The Concept of 'Field' in Electrical Theory Author(s): George J. Bowdery Source: Philosophy of Science, Vol. 13, No. 4 (Oct.

, 1946), pp. 307-324 Published by: The University of Chicago Press on behalf of the Philosophy of Science Association Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/185211 . Accessed: 08/06/2013 20:57
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at . http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

The University of Chicago Press and Philosophy of Science Association are collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Philosophy of Science.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 137.207.120.173 on Sat, 8 Jun 2013 20:57:48 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

THE CONCEPT OF 'FIELD' IN ELECTRICAL THEORY

GEORGE J. BOWDERY*

In this paper we shall consider the circumstances under which the concept of 'field' was introduced into electrical theory, the traditional use of the notion of field with particular reference to electrical theory, and sketch three characters of a field in this context. These are its pervasiveness, its independent existence, and its status as an elastic body. In each case we will briefly bring to bear more modern comment on these three facets of the traditional conception, attempting to salvage the meaning for the term field that is currently accepted. Following this, 'field intensity' will be compared with other terms such as 'displacement current' and the fictional character of terms and the conventional character of the equations in which 'field intensitv' appears will be discussed. The paper closes with a summary of the points made.
I

A
The idea of 'field' as employed by Maxwell and his contemporaries had its roots in hydrodynamics and the mathematical theory of elasticity. These subjects employed the notion of a space-filling fluid with certain well-defined properties which included its incompressibility, i.e., in a region which is completely filled, just as much fluid on the whole must enter any closed surface as leaves it, and its irrotationality, i.e., a fluid such that it is impossible to obtain an unlimited amount of work by guiding a particle of the fluid indefinitely around a closed path. The hydrodynamical analogy was first suggested by Thomson' and was employed to the fullest extent by Maxwell who used it in his earliest papers, e.g., "On Faraday's Lines of Force"2 merely to guide him in the construction of the mathematical outlines of a theory and not to formulate the properties of any actual fluids. It is insufficient for the purposes of electrical theory to consider fluids with only the above properties. Some provision must be made for the continual generation of fluid at certain points (sources) and its continual destruction at others. This need arises from the existence of positive and negative electrodes. By assuming a suitable system of sources any known electrostatic phenomena could be formulated on analogy with a steady motion of an incompressible fluid. The transition from the hydrostatic analogy to electrical phenomena was made by interpreting electric charges, not merely as centers of force on the model of Newton's mass particles but as sources of flux of force, where the latter means
* An obituary follows this article, which is being published posthumously.
1 Thomson,
2

W. 1842 Maxwell, J. C. Scientific Papers. Vol. I

307

This content downloaded from 137.207.120.173 on Sat, 8 Jun 2013 20:57:48 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

308

GEORGE T. BOWDERY

the product of the normal3 component of a force across a surface element by the area of surface element through which the force acts. By so doing Gauss's theorem which relates the total flux of force through a closed surface to the total charge within that surface became applicable. In hydrodynamics the 'total charge' is replaced by the term 'mass of fluid' within the surface. With Gauss's theorem a whole series of theorems became available including the theorems connecting volume and surface integrals (Green's theorem) and line and surface integrals (Stokes' theorem). All these theorems were in fact employed in hydrodynamics. Much earlier than the use of the hydrodynamical analogy was the application to electrical problems by Poisson4 and George Green5 of the potential function satisfying LaPlaces equation. This function, defined everywhere, is closely related to the force function, and depends upon the position of the charged bodies. This notion was also employed by Maxwell in his construction of electrical theory. He found the notion of potential, which corresponded to that of 'pressure' in hydrodynamics, extremely useful in rendering Faraday's ideas mathematically. This discussion suggests that two circumstances which led Maxwell and his contemporaries to utilize the idea of field were 1) relatively full mathematical development of hydrostatics, and 2) the analogy of hydrostatics and Faraday's electrical ideas which seemed so fruitful in their continual suggestion of new directions for investigation. A third source which stimulated the development of a field theory was the theory of wave propagation which suggested that some sort of continuous medium was necessary for the passage of light through space. The connections between light and electricity suggested by Faraday made some such medium desirable. Finally, as early as 1820, Oersted appears to have used the notion of field as an explanatory tool for electromagnetic phenomena. He invoked an 'electric conflict' acting in circles around a current-bearing wire to account for the deflection of a magnetic needle in the neighborhood. In this context 'field' meant a spatial region possessing a physical quality that varies in intensity and direction throughout this region. The fact that no deflection appeared if current did not flow through the wire was taken as evidence that the space surrounding the wire had acquired as a whole different properties when the current was on. We have thus far indicated the background for the use of the notion of field. We turn now to three general characters of the traditional usage of the term as well as a more detailed consideration of the work it did for Maxwell and classical theorists of electricity. B In electrostatics a kind of qualitative alteration in the space near a charged body was imagined by Faraday. The quality was conceived to be distributed
3That is, perpendicular to the element of surface. 4 Poisson. 1812 r Green, George. "Essay on the Application of Mathematical Analysis to Theories Electricity and Magnetism", 1828

This content downloaded from 137.207.120.173 on Sat, 8 Jun 2013 20:57:48 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

THE CONCEPT

OF 'FIELD'

