that we arrived to the most compact differential form To conclude this part we would like to note
of Maxwell- Hertz equations in the reference system that the set of equations (60),(61) can be called as

556 "Электромагнитные Явления", Т.2, №4 (8), 2001 г.

 Modern Helmholtzian Electrodynamics as a Covering Classical Electromagnetic Theory

modified Maxwell-Hertz’s equations extended to one Let us establish invariance of field equations in
charge system. It is easy to see that in this form total time derivatives. As far as in special relativity
they are completely equivalent to modified Maxwell- the invariance is looking for inertial frames of
Lorentz equations (50),(51) obtained with the help of reference moving with a constant velocity v, then
the balance equation. Thus, differential and integral in total time derivative expansion we should omit
approaches to extend the original Maxwell theory lead all acceleration and higher order terms. Thus, using
to the same result. definitions (77),(78) we obtain from equation (74) that
Let us write once again the generalised form
of Maxwell-Lorentz equations explicitly for a single 1 ∂A∗ 1
E = −∇ϕ − − [v, B0 ]. (79)
moving particle that is a source of electric and c ∂t c
magnetic fields simultaneously, Separation of implicit time-dependent from
explicit time-dependent components in (79) is
(∇, E) = 4πρ, (68)
straightforward
(∇, B) = 0, (69)
4π
½
1 ∂E 1
[∇, H] = ρv + − E0 = −∇ϕ0 − [v, B0 ],
c c ∂t c (80)
∗ ∗ 1 ∂A∗
E = −∇ϕ − .
¾
(v, ∇)E − (a, ∇v )E − . . . , (70) c ∂t
1 ∂B 1 Using this separation we obtain two second order
[∇, E] = − − [∇, [v, B]]−
c ∂t c differential equations for total potentials (78)
1
(a, ∇v )B − . . . , (71) 4π
c ∆A = − ρv + F1 , (81)
c
at the same time with the balance equation,
∆ϕ = −4πρ + F2 , (82)
dρ
+ (∇, ρv) = 0. (72) where
dt
Splitting up field components into explicit and implicit 1
F1 = ∇(∇, A0 + A∗ ) − (v, ∇)∇ϕ0 +
time-dependent contributions E∗ (B∗ ) and E0 (B0 ), c
respectively, the basic field equations (70),(71) can be 1 ∂∇ϕ∗ 1 ∂ 2 A∗
rewritten as follows: + , (83)
c ∂t c2 ∂t2
∂A∗
µ ¶
1
F2 = − ∇, , .
1 ∂E∗
½
4π c ∂t
[∇, H] = ρv + − (v, ∇)E0 −
c c ∂t (84)
¾ The second term in (83) can be easily transformed
(a, ∇v )E0 − . . . , (73) using mathematical operations of field theory,

1 ∂B∗ 1 (v, ∇)∇ϕ0 = ∇(v, ∇ϕ0 ) − [v, [∇, ∇ϕ0 ]]. (85)
[∇, E] = − − [∇, [v, B0 ]]−
c ∂t c
1 Since [∇, ∇(. . . )] is always equal to zero, we can
(a, ∇v )B0 − . . . , (74) rewrite F1 in a new form,
c
where the total field values have two independent ·½
1
¾
parts, F1 = ∇ (∇, A0 ) − (v, ∇ϕ0 ) +
c
E = E0 + E∗ = E0 (r − rq (t)) + E∗ (r, t), 1 ∂ϕ∗ 1 ∂ 2 A∗
½ ¾¸
(75) ∗
(∇, A ) + + 2 . (86)
∗ ∗
B = B0 + B = B0 (r − rq (t)) + B (r, t). (76) c ∂t c ∂t2

Here we note that implicit time-dependent field The principal feature of (86) consists in the fact that
components E0 and B0 depend only on the point all implicit and explicit time-dependent components
of observation and on the source position at an of total electric and magnetic potentials enter
instant whereas time varying-fields E∗ and B∗ depend independently and, therefore, can be characterized by
explicitly on time at a fixed point. The separation respective gauge conditions,
procedure may be similarly extended to the electric
1
and magnetic potentials introduced as ∇ · A0 − (v, ∇ϕ0 ) = 0, (87)
c
E = ∇ϕ, B = [∇, A], (77) ∗ 1 ∂ϕ∗
∇·A + = 0. (88)
c ∂t
where
Lorentz’s gauge (88) is applicable now only for explicit
ϕ = ϕ0 + ϕ∗ , A = A 0 + A∗ . (78) time-dependent potentials and is invariant under

