Is the relativity principle consistent with classical electrodynamics? Towards a logico-empiricist reconstruction of a physical theory

Abstract

It is common in the literature on classical electrodynamics and relativity theory that the transformation rules for the basic electrodynamical quantities are derived from the hypothesis that the relativity principle applies to Maxwell's electrodynamics. As it will turn out from our analysis, these derivations raise several problems, and certain steps are logically questionable. This is, however, not our main concern in this paper. Even if these derivations were completely correct, they leave open the following questions: Is the RP a true law of nature for electrodynamical phenomena? Are, at least, the transformation rules of the fundamental electrodynamical quantities, derived from the RP, true? Is the RP consistent with the laws of ED in a single inertial frame of reference? Are, at least, the derived transformation rules consistent with the laws of ED in a single frame of reference? Obviously, and are empirical questions. In this paper, we will investigate problems and. Abstract First we will give a general mathematical formulation of the RP. In the second part, we will deal with the operational definitions of the fundamental electrodynamical quantities. As we will see, these semantic issues are not as trivial as one might think. In the third part of the paper, applying what J. S. Bell calls “Lorentzian pedagogy”---according to which the laws of physics in any one reference frame account for all physical phenomena---we will show that the transformation rules of the electrodynamical quantities are identical with the ones obtained by presuming the covariance of the equations of ED, and that the covariance is indeed satisfied. Abstract As to problem, the situation is much more complex. As we will see, the RP is actually not a matter of the covariance of the physical equations, but it is a matter of the details of the solutions of the equations, which describe the behavior of moving objects. This raises conceptual problems concerning the meaning of the notion “the same system in a collective motion”. In case of ED, there seems no satisfactory solution to this conceptual problem; thus, contrary to the widespread views, the question we asked in the title has no obvious answer.

Links

PhilArchive



    Upload a copy of this work     Papers currently archived: 90,616

External links

Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server

Through your library

  • Only published works are available at libraries.

Similar books and articles

On the meaning of Lorentz covariance.László E. Szabó - 2003 - Foundations Of Physics Letters 17:479-496.
On the Foundation of the Principle of Relativity.Øyvind Grøn & Kjell Vøyenli - 1999 - Foundations of Physics 29 (11):1695-1733.
“True Transformations Relativity” and Electrodynamics.Tomislav Ivezić - 2001 - Foundations of Physics 31 (8):1139-1183.
Inconsistency in classical electrodynamics?F. A. Muller - 2007 - Philosophy of Science 74 (2):253-277.
The reconciliation of physics with cosmology.M. A. Oliver - 1991 - Foundations of Physics 21 (6):665-689.
The Relation between Classical and Quantum Electrodynamics.Mario Bacelar Valente - 2011 - Theoria: Revista de Teoría, Historia y Fundamentos de la Ciencia 26 (1):51-68.

Analytics

Added to PP
2009-12-23

Downloads
122 (#136,946)

6 months
4 (#319,344)

Historical graph of downloads
How can I increase my downloads?

Author's Profile

Citations of this work

No citations found.

Add more citations

References found in this work

The theory of relativity and a priori knowledge.Hans Reichenbach - 1965 - Berkeley,: University of California Press. Edited by Maria Reichenbach.
The theory of relativity.Christian Møller - 1952 - Oxford,: Clarendon Press.
Inconsistency in classical electrodynamics?F. A. Muller - 2007 - Philosophy of Science 74 (2):253-277.

View all 9 references / Add more references