IN ELECTRICAL

THEORY

309

throughout this space. Evidence for this distribution was provided by the fact that an indefinitely small test body would detect this quality everywhere in the space near the charged body. The pervasiveness of this quality was expressed in mathematical terms by the use of mathematical functions defined for every real value of space coordinates. A second feature of this usage of the term 'field' lies in the tendency to treat a field as existing independently of any testing body; in particular, persisting with or without the presence of matter or electric charges. For Maxwell, "the Electric Field is the portion of space in the neighborhood of electrified bodies, considered with reference to electric phenomena. It may be occupied by air or other bodies, or it may be a so-called vacuum, from which we have withdrawn every substance which we can act upon with the means at our disposal."6 Thirdly, the electrostatic field, which is neither a property of matter nor provides the metric of the physical geometry of the space in question, is held to be a medium called the ether. It and not matter became the seat of electrical action. In order to explicate these three characters of fields, namely, their pervasiveness, their alleged independence of test bodies, and their existence as media we will discuss briefly the traditional use of the term 'field' in electrostatics. "If a stick of sealing wax is rubbed with a piece of catskin, these bodies and the space round about them are thrown into a peculiar condition, as is revealed by the fact that light particles in the neighborhood are set in motion. We say that the rubbed bodies are 'electrified', and that the space surrounding them is an 'electric field'."7 "Let an electrified piece of metal be at rest in air. The electric field in its neighbourhood is investigated with the help of a proof body, which may be, for example, a small ball of elder pith covered with gold leaf, and electrified by contact with the rubbed sealing wax or the catskin.8 . . . Suppose this force F to be measured; both its magnitude and direction will be different at different points of the field; even at a fixed point in the field they will vary according to the way in which the pith ball is electrified. With regard to the latter type of variation, however, a very simple law governs the result; if the proof body was made to touch the sealing wax, then the direction and sense of the force IF, which acts on it at a given point of the field, are perfectly definite, and only its magnitude depends on the details of the process; but if it was the catskin which was touched, then the direction of the force is reversed, its magnitude depending, as before, on the nature of the preliminary process. This suggests that we should put, for the force which acts on the proof body in the electric field, F=eE (1) where the scalar e depends on the electrical state of the proof body, while the vector F is independent of that state, but varies in magnitude and in direction
Treatise. 1:47 Abraham and Becker. The Classical Theory of Electricity and Magnetism. p. 53 8 It is observed that the pith ball moves in different directions and different distances when in the presence of the electrified body. Since there is motion it is assumed that there must be a force of some sort operating.
7

6 Maxwell.

This content downloaded from 137.207.120.173 on Sat, 8 Jun 2013 20:57:48 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

310

GEORGE T. BOWDERY

at the various points of the field. Experiment shows, in fact, that if two proof bodies which have been treated in different ways are brought in succession to the same point in the field, the forces upon them are in a definite ratio, Fi: F2= el:e2 (la)

and that this ratio remains the same when the point varies. Experiment shows also that the magnitudes of the forces which act on one and the same proof body at different points P and P' of the electric field are in a ratio independent of the previous treatment of the proof body, or

1FI: IF' I =El: I

E'

(lb)

The statements (la), (lb) are both included in (1). If el is given for the first body, e2 is defined for any other body by (la); E can then be found for individual points of the field by means of any proof body. "The scalar factor e in the expression (1) is called the 'electric charge' of the proof body or the quantity of electricity upon it; the vectorial factor E is called the 'electric intensity'."9 We note that the force acting on the test body is defined to be the product of a factor which depends upon the electrical charge of the test body and one which does not. The latter term is taken to have a referent which is independent of the test body.'0 "It is a characteristic feature of Maxwell's theory that it associates a magnitude and intensity E with every point in space... ." "The physical significance of E consists to begin with only in the relation expressed in equation (1), which states: if a small charge e were brought up to the definite point of space in question, then the force IF = e* E would act upon it there. Maxwell's theory then goes on to ascribe to this vector E a self-existent reality independent of the presence of a testing body. Although no observable force appears unless at least two charged bodies are present (for instance the charged piece of metal and the proof body), nevertheless we assert with Maxwell that the charged piece of metal by itself produces in the surrounding space a change of physical conditions which the field of the vector E is exactly fitted to describe. The primary cause of the action on a testing body is considered to be just this vector field
9 Ibid. p. 53-4 10An alternative procedure for the definition of E was suggested by Prof. Black. Consider these statements: At a place P in the space surrounding a body B, test body b1 moves in direction di At a place P in the space surrounding a body B, test body b2 moves in direction d2 At a place P in the space surrounding a body B, test body bi moves in direction di Suppose that as the charges on the bodies (bi) decrease monotonically the directions And that if ei is the charge on bi and 0 the angle between di and a move mionotonically. certain direction d, we can establish empirically a relation 0 f(ei) such that lim f(x) = 0.
x o

We may then define d as the direction of the field at P. Obviously we cannot perform The definition extrapolates beyond experimental the passage to the limit empirically. verification.

This content downloaded from 137.207.120.173 on Sat, 8 Jun 2013 20:57:48 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

THE CONCEPT

OF 'FIELD'

IN ELECTRICAL

THEORY

311

at the place wherethe testing bodyis situated. As for the piece of metal, its part in the matter is merely to maintain this field.""
II