"Electromagnetic Phenomena", V.2, №4 (8), 2001 557

 R. Smirnov-Rueda, A.E. Chubykalo

Lorentz’s transformations. It suggests that the proper We have not done it yet and will do it elsewhere
time τ (let us call here τ the time variable of explicit but, perhaps, it is possible to prove that generalised
time-dependent components in the entire spirit of Lorentz gauge (90) is valid also for non-inertial frames
the special relativity theory) for two inertial frames (acceleration and higher order terms in the total time
moving with respect to each other are related by derivative expansion). It would have a very attractive
an imaginary rotation in space-time. The amount of consequence that the field equations (62)–(65) written
rotation depends on the relative velocity. in total time derivatives could be considered invariant
Implicit time-dependent potentials turn out to be regardless a frame of reference (inertial or non-
related through the novel gauge (87) which covers inertial).
a well-known relationship between the components Recall that in special relativity, electric and
of electric and magnetic field potentials of uniformly magnetic potentials of uniformly moving charge A0
moving charge [33], and ϕ0 are interrelated through the relationship (89)
v under application of Lorentz transformation. Here we
A0 = ϕ0 . (89) found that relativistic potentials (or components of
c
potential four-vector) are connected in a more general
Strictly speaking, this relationship is true for Galilean
way (87). Another important aspect of the present
as well as for Lorentz’s transformations. The difference
approach can be attributed to the verification of some
is attributed to a mathematical formulation of
ambiguity in the use of Lorentz gauge since it is
potentials in a new frame of reference. For instance,
applicable only to explicit time-dependent potentials.
the Lorentz transformation corresponds to a rotation
In fact, there are some difficulties in the conventional
in the space-time plane whereas the Galilean one
electrodynamics concerning the inconsistency of this
leaves A0 and φ0 unchanged, for it is assumed that
gauge with implicit time-dependent functions. The
no operation can rotate the time axis into the space
standard Lorentz gauge condition
axis or vice versa. For Galilean invariance, the time
direction is supposed to be the same for all inertial 1 ∂ϕ
frames of reference. ∇·A+ =0 (91)
c ∂t
The expression (87) and all physically possible
transformations based on it, do not involve explicitly is assumed to be valid for total electric and
any time dimension. The time t here can be added magnetic potentials (transverse plus longitudinal) and
as an afterthought (a parameter describing the is considered suffice to hold Maxwell’s equations
space coordinate R(t)). In above discussion of full invariant under Lorentz transformation. In the quasi-
time derivative we noted that time variable τ (for stationary approximation, the Lorentz condition in
explicit) and time parameter t (for implicit time every frame of references takes the form of the so-
behaviours) are, generally speaking, independent. If called radiation gauge [43],
we assume, as they do it tacitly in special relativity ∇ · A = 0. (92)
with no distinction of time behaviours, that both
time variables are identical t = τ then we arrive It contradicts the expected relation (89) (or in our
to the implication of Lorentz’s invariance for A0 approach (87)) between electric and magnetic implicit
and φ0 . Without additional hypothesis, the present time-dependent potentials. To make (92) consistent
Helmholtzian approach cannot rule in favour of with (89) in the given frame, they used to put
Galilean or Lorentz’s transformations for implicit an additional condition on the electric potential
time dependences. The novel gauge (87) as well satisfying the so-called Coulomb gauge [43],
as (89) are compatible with both of them. The
only way of resolving this dilemma now seems to ∇ · A = 0, ϕ = 0. (93)
be to suggest experimental verification of electric
field transformation in a moving frame. In fact, Leus In mathematical language the invariance of implicit
recently proposed such experiment [51]. A uniform time-dependent fields in the conventional approach
beam of electons moving with the velocity close to involves more strong limitations than those imposed
c has to produce electric field strenght which differs previously by the Lorentz gauge. Generally speaking,
for Galilean and Lorentz transformations. the conventional classical electrodynamics has to
Two gauge conditions (87) and (88) can be written admit more than one invariance principle since
jointly in a more compact formula that we can call the every time the Lorentz transformation is done, one
generalized Lorentz condition, needs also simultaneously to transform all physical
quantities in accordance with the Coulomb gauge (93).
1 dϕ This problem was widely discussed and in the
∇·A+ = 0, (90)
c dt language adopted in the general Lorentz group theory,
where A0 and φ0 are defined by (78) and the total is known as gauge dependent representation (or joint
time derivative is taken as in (66) up to the convection representation) of the Lorentz group [43]. In fact, it
term. means an additional non-relativistic adjustment of

558 "Электромагнитные Явления", Т.2, №4 (8), 2001 г.

 Modern Helmholtzian Electrodynamics as a Covering Classical Electromagnetic Theory

