arxiv:physics/ v1 14 May 2002

Transcription

1 arxiv:physis/ v1 14 May 2002 REPLY TO CRITICISM OF NECESSITY OF SIMULTANEOUS CO-EXISTENCE OF INSTANTANEOUS AND RETARDED INTERACTIONS IN CLASSICAL ELECTRODYNAMICS by J.D.Jakson ANDREW E. CHUBYKALO * AND STOYAN J. LAE Esuela de Físia, Universidad Autónoma de Zaateas, Apartado Postal C-580 Zaateas 98068, ZAC., Méxio In this note we show that Jakson s ritiism of our work Neessity of simultaneous o-existene of... is based on an inexat understanding of the basi assumptions and onlusions of our work. In his note 1 J.D.Jakson affirms that in our work 2 we make the laim that the eletri and magneti fields derived from the Liénard-Wiehert potentials for a harged partile in arbitrary motion do not satisfy the Maxwell equations. This affirmation of J.D.Jakson does not orrespond to a keynote of our work. Let us begin with our general objetions to Jakson s ritiism. Atually, one of the aims of our work was to show that the diret use (from the mathematial point of view) of the following idea of Landau and Lifshitz 3 (see the quotation below) leads to a ontradition: To alulate the intensities of the eletri and magneti fields from the formulas E = ϕ 1 A, B = [ A]. (1) we must differentiate ϕ and A with respet to the oordinates x, y, z of the point, and the time t of observation. But the formulas (63.5, Ref.3) { } { } q q ϕ(r, t) = ( ), A(r, t) = R R ( ) R R. (2) t 0 t 0 * andrew@loginet.om.mx 1

2 2 A. E. Chubykalo & S. J. laev express the potentials as a funtions of t 0 (t in Ref.3), and only through the relation (63.1) in Ref.3) t 0 = t τ = t R(t 0). (3) as impliit funtions of x, y, z, t. Therefore to alulate the required derivatives we must first alulate the derivatives of t 0 In other words, if one takes into aount exlusively the impliit dependene of the potentials and fields on time t, one obtains orret fields, but these fields E(r, t) = q { (R R )(1 2 (R R )3 } { ) [R [(R R 2 + q ) } ]] 2 (R R, (4) t 0 )3 t 0 {[ ]} R B(r, t) = R E t 0, (5) do not satisfy the Maxwell equations. One more: if, following Landau and Lifshitz aforementioned idea, one does not take into aount the expliit dependene of fields on t, rather only the impliit one, we an see that in this ase (exlusively in this ase!) fields (4) and (5) do not satisfy Maxwell equations. In Setion 4 of our work 2 we showed that Faraday s law is obeyed if one onsiders the funtions E and B as funtions with both impliit and expliit dependene on t (or on x i ). a That is why we do not understand why J.D.Jakson did the same in Setion 4 of his work 1. It seems to us that a basi reason behind Jakson s antagonism to our work is the following: our interpretation of the expliit time-dependene as a ertain manifestation of instantaneous ation-at-a-distane and on the other hand the impliit time-dependene (i.e. exlusively through the relation (3)) as a well-known short-range ation. From the generally aepted b formal mathematial point of view our work is faultless. Let us explain this point more partiularly. In his work 1 J.D.Jakson onsiders our expression = (6) 0 as wrong, refering to formula R = r r 0 (t 0 ). The point is what one means by the operator and by a funtion R in Ref. 3. It is easy to prove that in the unnumerated set of equations before Eq.(63.6) 3 = 0 0 = R R ( 0 = 1 ) 0 a By the way, Landau and Lifshitz in Ref.3 (we show this below) do the same, onfliting with their phrase ited above. b in works 4,5 we show that the generally aepted point of view on the total and partial differentiation has some serious problems (7)