In the traditional method of defining electrostatic intensity described above it is assumed that a unit charge can be placed at an empty point of space without disturbing the position of any of the existing charges, that is, without disturbing the electrification of the other bodies present. This is in principle impossible since, in general, the whole configuration of charges will be altered if a unit charge be introduced. As Maxwell puts it, "If an electrified body be placed at any part of the electric field it will, in general, produce a sensible disturbance in the electrification of the other bodies." He meets this objection by pointing out that "if the body is very small, and its charge also very small, the electrification of the other bodies will not be sensibly disturbed, and we may consider the position of the body as determined by its centre of mass."'12 Clearly a body of finite size with finite charge, no matter how small, is not satisfactory. In fact, Maxwell is later led to remark that "in order to simplify the mathematical process, it is convenient to consider the action of an electrified body, not on another body of any form, but on an indefinitely small body, charged with an indefinitely small amount of electricity, and placed at any point of the space to which the electrical action extends. By making the charge of this body indefinitely small we render insensible its disturbing action on the charge of the first body.""3 This amounts to defining the intensity as the limiting value of the force per unit charge which would act on a charge were it located there, where the limit is taken as the magnitude of the charge approaches zero. As a device to simplify calculation there is no objection to this definition at least within the context of Maxwell's Treatise. But more modern conceptions of a minimum indivisible charge-the electron, are incompatible with such a limiting process as is involved in this definition of electrostatic intensity. The existence of a smallest unit of charge was established in part by Millikan's repeated observations on a single oil drop carrying charges and moving in electrostatic and gravitational fields. However, the additional statement is also made that the unit charges are not only discrete electrically but also are discrete spatially; more exactly that they are localizable by means of space (and/or time) coordinates just as unit particles of matter are. This of course does not necessarily mean that a single electron can be located precisely or even that it would be significant in terms of the procedures used to assign a numerical value of position an isolated electron, but that some very small, but macroscopic, body charged with one electron can be so located. Of course, it is said for the purposes of the construction of a theory that charges (which may be unit) are so localizable. In Mason and Weaver's exposition, for example, charges are conceived as spatially distributed and an expression for the potential of a single charge
"Abraham and Becker. op. cit. p. 55
12Maxwell. op. cit. 1:48
13

Ibid. p. 75

This content downloaded from 137.207.120.173 on Sat, 8 Jun 2013 20:57:48 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

312

GEORGE T. BOWDERY

relative to a group of charges is obtained. Thus quantities like potential and electric intensity are defined only at places where there are charges. The procedure used is worthy of more detailed description since it is typical of the approach to field of those who start with particles of some sort as fundamental. Consider a spatial configuration of charges made up of a charge e' and n other charges el, e2, e3, ... , en. The total mutual electrostatic energy of this configuration may be written when we are interested in the force on the charge e' , en as a sum due to other charges el, e2,
-'e' i

+ 0(other charges)

=-

e' [el
47r Lre'

e2
re"
1+

en

1+

1 [ele2 _+
4r L rl2

ele3
r13
e2e3 + e2e4 + + +en-l

reL

...+

Xen

r23

r24

rn-I, n

where re,, is the distance from the charge e' to the charge el, etc. and r12 is the distance from the charge el to the charge e2 , etc. The first term in this expression obviously depends on the presence and location of the charge e' since the positions of the charges e 1, e2 , - - , en are, in general, dependent upon the location of the charge e'. The coefficient of e', namely ei . ......
+ren

is called the electrostatic potential at the position of the charge e' due to the charges e1, - - *, en. The force acting on e' may be written as the product of the charge e' and a certain function of the electrostatic potential (which we shall call 4b). This function E is a vector function which gives the direction for the force on e' as follows:

F = e'E
where E is from its use in this expression the force per unit charge acting on e' (not force on a unit charge conceived to be where e' is). E is called the electrostatic intensity due to the charges el , - - *, en . The electrostatic potential 4 and the electrostatic intensity E, considered from a purely analytical point of view as the scalar and vector point functions defined by the foregoing equations, can obviously be calculated at any point of space. From this account of the potential and intensity however, it is clear that they are defined as coefficients of the particular charge e' selected for attention, and are not defined irrespective of such a charge. It is true that it is possible to measure a distance ri from any point to a charge ei whether or not there is a charge at this point; if this is done, the quantity
-[

el .

.....

en

J can in principle becom-

puted (though difficulties arising from the very large number of charges will occur). Thus 4 as a scalar point function is continuous and is defined for every value of r.,i . But to do this is to lose sight of the role that it plays in the ex-

This content downloaded from 137.207.120.173 on Sat, 8 Jun 2013 20:57:48 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

THE

CONCEPT

OF 'FIELD ' IN ELECTRICAL

THEORY

313

pression for the energy (1), where it is the coefficient of the magnitude of a charge e' placed at that point from which re,i is measured. Unless we are willing to take a term out of its context we are forced to conclude that this mode of formulating electrostatics does not imply thatthe electrostatic field is defined everywhere. Thus if we assume the existence of indivisible unit charges and therefore their spatial localizability and if we accept the above definitions the electrostatic field loses its pervasive character.
III

We turn now to the second point, namely, the independent character of the field in the traditional use of the term. "Maxwell's theory goes on to ascribe to this vector E a self-existent reality independent of the presence of a testing body."'4 In this remark lies the paradoxical character of the traditional conception of field. For a field is asserted to exist even though no testing body is used, although the field is only experimentally observable if in fact such a body is used. It was asserted that the term did in fact refer to something-but this referent could only be observed if a test particle (or charge) were used. Thus a field was supposed to exist without a test body and yet could not even be detected in principle without one. A way out of this difficulty may be suggested if we consider how E was defined in the Maxwell theory. We recall the equation F = eE defined 1F,and E was defined as a factor of the force which did not depend upon the electrical state of the body. It was however, a quantity correlated with a certain observable occurrence, as was shown by the fact that we invoked a unit charge. Now the fundamental equations of electrostatics assert that certain relations hold between the symbols E, p, pv, b. It can be shown that they give unique solutions (i.e., values of E.) if either p or 4' (not necessarily both) be given.16 This is in fact the general mathematical problem of electrostatics. Because these simultaneous equations have E as a unique solution for given values of p or 4) we can take them as defining a quantity E which has the same properties as the E previously defined. In the general electromagnetic field the same procedure may be followed. A more general set of equations must be given-the so-called Maxwell equations of the electromagnetic field. In these equations E is interpreted as electric intensity and H as magnetic intensity. According to Lindsay and Margenau we may "treat the equations themselves as defining E and H. This means that the only real importance of the quantities is involved in the fact that they satisfy the field equations. As a matter of fact, it has been pointed out (notably by Ritz and Swann) that the only use which we make of E and H in atomic problems is their calculation frormthe equations, assuming assigned values of p and pv."' In atomic problems the definitions in terms of unit charge and pole are wholly as unnecessary. It seems most logical to go the whole way and treat E and HEE
Abraham and Becker. op. cit. p. 55 15Here p is the charge density and pv the current density, v being the velocity of electric charges considered as discrete particles.
14