electric potential, every time we change the frame of electromotive force in the conductor in motion by
reference. This difficulty vanishes when the relativistic describing it as [44, 45]
gauge (87) for implicit time-dependent potentials is
1 ∂A 1
introduced. E = −∇ϕ − + [v, B], (100)
A rigorous consideration of (81),(82) gives another c ∂t c
important conclusion: simultaneous application of where (1) the first term is the electrostatic force, (2)
two independent gauge transformations (87),(88) the second is the force of magnetic induction and (3)
discomposes the initial set (68)–(71) into two pairs the third one is the force of electromagnetic induction
of differential equations, namely, due to the conductor motion. Later investigations
began to distinguish between the electric force in
4π a moving body and the electric force in the ether
∆A0 = − ρv, (94)
c through which the body was moving and as a result,
∆ϕ0 = −4πρ (95) did not consider 1/c[v, B] as a full-value part of the
electric field, as afterwards was argued by Hertz. This
at the same time with the homogeneous wave
distinction was one of the basic premises in Lorentz’s
equations,
electron theory and was closely related to the special
4π ∂ 2 A∗ status of the Lorentz force conception. It also can be
∆A∗ − = 0, (96) noted in the way how it forms part the formalism of
c ∂t2
4π ∂ 2 ϕ∗ the conventional field theory. The equation of motion
∆ϕ∗ − = 0. (97) with total time derivative (30) should be contrasted
c ∂t2
from the form of partial differential equations (26)–
Likewise (89), Poisson’s second order differential (29). It does not correspond to the mathematical
equations (94),(95) for electric and magnetic structure of a consistent system.
potentials covers the conventional approach in the In special relativity the Lorentz force, is the
steady-state approximation and can be considered as result of the transformation of the components
valid extension to implicit time-dependent potentials. of Minkowski’s force. Thus, the expression for
A general solution, as one would expect, satisfies the Lorentz force can be obtained in a purely
a pair of uncoupled inhomogeneous D’Alembert’s mathematical way from the general relativistic
equations. It can be verified by summing up (94),(95) relationships [33]. In the present Helmholtz-type
and (96),(97) (here we omit premeditatedly all approach the Lorentz force is one of the terms in the
boundary conditions for the sake of simplicity), total time derivative expansion. This has advantage
to be consistent by itself with the set of generalised
1 ∂2A 4π
∆A − = − ρv, (98) field equations. There is no need to supplement
2
c ∂t 2 c Maxwell’s theory with equation of motion. Given
1 ∂2ϕ such interpretation of Lorentz’s force, we remind
∆ϕ − 2 2 = −4πρ, (99)
c ∂t that in our approach it can be related only to
where the total values A and φ are defined by (78). implicit time-dependent components whereas in the
The same result has been derived in the Section conventional electrodynamics it was the product of
VI independently, starting from the analysis of the total magnetic field leading to some ambiguities.
boundary conditions for inhomogeneous D’Alembert’s In this respect it is interesting to mention very recent
equations [29]. It has been shown mathematically that works by Wesley [46] and Phipps [47] challenging
any general solution of Maxwell’s equations has to the sufficiency of the Lorentz force law to describe
be obligatory written as a superposition of implicit experimental observations. They advocated the use of
and explicit time-dependent functions. The above total time derivatives (in the above-mentioned neo-
analysis endorsed that conclusion by demonstrating Hertzian sense) and their data roughly agreed with
relativistic invariance of (98),(99) and, therefore, (68)– theoretical predictions, while the conventional theory
(71), if and only if the relativistic gauge condition (90) does not predict any effect at all.
is satisfied by respective components of the total 9. Analysis of classical
field. Thus, the covering theory based on the total
time derivatives possesses all necessary relativistic difficulties and the
symmetry properties. Hamiltonian form of
To conclude this section, some remarks worth
to be done concerning the empirical and axiomatic generalized Maxwell’s
status of the Lorentz force concept in the electron equations
theory formulated by Lorentz. In the first version
of Maxwell’s theory published under the name ”On Maxwell’s equation in the form of D‘Alembert’s
Physical Lines of Force” (1861–1862) there was equations lend themselves to the covariant description
already admitted an unified character of a full and are in agreement with the requirements of special

"Electromagnetic Phenomena", V.2, №4 (8), 2001 559

 R. Smirnov-Rueda, A.E. Chubykalo

relativity mathematical formalism. For four-vectors of explicit time- dependence does not appear and field
separated potentials, the standard four-vector form of lines remain radial. Without any approximation, the
basic equations can be used. We immediately have the influence of a possible retarded effect cancels itself at
following expressions: any distance from the moving charge.
On the other hand, the conventional theory
1 ∂2
µ ¶
4π is unable to give any reasonable interpretation
∆− 2 2 [A0µ + A∗µ ] = − jµ ,
c ∂t c describing a transition from an uniform movement
µ = 0, 1, 2, 3, (101) of a charge into an arbitrary one and then again
into uniform over a limited interval of time. In this
where case, the first and the latter solutions can be given
exactly by the Lorentz transformation as implicit
A0µ + A∗µ = (ϕ0 + ϕ∗ , A0 + A∗ ), time- dependent functions. What mechanism changes
them at a distance unreachable for retarded Lienard-
jµ = (cρ, j). (102) Wiechert fields? The lack of continuity between the
corresponding solutions is obvious. It has the same
The first Poisson’s operator ∆ acts only on the
nature as discussed in the Section VI.
four-vector of implicit time-dependent components
The Helmholtz-type approach based on separation
A0µ whereas ∆ and ∂ 2 /∂t2 act together on explicit
of implicit and explicit time behaviours, also
time-dependent components A∗µ . The equation (101)
highlights serious ambiguities associated with
is relativistically invariant under the generalized
the self-energy concept in the framework of the
relativistic Lorentz gauge condition (90). To give some
conventional electrodynamics. Let us confine our
substance to the above formality we exhibit explicitly
previous qualitative reasoning to the example of
Poisson’s equation for implicit time-dependent four-
electrostatics. A rigorous analysis will be done later
vector A0µ
4π applying Hamiltonian formalism.
∆A0µ = − jµ , (103) In electrostatics the total energy of N interacting
c
charges is
where N
1 X X ei ej
A0µ = (ϕ0 , A0 ). (104) W = . (105)
2 i=1 |ri − rj |
j6=1
As we demonstrated in the previous Section,
equation (103) is relativistically invariant under Here, the infinite self-energy terms (i = j) are omitted
the Lorentz gauge (83) if the time parameter t in the double sum. The expression obtained by
here is considered identintical to the time variable Maxwell for the energy in an electric field, expressed
τ for explicit time components A∗µ . Under this as a volume integral over the field, is [45]
condition, Poisson’s differential operator ∆ acting on
1
Z
implicit time-dependent potentials becomes invariant W = E 2 dV (106)
in every inertial frame of reference under Lorentz’s 2
V
transformations. This is due to the fact that time
variable t is not any more independent from τ as This corresponds to Maxwell’s idea that the
it is assumed for partial derivatives in full time system energy must be stored somewhere in space.
derivative formalism. Non-covariant representation of The expression (106) includes self-energy terms and
D’Alembert differential operator ∆ − ∂ 2 /∂t2 or, in in the case of point charges they make infinite
other words, non-covariance of equation (103) is not contributions to the integral.
a stumbling block here for relativistic invariance In a relativistically covariant formulation the
and endorses the well-known fact that covariance conservation of energy and the conservation of
is not necessary, it is only sufficient for relativistic momentum are not independent principles. In
invariance. particular, the local form of energy-momentum
More over, it is tacitly implied in the conventional conservation can be written in a covariant form, using
approach and corresponds to the relativistic invariance the energy- momentum tensor,
of field components of an uniformly moving charge
∂T µν
(implicit time-dependent functions) that remain radial = 0. (107)
∂xµ
lines of electric field regardless the choice of inertial
frame. This fact is odd to contemplate in the Faraday- For an electromagnetic field, it is well-known
Maxwell electrodynamics based on the concept of local that (107) can be strictly satisfied only for a free
(contact) field which mathematically fits explicit time- field (when a charge is not taken into account),
dependent behaviour. whereas, for the total field of a charge this is not
Actually, electric field lines of an unmoving charge true, since (107) is not satisfied mathematically (four-
are radial. Under Lorentz’s transformation into the dimensional analogy of Gauss’s theorem). As everyone
inertial frame of reference moving with the velocity v knows in classical electrodynamics, this fact gives