3 Reply to Critiism of Neessity of simultaneous o-existene... 3 Landau and Lifshitz mean by the total derivative and not partial one! (Reall that our index (0) orresponds to the index ( ) in Ref. 3). In order to obtain a value of 0 one annot perform the usual operation of differentiation. It is possible to alulate this derivative using a ertain mathematial trik only. The authors of REf. 3 use the fat that two different expressions of the funtion R exist: and R = (t t 0 ), where t 0 = f(x, y, z, t), (8) R = [(x x 0 ) 2 + (y y 0 ) 2 + (z z 0 ) 2 ] 1/2, where x 0i = f i (t 0 ). (9) It is well-known from the lassial analysis that if a given funtion is expressed by two different types of funtional dependenies, then exlusively total derivatives of these expressions with respet to a given variable an be equated (ontrary to the partial ones). Comparing the total derivatives of R from Eq.(8) and R from Eq.(9) Landau and Lifshitz obtain the orreted value of 0. So one an see that the expression is the total derivative ( dr dt ). And from dr dt = d dt [(t t 0)] = ( = 1 0 one an see that = and 0 =. However, one must not forget that these expressions are just formal mathematial equalities and they do not have any physial sense but help us to find a value of 0. Let addue the sheme whih was impliitly used in Ref. 3 to obtain 0 / and 0 / x i : ) (10)

4 4 A. E. Chubykalo & S. J. laev + 0 dr x 0k 0 = = (=) 0 (= ) dt }{{}}{{} x 0k 0 k }{{} R{t, t 0 (x i, t)} = R(t 0 ) = R{x i, x 0i [t 0 (x i, t)]} (t t 0 ) = R(t 0 ) = { i [(x i x 0i (t 0 )] 2} 1/2 {}}{{}}{{}}{ 0 dr = = + x 0k 0 0 (= ) x i dx i x i x (= i x 0i R ) x 0k 0 x i k. (11) If one takes into aount that / x i = x i / = 0, as a result one obtains the orret expressions for 0 / and 0 / x i. Finally, regarding two phrases of J.D.Jakson in the Abstrat and at the lose of Ref. 1: Classial eletromagneti theory is omplete as usually expressed and Eletromagneti theory is omplete in any hosen gauge, two suffiiently authoritative physiists of 20-th entury help us: R. Feynman 6 :...this tremendous edifie (lassial eletrodynamis), whih is suh a beautiful suess in explaining so many phenomena, ultimately falls on its fae....classial mehanis is a mathematially onsistent theory; it just doesn t agree with experiene. It is interesting, though, that the lassial theory of eletromagnetism is an unsatisfatory theory all by itself. There are diffiulties assoiated with the ideas of Maxwell s theory whih are not solved by and not diretly assoiated with quantum mehanis... W. Pauli 7 : We therefore see that the Maxwell-Lorentz eletrodynamis is quite inompatible with the existene of harges, unless it is supplemented by extraneous theoretial onepts (The hoie of italis was Pauli s). Aknowledgments We are grateful to Annamaria D Amore for revising the manusript. Referenes

5 Reply to Critiism of Neessity of simultaneous o-existene J. D. Jakson, Critiism of Neessity of simultaneous o-existene of instantaneous and retarded interations in lassi eletrodynamis Int.J.Mod.Phys.E, aepted for publiation (2002); see also hep-ph/ A. E. Chubykalo and S. J. laev, Neessity of simultaneous o-existene of instantaneous and retarded interations in lassi eletrodynamis, Int.J.Mod.Phys.A, 14(24) p (1999) 3. L. D. Landau and E. M. Lifshitz, Teoria Polia (Nauka, Mosow, 1973) [English translation: The Classial Theory of Field (Pergamon, Oxford, 1975)]. 4. A. E. Chubykalo, R. A. Flores and J. A. Perez On an ambiguity in the onept of partial and total derivatives in lassial analysis, ndrew E. Chubykalo, Rolando A. Flores and Juan A. Pérez, Proseeding of international ongress Lorentz Group, CPT and Neutrino. Zaateas University, Zaateas, June 23-26, 1999, eds. A.E. Chubykalo,. Dvoeglazov, D. Ernst (World Sientifi, Singapore, 2000). 5. A. E. Chubykalo and R. A. Flores A ritial approah to total and partial derivatives, Aepted for publiation in Hadroni J. (2002). 6. R. P. Feynman, Letures on Physis: Mainly Eletromagnetism and Matter (Addison-Wesley, London, 1964). 7. W. Pauli, Theory of relativity (Pergamon Press, In., New York, 1958), p.186.