This content downloaded from 137.207.120.173 on Sat, 8 Jun 2013 20:57:48 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

314

GEORGE T. BOWDERY

defined by the field equations in all cases. The commoner definitions can then all we are really be looked upon as mere picturizations. When we use E and IHI, interested in is a description in simplest terms of certain phenomena." "Under various conditions values can be assigned to these quantities, and from these values other things such as the motion of circuits or charged particles can be computed. If we stop to think of how we use the field vectors even in practical problems it is clear that the idea of them in connection with unit charge and unit pole never enters into our measurements. When we talk about the electric field existing between the plates of a condenser we think of it in terms of the gradient of the potential rather than in terms of force per unit charge. In similar fashion the magnetic field which we calculate at the center of a circular current carrying coil, for example, is used in the calculation of the force action, between this coil and other current-carrying conductors or magnetic material or perhaps in the calculation of the deviation of a stream of charged particles in the vicinity of the coil. The unit pole rarely if at all enters into our calculations."16

There is a fundamental ambiguity in our present discussion between the physical space in which observable changes take place and the set of values of quantities characterizing these changes. In the first use of the term 'field' some test body is clearly needed to detect experimentally the charges and we are again in the difficulty suggested at the beginning of this section. But if 'field' means simply a function having certain properties a different set of problems arises. Lindsay and Margenau suggest that such quantities as 1Eand 13[ are in many problems determined from assumed values of the charge density.17 In obtaining particular solutions to problems no definition of E or soin terms of a unit charge is necessary. E, and so are quantities invented to obtain specific results in specific problems. There is no need to consider them as possessing extra-linguistic referents. Only the charge density on the body must somehow be known. In these problems charge density of bodies is taken as the character having direct reference to physically measurable characters of electrified bodies. In the general electrostatic problem either the total charge (and therefore the
Lindsay and Margenau. Foundations of Physics. p. 311-312 In electrostatics, for example, there is the problem of determining the capacity of a charged metal sphere of radius a. Let us see how Lindsay and Margenau's suggestion operates here. We infer from the symmetry that the distribution of charge is uniform so that the surface density of charge is e/4wra2. Let equations ffEnJOS = 4ire and 4irco = E. Od , (, the potential) define a certain vector E whose normal component has the above =17 16

properties and which we assume is so specified as to be unique by adding sufficient condie tions. Then Er =- and o = e/r + k. On the sphere it has the constant value p = e/a + k. r2 Consider a concentric sphere radius b > a with a surface density co = -e/47rb2 and potential at its surface pib = e/b + k. A relationship independent of the size of the charge may be found by forming the quotient of the charge to the difference
1
SCa=

e(-

- ) = e

b -a

___

ab

'

we get C =

a-

ab b-a

ab_

which is called the capacity of the spherical condenser.

This content downloaded from 137.207.120.173 on Sat, 8 Jun 2013 20:57:48 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

THE

CONCEPT

OF 'FIELD'

IN ELECTRICAL

THEORY

315

charge density if the volume or surface be known) or the potential of the surface of the conductors may be given. In either case the electrostatic field intensity E will be uniquely defined if certain general equations defining the relation of ? to soand the charge density are given. Thus in the general electrostatic problem if either soor the total charge is given the other will be determined by a certain equation whence the field E will be determined. E is always a calculated quantity that is not physically measurable, though the potential and charge density may take either role according to the particular problem. In this sense, a 'field' as a mathematical function which is defined by a set of equations 1Ecan be called fictional for we have here a quantity defined by certain relationships, which aids in the calculation of specific results in specific problems and whose function is not to express anything about the subject matter of electrical theory. IV In the traditional use of 'field' the medium to which the term 'field' refers was taken to be a direct mechanical causative agent operating directly to produce actions observable in the space which the medium fills. Maxwell is very explicit on this point. "In the theory of electricity and magnetism adopted in this treatise, two forms of energy are recognized, the electrostatic and the electrokinetic, and these are supposed to have their seat, not merely in the electrified or magnetized bodies, but in every part of the surrounding space, where electric or magnetic force is observed to act. Hence our theory agrees with the undulatory theory in assuming the existence of a medium which is capable of becoming a receptacle of two forms of energy." "According to the theory of undulation, there is a material medium which fills the space between the two bodies, and it is by the action of contiguous parts of this medium that the energy is passed on, from one portion to the next, till it reaches the illuminated body. "The luminiferous medium is, therefore, during the passage of light through it, a receptacle of energy. In the undulatory theory, as developed by Huygens, Fresnel, Young, Green, etc., this energy is supposed to be partly potential and partly kinetic. The potential energy is supposed to be due to the distortion of the elementary portions of the medium. We must therefore regard the medium as elastic. The kinetic energy is supposed to be due to the vibratory motion of the medium. We must therefore regard the medium as having a finite density.''18 The medium is thus treated as an elastic body of finite density like other ponderable bodies. It thus may act as a source of both potential and kinetic energy and expressions for these may be calculated just as in the dynamics of Newtonian particles and bodies reducible to particles. "But," as Maxwell says, "the properties of bodies are capable of quantitative measurement. We therefore obtain the numerical value of some property of the medium, such as the velocity with which a disturbance is propagated through it, which can be calculated from electromagnetic experiments, and also observed
18

I have transposed some paragraphs in this quotation.