560 "Электромагнитные Явления", Т.2, №4 (8), 2001 г.

 Modern Helmholtzian Electrodynamics as a Covering Classical Electromagnetic Theory

rise to the ”electromagnetic mass” concept, which principle. It can be directly verified by rewriting the
violates the exact relativistic mass-energy relationship second term in (109) as
(E = mc2 ). Let us examine this problem in a
1 X
Z
less formal manner. The equivalent three-dimensional Smf = − A0µ j µ dV dt (110)
form of (107) is the formula (3). The amount of c µ
electrostatic self-energy of an unmoving charge in a
given volume V is proportional to E 2 (see (106)). and using Dirac’s expression for four-current,
According to (107) (or (??)), in a new inertial frame, X · ea µ a ¶¸
energy density W as well as electric field E must jµ (r, t) = − ∆ Uµa , (111)
be, generally speaking, an explicit time-dependent a
4π |r − ra |
function (∂W/∂t 6= 0 and ∂E/∂t 6= 0). On the other
hand, the electric field strength of an unmoving charge where Uµa is the four-velocity of the charged particle
keeps its implicit time behaviour under Lorentz’s a.
transformation (∂E/∂t = 0). It contradicts the Let us consider the second pair of
commonly accepted view that electrostatic self-energy equations (18),(19) or (96),(97) defining explicitly
is stored locally in space. time-dependent potentials (ϕ∗ , A∗ ) or A∗µ in
In the framework of Helmholtian approach these representation (101). It is easy to see that the
ambiguities can be cleared up. Actually, looking conventional Hamiltonian form can be adopted to
back at the general solution (23) with explicitly describe transverse components of electromagnetic
exposed longitudinal and transverse components, field [33],
the term E0 is responsible for bipartite interaction 1
Z X
between charges. No local energy conservation law St = − Fµν F µν dV dt, (112)
16π
in the form (107) or (3) is adequate for implicit µ,ν
time-dependent field E0 . We suggest that the
where
original mathematical form (105) should be used. ∂A∗ν ∂A∗µ
Nevertheless, the local form (107) or (3) is perfectly Fµν = − . (113)
∂xµ ∂xν
adequate for explicitly time-dependent free field
E∗ . Clear separation on implicit and explicit time Finally, it remains to be proved that the variational
dependencies in Helmhotz-type electrodynamics leads derivative,
to the correspondent separation in the total electric Z XÃ !
1 X ∂Fµν
field energy expression, δSf = − ν
δA∗µ dV dt (114)
µ
4π ν
∂x
N
1 X X ei ej 1
Z
W = + E 2 dV. (108)
2 i=1 |ri − rj | 2 can be used to obtain the covariant analogue
j6=1 V of (18),(19) (or (95)–(97)) in the following form:
This is a logical conclusion of our qualitative
X ∂ X ∂ · ∂A∗ν ∂A∗µ
¸
reasoning that will be mathematically verified below F µν
= − = 0. (115)
in Hamiltonian formulation. ν
∂xν ν
∂xν ∂xµ ∂xν
Let us discuss generalised field equations in total
time derivatives (62)–(65) for arbitrary fields from the The difference with the conventional interpretation
standpoint of the principle of least action. Applying consists in the way electromagnetic potentials A0µ
explicitly separation of field components we have not and A∗µ take part in this Hamiltonian formulation.
done any modifications in the general four- vector In the light of the Helmholtzian approach, the
representation of Maxwell equations (101),(102). We electromagnetic energy-momentum tensor demands
only noted that in this case the set of field equations some corrections in the interpretation of its
can be split up for equations of implicit and explicit mathematical formulation [33],
time-dependent potentials such as (16)–(19) or (94)– 1 X µ νp 1 µν X
(97). A relativistic action for implicit time potential T µν = − Fp F + g Fβγ F βγ . (116)
4π p 16π
A0µ can be written in the conventional form [33], β,γ

