The paper is: "On the basic equations of electrodynamics for moving bodies"
- Hertz, H. (1890). Ueber die Grundgleichungen der Electrodynamik für bewegte Körper. Annalen der Physik, 277(11), 369-399. doi: 10.1002/andp.18902771102
This 1890 paper by Heinrich Hertz (1857-1894) seems to have described a model of physics in which light is fully-dragged by moving matter. The importance of this class of model is that, according to Einstein, it was the main logical competitor to special relativity. Einstein also acknowledged that the Hertz approach was internally consistent.
This makes the paper rather important, both historically and scientifically. If this was supposed to be representative of the main theoretical class of competing system to SR, and predated SR by fifteen years, then it would be nice to know what the paper included, and how far Hertz was able to develop the model ... without having to be a native German speaker.
Hertz died around four years later at the age of only 36.
Here's the original paper:
https://archive.org/details/sim_annalen-der-physik_1890_41_11/mode/2up
I only came across the Hertz model thanks to a reference in an Einstein text:
- Albert Einstein (1910) " The simplest hypothesis [for aether theories] is to assume that moving bodies carry along completely the ether they contain. It is on the basis of this hypothesis that Hertz developed an electrodynamics of moving bodies that is free of contradictions. "
https://einsteinpapers.press.princeton.edu/vol3-trans/132
I'm still not entirely sure what the Hertz model involved. If light was dragged completely inside all moving bodies, and the theory conformed to the principle of continuity, then presumably lightspeeds for signals passed between body A and body B would undergo a smooth gradation between cA and cB , and we'd have the equivalent of a modern gravitomagnetic theory including gravitomagnetically-regulated local c-constancy?
Or am I reading too much into this, and did Hertz not take things that far?
Does anyone know?
I have read the original paper above (31 pages) but it is not easy to understand the underlying concept(s) because the way to clarify the topic is a bit outdated. Furthermore it is classic physics and to fully understand the meaning one must be familiar with the than scientific (physic) culture (the meaning of the used concepts).
Maybe it is easier to "reconstruct" the concept you have described in the explanation of the topic (your comment above). In other words, how can moving bodies carrry along the complete aether they contain. Because the concept is not in line with modern physics. The existence of universal quantum fields everywhere in the universe was unknown.
Moreover, the dipole in the CMBR data shows that the solar system has an absolute velocity of about 368 km/s in relation the the electromagnetic field (the rest frame in the universe). Thus Herz's moving object is an object that moves in relation to the structure of the electromagnetic field that is in rest.
The "drag" of light by a moving body is impossible because the speed of light is a constant. Thus it is about the resultant motion of the transsfer of quanta in vacuum space under influence of the long range vectors of the gravitational field of the moving body. Long range vectors that are super positioned on the short range vectors of the magnetic field (Newtonian gravity as a push force from vacuum space around the body). Not the classic magnetic field but the corresponding magnetic field of the universal electric field in QFT (together termed "electromagnetic field").
Unfortunately, Einstein's theory of Special and General relativity is not in line with a rest frame and with basic quantum fields that create physical reality. Thus "aether drag" cannot exist in the theoretical construct of Einstein's curved spacetime.
With kind regards, Sydney
Dear Eric Baird ,
it is also quite interesting the following..
from THE SCIENTIFIC PAPERS OFJAMES CLERK MAXWELL
https://ia800908.us.archive.org/24/items/scientificpapers01maxw/scientificpapers01maxw.pdf
"The intrinsic energy of the field of gravitation must therefore be less where ever there is a resultant gravitating force.
As energy is essentially positive, it is impossible for any part of space to have negative intrinsic energy. Hence those parts of space in which there is no resultant force, such as the points of equilibrium in the space between the different bodies of a system, and within the substance of each body, must have an intrinsic energy per unit of volume greater than
1/8pi *R2
where R is the greatest possible value of the intensity of gravitating force in any part of the universe.
The assumption, therefore, that gravitation arises from the action of the surrounding medium in the way pointed out, leads to the conclusion that every part of this medium possesses, when undisturbed, an enormous intrinsic energy, and that the presence of dense bodies influences the medium so as to diminish this energy wherever there is a resultant attraction.
As I am unable to understand in what way a medium can possess such properties, I cannot go any further in this direction in searching for the cause of gravitation."
Some part of Hertz's original paper is given in his book 'Electric waves' (in English), in last two chapters.
I don't exactly know the purpose of the OP.
"Einstein also acknowledged that the Hertz approach was internally consistent."
Maxwell's (rationalized) eqs. in vacuum (on which Hertz has based his work, see his famous statement, "Maxwell's theory is Maxwell's equations." in fundamental 1889 article) are Lorentz-invariant if all quantities are transformed as in Einstein 1905. (I have checked that. Some eqs. look inconsistent but they aren't; Einstein has just omitted intermediate steps and explanations, resp. Consequently, one needs the special-relativistic force of inertia to obtain - together with the Lorentz force - the conservation laws right, see Planck 1906.
Afaik, Hertz's eqs. for moving bodies are not Lorentz-invariant. W.r.t. which transformation are they invariant? Which force of inertia makes the conservation laws invariant w.r.t. that transformation?
IMHO, without answering that questions, it is premature to judge their physical relevance and consistency of them. Admittedly, they might be a meaningful approximation to eqs. which fulfils those requirements.
- Badges
- Science topic