II:432

This content downloaded from 137.207.120.173 on Sat, 8 Jun 2013 20:57:48 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

316

GEORGE T. BOWDERY

directly in the case of light. If it should be found that the velocity of propagation of electromagnetic disturbances is the same as the velocity of light, and this not only in air, but in other transparent media, we shall have strong reasons for believing that light is an electromagnetic phenomenon, and the combination of the optical with the electrical evidence will produce a conviction of the reality of the medium similar to that which we obtain, in the case of other kinds of matter, from the combined evidence of the senses."'9 Despite the equality of the velocity of electrical disturbances and that of light, this conception of the ether is no longer accepted. It is not germane to our inquiry to describe in detail why this conception was abandoned. The failure of its detection in the ether drag experiments contributed to its downfall. A few remarks as to its theoretical dispensability are in order. In the MaxwellLorentz theory the ether was considered to be an absolute frame of reference relative to which charges moved. The discovery, however, that the electromagnetic field equations are invariant under the so-called Lorentz transformations discredits the absoluteness of this frame of reference. "A medium of such a nature that you cannot tell whether you are moving with respect to it, or at least not by means of any electromagnetic phenomena (including of course light) is not a very useful medium in the material sense in which classical physicists viewed media. The feeling therefore arises that one might as well dispense with the ether concept altogether. But the inquiry may then be made: how is one going to talk about the propagation of electromagnetic waves if there is no medium? The answer is that after all in such propagation the medium is the least important thing. From hydrodynamics, elasticity, etc., we have grown too much accustomed to thinking that a wave is a moving disturbance in a medium. Actually we may as well admit that the only relevant feature about wave motion is that there exist physical quantities which are functions of space and time in the form f(x i vt).20 Working with this idea and its developments one can cast aside the medium notion as irrelevant embroidery which is of value only in so far as pictures are valuable and which ceases to be valuable when the pictures break down."2' These remarks are subject to some modification. Maxwell's theory was a dynamical theory. It utilized the traditional Lagrange equations. In this connection, the function of the field as medium was to provide a reference-system for the velocities which occur in the fundamental force formula (shown to be equivalent to Maxwell-Lorentz equations). That is, "the measurable force between two charged particles is taken to involve 'something more than their relative velocity; it depends on their velocities with respect to some medium, framework, or background.' 7122 However, the so-called density or elasticity of the medium are irrelevant to
19
20

Maxwell.

Where 'x' is the distance measured in the direction of the wave, 'v' is velocity, and 't' the time. 21 Lindsay and Margenau 22 O'Rahilly, Alfred. Electromagnetics.chapter on the aether. p. 630 circa

This content downloaded from 137.207.120.173 on Sat, 8 Jun 2013 20:57:48 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

THE CONCEPT OF 'FIELD' IN ELECTRICAL THEORY

317

electromagnetics. A medium is relevant only as "something which enters physically into the equations, without which the v and v' in our force-formula cannot be defined or measured." A field, then, even if considered as an absolute frame of reference, is not the substantial medium with a finite density of Maxwell's day. At most it is a frame of reference with respect to which velocities are measured.
v

A
The character of 'field intensity' has been discussed in older and modern usages. We can better appreciate its function in use by discussing the stationary character of the so-called ether and comparing 'field intensity' with 'displacement current'. Let us consider just how the stationary character of the so-called ether did in fact aid Maxwell in formulating his theory. Its use may be stated thus: By using the notion of ether as a stationary body the form of the MaxwellLorentz equations are simplified. For if you referred the coordinates used to describe electromagnetic phenomena to axes moving with a uniform velocity u, i.e., when x is replaced by x-ut, you would get equations of a different form. Pragmatically speaking, therefore, the use of a stationary ether prevented one from getting more complicated equations that would result from replacing x by x-ut and hence the notion saved the form of the Maxwell-Lorentz equations. After it was shown that the Maxwell equations were invariant in form under the more complicated Lorentz transformation it was clear that it was in principle impossible to detect the ether experimentally, at any rate by looking for motion thru an ether as had been done in the Michelson-Morley experiments. Before this discovery, however, the problem of invariance of the equations was avoided in practice by the use of the notion of ether. In another domain, that of Newtonian dynamics, it had long been suspected that there was in fact no fixed or privileged set of axes in the universe, denoted by the term 'absolute space'. In fact the ordinary Newtonian equation of dynamics m dtx = F is invariant in form when referred to axes moving with a uniform velocity u, i.e., when x is replaced by x-ut. Hence absolute space was not a physical existent, detectable by experimental means. The fact was however, that the notion was used. It remained for Poincar6 to point out that its use was to facilitate calculation.