Z2 N
X As a consequence of the definition (113), it can
Sm + Smf = (− ma cdsa − describe the energy-momentum conservation law for,
a=1 exclusively, free electromagnetic field as follows,
1
N 3 X ∂T µν
X ea X = 0. (117)
A0(ma) dxµa ). (109)
c ν
∂xν
a=1 µ=0

This expression is sufficient to derive the first couple of Consequently, contrary to the traditional
equations (16),(17) (or (94),(95)) from the least action interpretation, the quantity F µν can be defined

"Electromagnetic Phenomena", V.2, №4 (8), 2001 561

 R. Smirnov-Rueda, A.E. Chubykalo

as a transverse electromagnetic field tensor because The general solution of (110),(111) is the sum of
it contains only transverse field components but not two independent and orthogonal terms corresponding
total as in the conventional approach. There is no to longitudinal ul and transversal ut waves,
more violation of (117) even if the charge is taken into
account, contrary to the situation in the conventional u = u l + ut . (121)
theory (see above discussion of equation (107)).
Strictly speaking, the total field energy W should If the longitudinal spreading velocity approaches
be split up into two parts: formally to infinity (cl → ∞) then (119) transforms
1. energy Wmf longitudinal implicit time- into Laplace’s equation whereas the general solution
dependent fields responsible for electro- and turns out to have an implicit time dependence.
magnetostatic interaction between charges Solution (121) takes the form of separated potential
(non-local term) and solution (14),(15) (or (78)). Longitudinal component
does not vanish in this limit from mathematical
2. energy Wf of transverse explicitly time- consideration, though the time behaviour undergoes a
dependent electromagnetic field (local term), fundamental transformation. Thus, longitudinal waves
ul have to be considered as full-value solution of
W = Wmf + Wf . (118) the total system of differential equations (119),(120).
It allows to understand why Hertz had no right to
Following these results we suggest that the concept eliminate longitudinal components from mathematical
of potential (non-local) energy and potential forces solutions of Helmholtz’s theory in Maxwellian limit
must be re-established in classical electrodynamics. (see corresponding discussion in the Section II,
So, the system of charges and currents in absence quote [21]).
of free electromagnetic field Wf must be considered To end the Section we conclude that the
as a conservative system without any idealization. idea of non-local interactions is enclosed into the
Introduction of interaction energy Wmf in the framework of Helmholtzian electromagnetic theory
form (109) equivalent to (105) definitely eliminates the as unambiguous mathematical feature. On the
problem of infinities of self-energy terms. other hand, some of the quantum mechanical
The physical meaning of the Poynting vector effects like Aharonov-Bohm effect, violation of
has been changed notably. So far the conventional the Bell’s inequalities etc. point out indirectly
theory dealt with it as a quantity describing dynamic on the possibility of non-local interactions in
properties of the total electromagnetic field. Now it electromagnetism. During the last century modern
is adequate only for conservation law in the form of physics had faced fundamental difficulties in unifying
equation (117) and, therefore, makes sense only for relativistic classical physics elaborated mainly in the
transverse components of electromagnetic field. Long- framework of the locality concept of relativistic theory
time well-known ambiguities related to the definition and quantum physics characterized essentially by the
of the field energy location in space, do not take place emergence of non-locality. Regretfully, nowadays there
in Helmholtz-type electrodynamics. In particular, is no rigorous mutual correspondence between these
there should be no flux of electromagnetic energy two fundamental areas of physical science. Helmholtz-
for stationary currents. Contrary, the conventional type approach offers an altogether more promising
approach predicts senseless flux of energy coming from solution.
infinity towards the current [28].
At the end of this Section we would like to
present a valuable mechanical analogy of Maxwell’s 10. Non-radiation condition for
equations in the form of (16)–(19) (or (94)–(97)).
It helps to understand why general solutions must
free electromagnetic field
be split up into (orthogonal) potentials (14),(15) In this section we make a qualitative discussion of
(or (78)) with explicit and implicit time-dependence, the energy balance between the system of interacting
respectively. The set of differential equations for charged particles and free electromagnetic field,
elastic waves in an isotropic media (see [48]) can namely, energy and momentum lost by radiation. We
be considered as mechanical analogy of Maxwell’s must examine carefully one essential difference in the
equations to endorse Helmholtzinan foundations of electromagnetic energy interpretation. Let us write
classical electrodynamics the total relativistic action as
∂ 2 ul
− c2l ∆ul = 0, (119) S = Sm + Smf + Sf . (122)
∂t2
2
∂ ut Although we adopt denominations used in the
− c2t ∆ut = 0, (120)
∂t2 conventional theory, the physical essence of the last
here cl and ct are spreading velocities of longitudinal two terms has changed significantly. Usually, the
and transverse waves, respectively. interaction between particles and electromagnetic

562 "Электромагнитные Явления", Т.2, №4 (8), 2001 г.