B
Similarly the notion of displacement current in Maxwell's theory serves only to transform an equation of Poisson's type to the general equation of wave propagation. No electric stresses in free space are used any longer. Let us see just how Maxwell used these two notions-held as stationary and

This content downloaded from 137.207.120.173 on Sat, 8 Jun 2013 20:57:48 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

318

GEORGE T. BOWDERY

displacement current jointly, in deriving "the general equations of electromagnetic disturbances."23 To obtain the general equations of electromagnetic disturbances, Maxwell expresses the sum of the term for conduction current C1E(which is experimentally observable) and another term4 definedas equal to KIE where K is the so-called

dielectric capacity of a substance and can be found experimentally as functions of a vector potential A and the scalar potential 4. The sum of the two terms is k CE + - E. Now ]E is the sum of three terms: that due to the motion of a 4w particle through a magnetic field, that due to the time variation of the magnetic field and that due to the space variation of AV. Since there is no motion of the medium, the first term drops out, thus simplifying calculations, and so we can write -(+C + 4 K d-t (dtA \6

Maxwell then utilizes a relationship which connects currents with the vector potential. This relationship was obtained by an ad hoc extension of the equations of electric currents derived for closed circuits to open circuits. "The extreme difficulty of reconciling the laws of electromagnetism with the existence of electric currents which are not closed is one reason among many why we must admit the existence of transient currents due to the variation of displacement. Their importance will be seen when we come to the electromagnetic theory of
light."24

In fact it appears that use of the expression

1 k dE

is to prevent the con-

ditions as Maxwell formulates them from disappearing altogether as they would in cases where C = 0, i.e., for non-conducting media. Maxwell has his eye fixed on the propagation of light thru a non-conductor as well as upon light as propagated like other electrical disturbances through space. By utilizing a formulation which includes both expressions for the current of closed currents and for the dependence of propagation phenomena on time he connects the optical and electrical properties of bodies. Propagation phenomena are simply studied by setting C = 0. He remarks "the condition of things at any point 0 at any instant depends on the condition of things at a distance Vt and at an interval of time t previously, so that any disturbance is propagated through the medium with the velocity V."25 The use of the stationary medium constantly simplifies calculation as in the case of the plane wave. The general equations of electric intensity are considerably simplified by its use. The stationary medium like displacement current is a sufficient not necessary condition for the solution of electromagnetic problems. Both these terms are of a different type than that of 'field'. They were both
23 24

Maxwell. Treatise. II:433 Ibid. II:252 25 Ibid. I1:435

This content downloaded from 137.207.120.173 on Sat, 8 Jun 2013 20:57:48 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

THE CONCEPT

OF 'FIELD'

IN ELECTRICAL

THEORY

319

concerned with the changes in the algebraic form of equations which formulate electromagnetic properties. The use of the stationary ether was tantamount to the exclusion of moving axes and hence of any change in form of the Maxwell equations. The use of the Lorentz transformation showed that the form of the Maxwell equations could be preserved without the use of an ether. Similarly 'displacement current' was a term added to an equation to allow its extension to "open" circuits. By its addition a new vector was formed which had the same property (of irrotationality) as the old. That is, the equation as extended had the same form. These are examples of that type of term in a theory whose only function is either to preserve the algebraic form of the equations characteristic of the theory or to change the form so that particular problems may be more easily solved (as in Newtonian dynamics where second order rather than third order equations are obtained by the use of 'absolute space', or in the use of 'stationary ether' in the wave equations). Briefly, the subject matter of such terms is the algebraic form of the equations characteristic of the theory. (Such terms include those usually referred to as having a heuristic functions in aiding calculation.) Clearly E differs radically from such terms when a point charge type definition is used. For 'field intensity' may be defined at and is in principle, at least, measurable at, every point where there is a unit charge or particle, or aggregate of these, though, of course, only at these points. But what if 'field intensity' is defined by a set of equations as we have suggested earlier?26 What then is the function of 'field intensity'? We are led to inquire just how 'field intensity' is defined by equations and how these are related to empirical laws.
VI

The so-called Maxwell field equations for empty space consist of five equations27the first of which is a formulation of Ampere's law as supplemented by Maxwell's displacement current. The second is a formulatln of Faraday's law of induction, the third relates the electric intensity to charge density, the fourth the magnetic intensity due to all types of causes, and finally an equation which gives the force per unit charge in terms of the electric and magnetic intensities, which are to be determined (if necessary boundary conditions are added) through the field equations from the supposed known values of the charge density and the convection current. The first two equations are obtained from experimental laws, by assuming that the laws hold for small volume elements of the bodies concerned and that they have meaning at any point of such bodies. For example, Ohm's law which in its experimental form asserts that the difference in potential (which may be measured) between two points of a wire resistance, is proportional to the current flowing, becomes the statement that the volume density of current defined at a point of the conducting material is proportional to a certain function of the poSee p. 11 This discussion follows Mason and Weaver. The ElectromagneticField. Ch. III, part 1, and Ch. IV.
26
27

This content downloaded from 137.207.120.173 on Sat, 8 Jun 2013 20:57:48 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

320

GEORGE T. BOWDERY

tential, the electric field intensity. We need not pause on Maxwell's contributions to the first equation; this was discussed above. The third equation is a generalization of Coulomb's inverse square law for the force between two charges. The fifth equation which is the crux of the matter gives the force per unit charge. To calculate the force in any specific case we must, as we have indicated, know the charge density and also utilize the generalized form of Ohm's law which we have mentioned above. The chief characteristic of the equations we have mentioned is their generality. It is very difficult to find experiments which confirm them except in very particular cases. Consequently it would not be surprising that equations of a different form might be found which so far as consistency (i.e., derivability) with experimental laws is concerned, are equivalent. As employed in the set of five equations mentioned, 1Eand H1are chiefly auxiliary vectors whose values are determined by equations (1) to (4) only when initial values of charge and current density are given. They are auxiliary in the sense that they are needed to determine the force as given in the fifth equation. The intensities play a different role in the experimental laws in which they first appear in non-differential form. They were as we saw much earlier definable in terms of point charges. Thus we must specify the context to which we refer when we ask as to the fictional character of 'field'. The particular form that the fundamental force equation takes is not uniquely determined by experimental laws. In particular the force between two current elements may be represented by two different expressions. This is explicitly recognized when one adds, to one deduced form for a differential law, further terms which enable one to shorten the expression for the law by the use of a vector identity. Both those expressions lead to the same result for the force on a closed circuit. Hence it may be said that the expression usually adopted is conventional with respect to the experimental laws of the subject since every magnetostatic problem may be solved by either. We are not able to specify in sufficient detail the conditions under which a unique expression for the force may be derived. This circumstance suggests a definition for 'convention' more specifically applicable to scientific formulations than that in Chapter I. A formulation is conventional whenever the conditions of its formulation are insufficient to make it a unique derivative; or in general, whenever we are given a set E of experimental laws and a set S of stipulations of that theory such that p is derivable from E on the basis of S and also p' from E on S where p may be obtained from p' by a transformation T such that p D q and p' D q where q is an observational statement giving the numerical value of a specific measure which is a function of some quantity occurring in p. In other words, if T leaves invariant the numerical value of some measure occurring in a proposition implied by p, then p (or the proposition obtained by transforming p) is conventional. Maxwell's equations are not to be considered as the only possible formulations of the experimental laws of electromagnetism. Variations which are consistent with the laws which are here taken to mean statements capable of verification by standard experimental means are available.

This content downloaded from 137.207.120.173 on Sat, 8 Jun 2013 20:57:48 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

THE CONCEPT

OF 'FIELDI

IN ELECTRICAL

THEORY

321

Because of this conventionality of Maxwell's equations, the definition of field intensity will vary with the particular set of equations adopted. Once, however, a set has been chosen, the problem of the uniqueness of definition is a mathematical one which has been solved. That is, it has been proven that there is only one solution of these equations if the charge density and current density are given. As employed in Maxwell's equations the field intensities are on the one hand dependent upon experiment for the value of p and i and on the other, are auxiliary to the calculation of the force which is the only directly measurable quantity besides p and i. The E and HI have no specific referent taken alone but only in relation to the other quantities in the equations. ViI In the preceding section of this paper it was noted that the unique character of a theory lies not so much in the experimental laws reformulated but in the stipulations involved in the reformulation of those laws into the fundamental equations of the theory. We shall find that these stipulations are conventions of a different type than those of which the force equation is an example. Briefly the first are norms or criteria and the latter are not. In the second place conventions of the second type are connected with fictions. We turn first to a discussion of the distinction between empirical laws and stipulations. For illustration we again return to magnetostatics. Ampere's first law which will serve as an example of a statement of an experimental result is that "the action of a current on another current (or current element) is unchanged in magnitude but reversed in direction when the direction of the current is reversed." This statement is established by noting that the force exerted by two straight parallel currents of equal magnitude but opposite direction is zero when the wires are very close to each other. The total force is also zero.28 Experimental apparatus can easily be arranged to test this law, though it is difficult to test some of Ampere's other laws-for example, the third law that the action of a closed circuit is always normal to the latter, involves a suspension over mercury whose capillary action interferes with the accuracy of the test. A difficulty of a different sort occurs in the case of the fourth law: "In similar and similarly stituated circuits traversed by equal currents the forces are equal." This is difficult to test in sufficient generality though Ampere tested it by three circular closed circuits whose radii were in ratio 1:2:4, the distance from the center to center of the first two and the distance from center to center of the last two being in the ratio 1:2. These statements are capable of experimental verification despite difficulties attendant upon this procedure. This is not true however of the statements which taken together comprise the distinguishing feature of a given theory. These statements have a legislative function and simply specify what requirements are to be met by the statements to be deduced from the laws. For example, the principle of continuity provides for the introduction of continuous functions, by "assuming" that the above experimental laws hold for the action
28

Not clear, but left as author stated it.

This content downloaded from 137.207.120.173 on Sat, 8 Jun 2013 20:57:48 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

322

GEORGE T. BOWDERY

of one current element on a second current element. This enables the vector calculus to be readily applied. This requirement is similar to that imposed upon the experimental form of Ohm's law which was transformed into differential form. Since the only effect of this principle was to select which branch of mathematics was to be used in formulating the laws of electromagnetics, it could not be confirmed or disconfirmed by appeal to experiment with wires and electrical apparatus. Supplementing this first stipulation is the so-called principle of the superposition of effects namely that the total effect can be obtained by summation of the effects of the parts. In the present case, this amounts to saying that the force is proportional to the magnitudes of the component arcs concerned and to the current strengths. In ordinary mechanics there is a similar principle, the so-called parallelogram rule for the summation of vectors, in virtue of which, for example, two forces acting on the same point are equivalent to one force acting along the diagonal of the parallelogram determined by the two vectors representing the forces, and equal in magnitude to the length of the diagonal. As in the case of the principle of continuity there is no empirical control over the principle of superposition. Finally it is stipulated that the forces between the current elements mnustsatisfy the ordinary mechanical requirements for equilibrium. The stipulations are conventions because with respect to the empirical laws they are arbitrary, but with respect to other theories of electromagnetism they are not; for the totality of stipulations is one of the distinguishing characters of one electromagnetic theory from another, e.g., Maxwell's from others. They are norms which are prescribed by the scientist that his theory must meet. Different scientists may prescribe different niorms. For example, not all other theories of electromagnetism would require both the mechanical requirements mentioned above. With respect to experimental laws in the sense we have used them however the stipulations are arbitrary. Besides these two sets of statements, 1) empirical laws and 2) stipulations whose function is legislative and are conventional with respect to the first class of statements, there is a third class of statements-the consequences of these two; these consequences amount to reformulations of the experimental laws, via the stipulations. A set of fundamental equations, e.g. Maxwell's, constitutes the third cluster of statements that are signalled for attention in the network of all the consequences of (1) and (2). These statements are not unique for their algebraic form may vary even if (1) and (2) are fixed. This was illustrated in electromagnetic theory by the fact that no unique expression for the magnetic force exists. Hence these equations are conventional not merely with respect to the experimental laws (1) but also with respect to the set of stipulations (2). They are thus derived conventions in that they depend on the conventions of (2). But they are not norms nor do they have a legislative function in the sense that (2) do. Conventions of the first type are usually called principles. Instead of speaking of the conventionality of statements of (2) and (3) it