 Modern Helmholtzian Electrodynamics as a Covering Classical Electromagnetic Theory

field was attributed to Smf whereas the properties as the momentum conservation may be treated
of electromagnetic field manifested itself by the independently. Conservation laws are useful tools to
additional term Sf . get some general insight on the problem even when
In the new approach, no concept of local (contact) complete solutions are very difficult to find.
field as intermediary is suffice to describe the Let us consider the case where charges (currents)
interaction between charges (currents). Hence, Smf and free electromagnetic field are located in the
is understood in terms of non-local conservative same region and become interacting. Internal forces of
field. Local field (transverse components attributed to mutual reaction between two subsystems are usually
radiation or free field) is represented by the last term named as internal dissipative forces. They carry out
Sf . The possible free field interaction with the system the energy exchange inside the total isolated system.
of charges (currents) depends entirely on its location In terms of the Hamiltonian formalism [49] it can be
in space. expressed as a corresponding Hamiltonian evolution,
The internal structure of the relativistic
dH1,2 ∂H1,2
action (122), where local and non-local contributions = ex
+ P1,2 in
+ P1,2 , (126)
are separated in different terms, allow us to consider dt ∂t
the isolated system of charged particles and free field where P1,2ex in
(P1,2 ) is the power of the external (internal)
as consisting of two corresponding subsystems. Each forces acting on two subsystems, respectively. In our
of the subsystems may be completely independent case P1ex and P2ex appear as a result of mutual
if there is no mutual interaction (for instance, interaction. On the other hand, any internal non-
free electromagnetic field is located far from the potential force in the first subsystem can also cause
given region of charges and currents). In static and energy dissipation (P1in ). Even in the absence of a
steady approximations the subsystem of charges and real mechanical friction, other internal non-potentials
currents can be considered as conservative. The total forces (for example, inhomogeneous gyroscopic forces)
Hamiltonian of our isolated system can be split up can still act in this subsystem and dissipate energy. In
into two corresponding parts, other words, if initially there is no free electromagnetic
field (H2 = 0), it can be created by internal non-
H = H1 + H2 , (123) potential forces (P1in ) acting in the first subsystem
(H2 is no more zero). It means that energy is lost by
where H1 is the Hamiltonian of the conservative
radiation in the subsystem of charges and currents.
system of charges and currents. It involves apart from
In mathematical language the corresponding energy
electro- and magnetostatic energy also mechanical
balance can be written as follows:
energy of particles (corresponding to the action
Sm + Smf ). H2 is the Hamiltonian of the free d
(H1 + H2 ) = 0 (127)
electromagnetic field (corresponds to the action Sf ). dt
It is important to note that the separation into
where d/dt(H1 ) and d/dt(H2 ) are energy change rates
two subsystems is possible only in this new approach.
for the first and the second subsystems, respectively. It
In the conventional interpretation of Sf described the
might be easily noted that the energy balance (127) is
properties of the total electromagnetic field without
symmetrical in respect to time reversion. This feature
making any distinction between longitudinal and
is in accordance with the time symmetry of generalized
transverse components. In static approximation the
Maxwell’s equations in total time derivatives.
term Sf should vanish in our approach but in the
Here it should be specially noted that the energy
conventional approach it is not zero, and corresponds
balance in the conventional electrodynamics is not
to the field self-energy [33],
always reversible in time. For instance, the dipolar
Zt2 radiation energy is proportional to the square of a
Sf = Lf dt, (124) charge acceleration. Thus, the total dipolar radiation
energy is always positive regardless the mathematical
t1
operation on the reversion of time (negative sign
where of time variable). It indicates (not proves) that
1
Z
conventional Maxwell’s equations may not be entirely
Lf = (E 2 − B 2 )dV. (125)
8π time symmetrical. Perhaps, the failure to build up
V classical Rutherford’s model of the atom is due to that
Here E and B are the total electric and magnetic field deficiency.
strengths, respectively, admitted in the conventional To end this Section we formulate the previous
approach. statement about the energy conservation as the
In relativistic theory, energy is zero component condition of non-radiation of the free electromagnetic
of the four-momentum. For an isolated system field: if in an isolated system of charges (currents) in
the total Hamiltonian is not time-dependent the absence of free electromagnetic field (d/dt(H1 ) =
and, therefore, the energy conservation as well 0), all internal non-potential forces are compensated

"Electromagnetic Phenomena", V.2, №4 (8), 2001 563

 R. Smirnov-Rueda, A.E. Chubykalo

or do not exist then this system will not produce gauge condition. It promises to keep generalised
(radiate) free electromagnetic field (remains zero H2 = Maxwell’s equations invariant also in non-inertial
0) and will keep the conservative system itself. frames but this issue will be studied elsewhere.
This implies not only an equilibrium between Consistent mathematical interpretation of
radiation and absorption but no radiation at all. generalised field equations gives a solid ground for
This possibility would be of particular interest in Helmholtzian foundations of classical electrodynamics
the attempt to understand the quantum mechanical based on the superposition of implicit time dependent
principles and may be explored elsewhere. longitudinal and explicit time dependent transverse
components. This approach demonstrates advantages
11. Conclusions over the conventional field description in eliminating
the large number of internal inconsistencies from
From the modern philosophy of science standpoint, classical electrodynamics and promises more adequate
then, it is plain that Helmholtz’s theory could not be solution to fundamental problems of modern physics.
definitely ruled out, since it was perfectly falsifiable by Recent experimental data [46, 47] highlighted
Popper’s criterion, did not contradict any observable certain limitations of the conventional approach.
fact and predicted all well-known electromagnetic Graneau’s monograph on modern Newtonian
phenomena in Maxwellian limit. As the relevant electrodynamics [50] reviewed numerous research
history of physics literature shows, Hertz himself data in exploding wires, railguns, different
indicated in his last experimental work that he electromagnetic accelerators, jet propulsion in
definitely could not disprove any reference to action liquid metals, arc plasma explosions, capillary fusion
at a distance. Moreover, Hertz’s crucial experiments etc. as unambiguous indication on the existence of
provided no explicit information on longitudinal non-local longitudinal forces. Thus, a new area of
components which were such an essential feature electromagnetic research emerges that is interested in
of Helmholtz’s theory. From this point they could the study of longitudinal components by experimental
not be considered conclusive to refute alternative as well as by theoretical means.
approach. This may indicate that there was a As a final conclusion of this review, we would like
need for further experimental investigations of Hertz to quote P. Duhem’s significant words [27]: ”... An
into the possibility that Helmholtz’s theoretically excessive admiration for Maxwell’s work has led many
predicted longitudinal electromagnetic components physicists to the view that it does not matter whether
did in fact exist. More explicit and direct experimental a theory is logical or absurd, all it is required to do is
information on the existence of longitudinal forces suggest experiments: A day will come, I am certain,
should have determined the Hertz choice between when it will be recognised: that above all the objects
Maxwell’s and Helmholtz’s theories. As far as this of a theory is to bring classification and order into
experimental part was not fulfilled, the problem the chaos of facts shown by experience. Then it will
of the completeness of Hertz’s experiments on be acknowledged that Helmholtz’s electrodynamics is a
propagation of electromagnetic interactions could not fine work and that I did well to adhere to it. Logic
be considered as fully resolved. Thus, according to the can be patient, for it is eternal”.
modern criteria of scientific method, philosophy and
methodology of science say that Hertz’s experiments
References
cannot be considered as conclusive at some points as [1] Smirnov-Rueda R. Were Hertz’s ’Crucial’
it is generally implied. Experiments on Propagation of Electro- magnetic
Mathematical analysis of Maxwell-Lorentz Interaction Conclusive? // in ”Instantaneous
equations for one charge system shows ambiguous Action at a Distance in Modern Physics: Pro and
conventional treatment of implicit and explicit time Contra”, Edited by A.E. Chubykalo, V. Pope and
dependencies. It was found that all conventional R. Smirnov-Rueda – New York: – Nova Science
approach is beset with the same ambiguity leading Publishers Inc. Commack. – 1999. – P. 57–74
to many mathematical inconsistencies and paradoxes.
We suggested that it is possible to solve those [2] Laplace S. Mecanique Celeste – Paris. – 1799.
difficulties by clear distinguishing between functions Book X, 22.
with implicit and explicit time dependencies.
[3] Van Flandern T. Dark Matter, Missing Planets
This consideration provided self-consistency for
and New Comets – Berkeley, California: North
mathematical description of electromagnetic theory.
Atlantic Books. – 1993. – P. 50
Maxwell’s equations resulted to be written in full
time derivatives that consistently covers conventional [4] Newton I. Third Letter to Bentley – Work of
approach. We showed that the covering theory Richard Bentley. III. – P. 211
possesses all necessary relativistic invariance
properties for inertial frames of references. Usual [5] Laplace S. Exposition du System du Monde
Lorentz’s gauge condition is covered by generalised – Paris: – 1796. – Book IV.

564 "Электромагнитные Явления", Т.2, №4 (8), 2001 г.

 Modern Helmholtzian Electrodynamics as a Covering Classical Electromagnetic Theory

[6] Graneau P., Graneau P. Newton Versus Einstein: [23] ibid., pp. 151-152
How Matter Interacts with Matter – New York.
A Hearthstone Book, Carlton Press. – 1993. [24] Panofsky W., Phillips M. Classical
Electrodynamics and Magnetism –
[7] Maxwell J. On Faraday’s Line of Force. Scientific Massachusetts: Addison Wesley P.C. – 1962.
Papers. – 1864. – V. 1, – P. 160. Second Edition. – P. 259–260

[8] Hesse M. Action at a Distance in Classical // [25] Hertz H. On the Mechanical Action of Electric
Physics ISIS. – 1955. – V. 46. – P. 337–353 Waves in Wires // Electric Waves. – 1891.
– P. 187.
[9] Hertz H. On the Fundamental Equations of
Electromagnetics for Bodies at Rest // in [26] Duhem P. The Aim and Structure of Physical
”Electric Waves”, Collection of Scientific Papers. Theory – Princeton: – 1954.
– New York. Dover. – 1962. – P. 195
[27] Duhem P. Les Theories Electriques de J. Clerk
[10] Hesse M. Forces and Fields: The Concept of Maxwell – Paris: – 1902 (quoted from Ref. 15)
Action at a Distance in the History of Physics [28] Feynman R.P. Lectures on Physics: Mainly
– London: Thomas Nelson and Sons Ltd. – 1961. Electromagnetism and Matter – Addison-Wesley:
[11] Helmholtz H. Wissenschaftliche Abhandlungen – – 1964.
Barth. – 1882. – V. 1. – P. 611–628 [29] Chubykalo A., Smirnov-Rueda R. Action at a
[12] Kudryavzev P.S. History of Physics – M.: Distance as a Full-value Solution of Maxwell
University Press, Moscow. – 1956. – V. 2. – P. equations: The basis and Application of the
206–213. (in Russian) Separated-Potentials Method // Physical Review
E. – 1996. – V. 53. – P. 5373–5381.
[13] Buchwald J.Z. The Creation of Scientific Effects:
[30] Chubykalo A., Smirnov-Rueda R. Convection
Heinrich Hertz and Electric Waves – Chicago:
Displacement Current and Generalized Form of
The University of Chicago Press. – 1994.
Maxwell-Lorentz Equations // Modern Physics
[14] Woodruff A.E. The Contribution of Hermann von Letters A. – 1997. – V. 12, N 1. – P. 1–24.
Helmholtz to Electrodynamics // ISIS. – 1968.
[31] Chubykalo A., Smirnov-Rueda R. Reply to
– V. 59 – P. 300–311.
Comment on ’Action at a Distance as a Full-value
[15] O’Rahilly A. Electromagnetic Theory: A Critical Solution of Maxwell equations: The basis and
Examination of Fundamentals – New York: Application of the Separated- Potentials Method
Dover. – 1965. – V. 1. – P. 161–180 // Physical Review E. – 1998. – V. 57.
– P. 3683–3686.
[16] Hertz H. On the Finite Velocity of Propagation
of Electromagnetic Actions // Electric Waves. [32] Einstein A. The Meaning of Relativity –
– 1888. – P. 110. Princeton: Princeton University Press. – 1955.
5th Edition.
[17] ibid., ”On the Finite Velocity of Propagation of
Electromagnetic Actions” in ”Electric Waves”. [33] Landau L.D., Lifshitz E.M. Classical Theory of
– 1888. – P. 123 Field – Oxford: Pergamon Press. – 1985.

[18] ibid., p.108 [34] Dirac Paul A.M. Directions in Physics – New
York: John Wiley & Sons. – 1978.
[19] ibid., p.121
[35] Tikhonov A.N., Samarski A.N. Equations of
[20] Buchwald J.Z. Electrodynamics in Context: Mathematical Physics – Oxford: Pergamon Press.
Object States, Laboratory Practice and Anti- – 1963.
Romanticism, in ”Hermann von Helmholtz and
[36] Villecco // Physical Review E. – 1993. – V. 48.
the Foundations of Nineteenth- Century Science”,
– P. 4008.
Edited by D. Caham - Berkely. University of
California Press. – 1993. – P. 345, P. 368. [37] Hylleraas E.A. Mathematical and Theoretical
Physics – New York: Wiley-Interscience. – 1970.
[21] Hertz H. ”Electric Waves”, Collection of Scientific
– V. 2.
Papers – New York: Dover. – 1962. – P. 15.
[38] Hertz H. // Wied. Annalen. – 1890. – V. 41.
[22] ibid., ”The Forces of Electric Oscillations, Treated – P. 369.
According to Maxwell’s Theory”, in ”Electric
Waves”, p. 137 [39] Hertz H. // Ges. Werke. – 1894. – V. 2. – P. 256.

"Electromagnetic Phenomena", V.2, №4 (8), 2001 565

 R. Smirnov-Rueda, A.E. Chubykalo

[40] Jackson J. D. Classical Electrodynamics – New

York: John Wiley & Sons. – 1963.

[41] Phipps T.E., // Jr. Heretical Verities:

Mathematical Themes in Physical Description.
(Classical Non-fiction Library, Urbana, 1986)

[42] Phipps T.E. // Jr. On Hertz’s Invariant Form of

Maxwell’s Equations. Phys. Essays. – 1993.
– V. 6. – P. 249–255.

[43] Barut A.O. Electrodynamics and Classical

Theory of Fields and Particles – New York: Dover
Publications. Inc. – 1980.

[44] Maxwell J.C. ”On Physical Lines of Force”,

Scientist Papers , 482 1864, Vol. 1.

[45] Maxwell J.C. Treatise on Electricity and

Magnetism – London: Oxford Univ. Press. – 1892.

[46] Wesley J.P. The Marinov Motor, Notional

Induction without a Magnetic B Field //
Apeiron.
– July-October 1998. – V. 5, N 34.

[47] Phipps T.E., Jr., Observations of the Marinov

Motor // Apeiron. – July–October 1998. – V. 5,
N 34. – P. 192-208.

[48] Landau L.D., Lifshitz E.M. Theory of Elasticity

– Oxford: Pergamon Press. – 1970.

[49] Goldstein H. Classical Mechanics – London:

Addison-Wesley Publish. Company Inc. – 1959.

[50] Graneau P., Graneau N. Newtonian

Electrodynamics – Singapore: World Scientific
Publish. Inc. – 1996.

[51] Leus V.A. Some Open Problems in Theoretical

Foundations of Electrotechnics // Proceedings of
the 2nd Siberian Conference on mathematical
problems of physics. Institute of Mathematics.
Russian Academy of Sciences. Novosibirsk.
– 1999. – P. 134–148. (in Russian)

566 "Электромагнитные Явления", Т.2, №4 (8), 2001 г.

View publication stats