This content downloaded from 137.207.120.173 on Sat, 8 Jun 2013 20:57:48 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

THE

CONCEPT

OF 'FIELD'

IN ELECTRICAL

THEORY

323

might be more appropriate to call the whole set of statements conventional since one or more might be missing and others added. This is only a matter of terminology. However there must be some statements having the function of (2) and (3); such statements are essential components of physical theories. Of course we do not mean to imply that the membership of any of the three classes is fixed. If the system is thrown into a deductive form, the equations of set (3) will be the axioms and more empirical laws may be deduced besides those already in (1). Also stipulations may be dropped in some cases and reinstated in others. For example equality of action and reaction (which is a consequence of the mechanical requirements mentioned above) may not be demanded for the action between current elements though required for closed circuits. Moreover this requirement may be enforced because it is analytically desirable at some points of an exposition and dropped at others because it is not. Fictional terms are often found in conventions of the second type. We have seen how 'displacement current' enters into the first equation whose form might be altered by the addition to the displacement term of any function whose divergence is zero without altering the applicability of the equation, i.e. without being inconsistent with any experimental laws. The displacement term is similar to the term added to the expressions for the magnetostatic force in that the latter can by a suitable transformation be eliminated. Hence conventions of the second type always contain fictional terms and the latter occur in such formulations.
VIII

We conclude with a summary of the general points suggested by the preceding analysis. Some are obvious but bear restating; others require to be more perfectly established than was possible in this paper. 1) The role that a term plays depends upon the particular theoretical formulation in which it occurs; the term 'field' is defined differently in different formulations of the theory of electromagnetics. 2) There are at least three types of definitions of terms as they appear in theoretical formulations of physics, corresponding to different stages in inquiry; a) the denotative type which serves to indicate the subject matter of the inquiry; for example, Oersted's use of 'field'; b) the use of definitions which serve to make the resources of the differential and integral calculus applicable, e.g., definitions involving passage to a limit; c) a definition of a term by a set of equations of which it is the unique solution. 2') Definition of a term by a set of equations also requires that some other term in that equation refer to some experimentally measurable aspect, e.g., charge density or possibly the potential, in the case of the equations of the electrostatic field. 3) The term 'fictional' is used in two senses at least: a) as applied to some element of the extra-linguistic subject matter which is alleged to exist, but is not experimentally detectable and b) as applied to a term which refers to no extralinguistic object but has a heuristic function in aiding calculations; in other

This content downloaded from 137.207.120.173 on Sat, 8 Jun 2013 20:57:48 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

324

GEORGE T. BOWDERY

words the subject matter of such a term is the form of the equations in which it occurs. 4) A necessary condition for a term 'T' being fictional (in sense (3b) is that there exists a formulation 'B' transformable into the formulation in which 'T' actually appears, such that 'T' does not appear in 'B'. The transformation must not alter the consistency of the two formulations with accepted experimental results. 5) There are conventions of two types a) those which have a legislative function as criteria or norms and differ in different theories but are alternatives with respect to the experimental laws, b) those which exist in virtue of the incompleteness of formulation of the conditions under which theoretical statements are made; neither experimental laws nor stipulations are sufficient to determine uniquely the form of the fundamental equations of a theory. In this sense alternative formulations exist with respect both to the experimental laws and the stipulations. 6) The fictional character of a term is connected with the conventionality of the formulation 'F' in which it appears in this way: if 'T' is fictional, 'F' is conventional, but not conversely, unless 'F' is a convention of the second type. In this case fictions occur in the reformulation of experimental laws. 7) The conventionality of a formulation appears only late in the history of a theory; the stage corresponding to the third type of definition is especially fruitful for here the equivalence or non-equivalence of formulations with respect to some transformation can be more easily ascertained. 8) The study suggests that three essential components of a physical theory are 1) the experimental laws, 2) stipulations which aid in the reformulation of the laws into the 3) fundamental equations consistent with the experimental laws. Comparison with other theories, e.g., the kinetic theory of gases would be fruitful to see if this pattern is widespread. The conventional character of the stipulations with respect to experimental laws together with the conventional character of equations of a theory with respect both to the laws and the stipulations actually made contrasts with the relative stability of the experimental laws. 9) 'Field intensity' is not a fictional term; the equations together define it. It is contrasted with 'displacement current' and 'stationary medium' which are fictional. Some terms in the Maxwell equations must be given in order to make the equations have a unique solution. 10) Both extreme views of scientific theories, namely 1) that all the terms in a scientific theory are purely fictional (in sense 3a) and have no connection with the subject matter of the theory, or at most that such connection is made only by the terms of some lower type of language, as in protocol statements, and 2) that every term of a theory has its correlate in the subject matter of the theory, are inadequate. 1) For though many terms satisfy the necessary condition of a fictional term, namely that it be replaceable by others in an equivalent formulation, there are always other terms with reference to which the given term is defined which have extra-linguistic reference and in every formulation there are some such terms.

This content downloaded from 137.207.120.173 on Sat, 8 Jun 2013 20:57:48 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions