PERGAMON Progress in Energy and Combustion Science 25 (1999) 161–210

Review of the application of Newton’s third law in physics

Patrick Cornille
12 Rue M. Ravel, 94440 Santeny, France
Received 17 February 1998; in final form 9 June 1998

Abstract
We review the application of Newton’s third law in all branches of physics, namely: special relativity, electromagnetism,
quantum mechanics, circuit and antenna theory. Until now, there is no experimental evidence showing that Newton’s third law
has ever been violated in classical physics. However, in both classical physics and in special relativity theory this law is violated
for different reasons. The violation of this law implies consequences that can be tested experimentally, namely a charged
conductor at rest in the Earth reference frame can set itself in motion and accelerate its center of mass or rotate without external
help. We review several experiments with conductors charged with a high voltage which show these effects. 䉷 1999 Elsevier
Science Ltd. All rights reserved.
Keywords: Newton’s third law; Conservation law of energy; Special relativity theory; Superposition principle

Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 162
2. Newton’s third law in classical mechanics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 162
2.1. Case of two particles . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 162
2.2. Fluid approach of Newton’s equations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 164
2.3. Case of N particles . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 164
3. Newton’s third law and the principle of relativity in classical mechanics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 166
4. Newton’s third law and the principle of covariance in classical mechanics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 167
5. Covariance and relativity principles in relativistic mechanics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 168
6. Newton’s third law in relativistic collision . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 170
7. Newton’s third law and the twin paradox . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 171
8. Newton’s third law in quantum mechanics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 172
9. Newton’s third law in electromagnetism . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 173
9.1. The Lorentz force law and the stimulated force . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 173
9.2. The Weber force law . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 175
9.3. Newton’s third law between matter and radiation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 176
10. Newton’s third law and the superposition principle . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 177
10.1. Light interference . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 177
10.2. Electrostatic interference . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 178
10.3. Carson reciprocity theorem . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 179
10.4. Newton’s third law and the Aharonov–Bohm effect . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 182
10.5. Linear circuit theory . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 183
10.6. Antenna radiation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 185
10.7. Radiation reaction and conservation of energy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 187
11. Review of several experiments which show the Earth’s motion through the ether . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 189

0360-1285/99/$ – see front matter 䉷 1999 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved.
PII: S0360-128 5(98)00019-7
162 P. Cornille / Progress in Energy and Combustion Science 25 (1999) 161–210

11.1. Is special relativity theory a relativity theory? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 189

11.2. Doppler and aberration effects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 191
11.3. Sagnac effect, Allan’s experiment, anisotropy in the blackbody radiation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 191
12. Review of experiments on the motion of conductors fed by direct high current or voltage . . . . . . . . . 192
12.1. Experiments by Graneau, Phipps and Saumont . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 192
12.2. Experiments by Faraday, Ducretet, Pagés, Brown, Saxl, Allais and Graham . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 195
12.3. Calculation of the stimulated force for a charged capacitor . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 198
12.4. Cornille’s pendulum experiments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 199
12.5. The Deyo and Rambaut experiments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 202
12.6. Review of the Trouton–Noble experiment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 203
13. Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 204
Appendix . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 205
References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 206

1. Introduction as a result of their mutual interaction at a given

This article reviews the application of Newton’s third law
in all branches of physics, namely: special relativity,
electromagnetism, quantum mechanics and circuit and
antenna theory. Quite often this law is brushed aside as a
minor law which only applies to classical mechanics. This is
not true, on the contrary, this law is the most important law
in physics. It is fundamental for the understanding of
physics.
For example, it is well-known that there exist two force
laws for describing electromagnetic interactions: the better-
known one is the Lorentz force law describing interactions
between free charges in a vacuum and the older one is the
Ampère force law describing interactions between current
elements confined in a metal. There is now both theoretical
and experimental evidence [1–27] that the Ampère force
does exist in the case of charges moving in conductors. In
contrast, the Lorentz force law seems to apply very well for
charges moving in the vacuum provided the magnetic field
is generated by an external closed circuit. Therefore, we
think that both laws do exist in nature.
These two force laws are different since the Ampère force
follows Newton’s third law, whereas the Lorentz force does
not. It is well-known that Newton’s third law can be used to
classify systems as closed or opened, depending on whether
a force law follows or not Newton’s third law. But the two
laws are not equivalent even when they are used for closed
systems [28]. As demonstrated in Ref. [29], the open versus
closed classification implies the existence of absolute and
relative accelerations and velocities. Violation of this law
has consequences which can be tested experimentally in
order to prove the existence of the ether.
It is often stated in the literature that the equality of action
and reaction has no place in relativistic mechanics. For
example, French [30] in his book states:
The equality of action and reaction has almost no
place in relativistic mechanics. It must essentially
be a statement about the forces acting on two bodies,
instant. And, because of the relativity of simultaneity,
this phrase has no meaning.
Newton’s third law is also rejected on the ground that it
implies action at a distance when we describe the mutual
interaction of two charges. These explanations are invalid
because each charge, located in the same reference frame,
sends at the same retarded time t0 a signal which will arrive
at the position occupied by the other charge at time t0 at the
same time t ˆ t0 ⫹ R/c where R is the distance between the
two charges at the same time t0 as shown in Fig. 1. Then,
since the charges are moving, the signal will arrive at each
particle sooner or later than t.
For identical particles, the situation is totally symmetric if
the force law is symmetrical. The simultaneity and retarda-
tion effects have nothing to do with the fact that the mutual
interaction does not follow the law of action and reaction.
The failure of such an important law only resides in the
expression of the force law itself. In fact, it has been
shown by Moon and Spencer [18–21] and Wesley [31,
32] that the Ampère force can be formulated with retarda-
tion effect and Newton’s third law is nevertheless exactly
verified.
The failure of Newton’s third law for a force law of such
great physical importance raises a serious problem. In this
article, we will examine under what conditions the third law
holds and what is responsible for its failure.
2. Newton’s third law in classical mechanics
2.1. Case of two particles
It is fundamental to recall some basic definitions in clas-
sical mechanics [33–35]. Newton’s second law of motion
states that the motion of two particles in a given reference
frame is described by the differential equations
dP1 dP2
ˆ F12 ⫹ F11 ˆ F21 ⫹ F22 …1†
dt dt
 P. Cornille / Progress in Energy and Combustion Science 25 (1999) 161–210
Fig. 1. Electromagnetic interaction between two identical charges.
with the following definitions P1 ˆ m1 U1 and P2 ˆ m2 U2 .
We must distinguish between the internal forces F12 and F21
and the external forces F11 and F22 acting on the particles
due to sources outside the system. We can speak of mutual
interaction between two particles only if the internal forces
follow Newton’s third law, namely F12 ˆ ⫺ F21. Therefore,
an external force is by definition a force that does not follow
Newton’s third law. When the external forces are zero, we
say that the system is closed or isolated.
The center of mass of the system is a fictitious point r
where the entire mass m ˆ m1 ⫹ m2 of the system can be
thought to be concentrated. It is defined by
mr ˆ m1 r1 ⫹ m2 r2 …2†
The motion of this point is only determined by the effect
of external forces since we have
d dP1 dP2
mU ˆ ⫹ ˆ F11 ⫹ F22 ˆ Fe …3†
dt dt dt
We can now study the motion of a second fictitious parti-
cle called the relative particle with a reduced mass M ˆ
m1m2/(m1 ⫹ m2). This single particle is located at the
place occupied by either the first or the second particle
depending on our choice of the rest position as shown in
Fig. 2. The distance R is therefore R12 ˆ r1 ⫺ r2 if particle 2
is located at the origin of a reference frame or R21 ˆ r2 ⫺ r1
if particle 1 is now the origin of our reference frame. For
each choice, we have an equation of motion:
d 1
MV 12 ˆ F12 ⫹ …m2 F11 ⫺ m1 F22 †
dt m
…4†
d 1
MV 21 ˆ F21 ⫺ …m2 F11 ⫺ m1 F22 †
dt m the physicists completely ignore the splitting between inter-
where the relative velocity V ˆ dR/dt between the two
reference frames is reciprocal since we have V12 ˆ ⫺V21.
It follows that the reciprocity V12 ˆ ⫺V21 of the rest
Fig. 2. Three possible reference frames to describe the mutual
interaction between two identical particles.
163
reference frame is linked to the existence of Newton’s
third law as shown in Fig. 2 for the three possibilities.
The reciprocity concept and Newton’s third law are two
faces of the same coin. Therefore, we cannot use the
reciprocity of the reference frames in special relativity
and at the same time state that Newton’s third law does
not apply in special relativity. We will show hereafter the
difference concerning the reciprocity concept between
classical and relativistic mechanics. The equations in Eq.
(4) imply both the covariance and the invariance of
Newton’s second law under a change of reference frame
if the reference frames are reciprocal. This change of refer-
ence frame has nothing to do with a Galilean transforma-
tion which will be discussed hereafter. Moreover, we note
that the reference frame at rest is not necessarily an inertial
frame.
By definition, the equation of conservation of energy
must be satisfied:
d 1 d 1 d 1
… m U2 † ⫹ … m U2 † ˆ … mU2 †
dt 2 1 1 dt 2 2 2 dt 2
…5†
d 1
⫹ … MV 212 †
dt 2
When the external forces are zero F11 ˆ F22 ˆ 0, the
system is closed or isolated, in that case, we get
d dP1 dP2
mU ˆ ⫹ ˆ F11 ⫹ F22 ˆ 0 …6†
dt dt dt
It follows that the velocity U ˆ dR/dt and the kinetic
energy EK ˆ mU 2/2 of the center of mass are constant.
Thus, Newton’s third law can be interpreted as a law of
momentum exchange. Hence a failure of the third law
would be a failure of momentum conservation. The law of
momentum conservation is regarded by physicists as more
fundamental than Newton’s law because it holds in quantum
mechanics as well as in classical mechanics with no known
exception. Any apparent violation of momentum conserva-
tion has led to the discovery of new physical objects, of
which the elementary particle the neutrino is a spectacular
example. The above statement is not totally correct, since
nal forces and external forces as discussed in this article. We
must also point out that there is a Newton’s third law for
rotation as shown in Fig. 3 with a splitting between orbital
and spin rotations.
If the external forces are zero and the internal force F12 is
derivable from a potential function EP(R), the equation of
motion for the reduced mass becomes:
d
MV ˆ ⫺7R EP …R† …7†
dt
One can multiply the two sides of the above equation by V
to obtain
d 1
… MV 2 ⫹ EP † ˆ 0 …8†
dt 2
164 P. Cornille / Progress in Energy and Combustion Science 25 (1999) 161–210

which move with the fluid velocity; we get

d Z
r dV ˆ 0
dt Vi …t† mi
d Z Z
rmi Ui dV ˆ …f ii ⫹ f ij † dV …12†
dt Vi …t† Vi …t†

Fig. 3. Newton’s third law for translation and rotation. d Z Z

1
2 rmi U2i dV ˆ …f ii ⫹ f ij †·Ui dV
dt Vi …t† Vi …t†

Therefore, we have conservation of mechanical energy To these equations, one must add the equation of the
only in the case where the internal forces are central and conservation of charge:
satisfy Newton’s third law for translation. As an example, d Z
let us consider the case of a simple non-relativistic harmonic r dV ˆ 0 …13†
dt Vi …t† i
oscillator of mass m1 and spring constant k0 fixed to a wall of
mass m2 ⬎ m1. The equation of motion for the displacement If we substitute in the preceding equations the Dirac
of the mass is distribution densities
rmi ˆ mi d‰r ⫺ ri …t†Š ri ˆ qi d‰r ⫺ ri …t†Š …14†
d2 R
M ˆ ⫺7R EP …9† then we obtain
dt2
d
where the internal force derives from a potential mi ˆ Ct qi ˆ Ct …m1 U1 † ˆ F11 ⫹ F12
dt
EP ‰R…t†Š ˆ k0 R2 =2. Since k0 is constant, the potential
does not depend explicitly on time; therefore, the system d
…m2 U 2 † ˆ F22 ⫹ F21
is closed and the mechanical or total energy ET is also dt
…15†
constant: d 1
… m U2 † ˆ …F11 ⫹ F12 †·U1
dt 2 1 1
ET ˆ 1
2 MV 2 ⫹ 1
2 k0 R
2
ˆ Ct …10†
d 1
… m U2 † ˆ …F22 ⫹ F21 †·U2
with the approximation M ⬇ m1. dt 2 2 2
where the Lorentz forces become
1
2.2. Fluid approach of Newton’s equations Fij ˆ qi {Ej ‰ri …t†; tŠ ⫹ U ‰r …t†; tŠ ∧ Bj ‰ri …t†; tŠ}
c i i …16†
Newton’s laws of motion for particles can be recovered Fij ·U i ˆ qi Ej ‰ri …t†; tŠ·U i ‰ri …t†; tŠ
from a fluid description by using the following continuity
equations:
2.3. Case of N particles
2rmi
⫹ 7·…rmi U i † ˆ 0 We can generalize the above discussion to an N-particle
2t
system. However, the splitting of forces as usually done in
2 the literature is not practical since we get N(N ⫺ 1)/2 ⬎ N
…r U † ⫹ 7·…rmi Ui U i † ˆ f ii ⫹ f ij …11†
2t mi i equations to solve for N variables. Therefore, we present
2 1 another method, not well-known, where the number of equa-
… r U 2 † ⫹ 7·… 12 rmi U2i U i † ˆ …f ii ⫹ f ij †·U i tions is exactly the same as the number of particles. This
2t 2 mi i

The quantity Ui U i is a dyadic. The density of the force

field f is partitioned in two force fields: the proper or self-
force field fii and the mutual force field fij. For example, if
f ij ˆ ri …Ej ⫹ Ui ∧ Bj =c† is the Lorentz force density, then
the partition in two forces is justified in a Pinch-like system
where confinement in the simple cylindrical Pinch can be
obtained with a mutual magnetic force arising from an exter-
nal current or by the proper magnetic force which has its
origin in the magnetic field created by the plasma current
itself.
We can now integrate the above equations on volumes Fig. 4. The Jacobi coordinates R1, R2, R3 for four particles.
 P. Cornille / Progress in Energy and Combustion Science 25 (1999) 161–210 165

method uses Jacobi coordinates [36] (p. 169) which are a knowing that
generalization of the relative and center of mass coordinates d
defined above for two particles. The particles 1 and 2 are m U ˆ Fj …27†
dt j j
treated in the usual way, that is to say the difference in the
coordinates of the two particles gives the first Jacobian coor- For j ˆ N and j ˆ 1, we get the definitions
dinate R1 ˆ r1 ⫺ r2 . The second Jacobian coordinate is XN
d
defined as the relative vector R2 between the center of m0 U G ˆ Fj ˆ Fe
mass of the first two particles and the third one, as shown dt jˆ1
…28†
in Fig. 4; therefore, by definition we have
d 1
M W ˆ …m2 F1 ⫺ m1 F2 †
1 X j
1 X N
dt 1 1 m1 ⫹ m2
Rj ˆ m r ⫺ rj⫹1 RN ˆ mr …17†
m0j kˆ1 k k m0 kˆ1 k k Therefore, the Jacobi coordinates can be used to partition
where RN ˆ rG is the center of mass vector of the whole an N-particle system into parts relating to the center of mass
system. The total proper mass of the first j particles m0j has motion and the different relative motions governed by the
for value internal forces Fgj for j ⬍ N which follow Newton’s third
law. The force Fe is the sum of the external forces as given
X
j
in the above equation.
m0j ˆ mk ) m0N ˆ m0 …18†
From the preceding equation, we can recover the follow-
kˆ1
ing equation for two particles:
From the preceding coordinate definitions, we obtain the
d 1
velocity definitions: M V ˆ F12 ⫹ …m2 F11 ⫺ m1 F22 † …29†
dt 1 12 m
drk dRj dRN dr
Uk ˆ Wj ˆ WN ˆ ˆ G …19† if we write m ˆ m1 ⫹ m2 and W1 ˆ V12, knowing that
dt dt dt dt
It follows that F1 ˆ F11 ⫹ F12 F2 ˆ F22 ⫹ F21 F12 ˆ ⫺F21 …30†

W 1 ˆ U 1 ⫺ U2 W j ˆ Ugj ⫺ Uj⫹1 W N ˆ U gN ˆ UG …20† The above discussion may seem trivial to some physi-
cists, but this article will show it is fundamental. The split-
where we have written ting between internal and external forces is independent of
the origin of the force and, therefore, this partition must
1 X j
Ugj ˆ mU …21† apply in all branches of physics: classical physics, plasma
m0j kˆ1 k k
physics, special relativity, electromagnetism and quantum
One can demonstrate the conservation of the kinetic mechanics. Therefore, special relativity and quantum
energy in the coordinate transformation: mechanics are both incomplete theories, since they imply
the existence of internal forces associated with the reci-
X
N X
N
procity concept and the conservation of energy and ignore
1
2 Mj W 2j ˆ 1
2 mj U 2j …22†
jˆ1 jˆ1
the existence of external forces. We will show hereafter the
reason why the Lorentz force cannot be considered as an
with the definitions internal force.
m1 m2 m0j The existence of external forces which do not satisfy
M1 ˆ Mj ˆ m MN ˆ m0N
m1 ⫹ m2 m0j⫹1 j⫹1 Newton’s third law deserves special attention since one
…23† must recognize from the above calculation that there is no
energy conservation principle for that kind of force. Most of
To obtain the equation of motion for the Jacobian coor- our technology (motors and generators) does comply with
dinate Rj the energy conservation principle because of Newton’s third
d law. It is the reason why the efficiency of motors and gener-
M W ˆ Fgj …24† ators can never be higher than 100% because they work as
dt j j
closed systems. However, the existence of external forces
we multiply the velocity Wj defined below by Mj does imply the existence of opened systems where the
1 X j energy is provided by other particles located outside the
Wj ˆ m U ⫺ U j⫹1 …25† system or by the medium. Therefore, classical mechanics
m0j kˆ1 k k
does not forbid the existence of the so-called free-energy
and derive with respect to time the resulting equation to get devices or over-unity devices provided they use forces that
the expression of the force Fgj: do not satisfy Newton’s third law. The reader interested by
this subject can consult the numerous web sites on free-
mj⫹1 X j
m0j energy devices. However, we can debunk the whole subject
Fgj ˆ F ⫺ F …26†
m0j⫹1 kˆ1 k m0j⫹1 j⫹1 of over-unity devices by pointing out the existence of
166 P. Cornille / Progress in Energy and Combustion Science 25 (1999) 161–210
opened systems, a fact which is not well-known in the litera-
ture. In the case of an opened system, the efficiency can be
higher than 100% because the work of the external force is
not taken into account. The only question to be answered is
how do we generate an external force? Since the Lorentz
force does not follow Newton’s third law, this force can be
used for building the so-called free-energy devices. Some
physicists may disagree with this point of view, arguing that
any system can be closed by taking into account other
material particles in the Universe. But this is not so, since
one can always define the center of mass of all particles in
the Universe; in that case, the energy related to the motion of
this center of mass cannot be taken from the particles but
comes from the ether. However, as demonstrated above with
the Jacobi coordinates, the partition between internal and
external forces need not be applied to all particles in the
Universe, and can be a local principle.
3. Newton’s third law and the principle of relativity in
classical mechanics
Let us recall the three famous Newton’s laws in the order
of importance quoted in the literature [37]:
1. every body continues its state of rest, or rectilinear
uniform motion, unless it is compelled to change that
state by forces impressed upon it;
2. the change of motion is proportional to the motive force
impressed and is made in the direction of the right line in
which the force is impressed;
3. to every action, there is always opposed an equal
reaction or the mutual actions of two bodies upon each
other are always equal and directed to contrary parts.
Newton’s laws, 300 years after their publication, are still
fundamental to physics. The form in which Newton
published them has strongly influenced the subsequent
development of physics. Newburgh [38] stated that
Newton’s three laws are really two, since the first law is
being included in the second law for the special case of
zero momentum change. We disagree with this statement
for reasons that will be examined later in this article.
However, later in his article, Newburgh makes some rel-
evant comments which contradict his viewpoint when he
says:
It is worth noting the rather obvious although rarely
stated fact that the first two laws differ markedly from
the third…. Newton’s first two laws are a one-body
law…. Contrast these two laws with the third…. This
law is a two-body law involving two closely related
forces that act on different bodies. The first two laws
differ also in that they discuss only the net force.
There is no restriction on the number of forces
comprising it.
To understand the principles of relativity and covariance
in classical mechanics, we must show that the three
Newton’s laws must be deduced from one another in the
inverse order quoted above [33–35]. Therefore, Newton’s
third law must be the first law since it implies the existence
of two equations of motion as discussed in the preceding
paragraph, namely:
d2 R d2 r
M 2
ˆ Fi ⫹ a…Fe † m 2 ˆ Fe …31†
dt dt
The first equation defines the motion of a particle
submitted to an internal force Fi resulting from the mutual
interaction with a second particle and to external forces
a (Fe) produced by other particles, the particle itself or the
ether.
The second equation describes the motion of the center of
mass. When the external forces are zero a (Fe) ˆ 0, we
recover Newton’s first law which only applies to the center
of mass of the two particles. As shown hereafter, the recti-
linear uniform motion of the center of mass is at the heart of
the misunderstanding concerning the relativity and co-
variance principles. It is the partition of forces obtained
from Newton’s third law which is the key for the under-
standing of what is wrong with these two principles. Note
that the above analysis can be easily generalized to a system
of N particles by using Jacobi coordinates.
The relativity principle can be best analyzed when the
motion of an object is observed from different reference
frames. A well-known example is the case of a stone
dropped in a moving train. We know from the preceding
paragraph that the relative motion is described by the
equation
d2 R12 1
M ˆ F12 ⫹ …m2 F11 ⫺ m1 F22 † …32†
dt2 m
where R12 ˆ r1 ⫺ r2 is the distance between the stone of
mass m1 and the train of mass m2 knowing that the reduced
mass and the total mass are respectively M ˆ m1m2/(m1 ⫹
m2) and m ˆ m1 ⫹ m2.
Since we have m1 p m2, the preceding equation becomes
d2 R12
m1 ⬇ F12 ⫹ F11 …33†
dt2
Because the mass of the Earth is large in comparison with
the mass of the train, we must take into account the attrac-
tion of the Earth. Eq. (32) does not change form if m2
includes the mass of the Earth. In that case, the internal
force F12 is the gravitational force and F11 is the external
force applied to the stone by the moving train. The equation
of motion for the center of mass of the train and the stone has
the expression
d2 r d2 r
m ˆ F 11 ⫹ F 22 ˆ Fe ) m2 ⬇ F22 …34†
dt2 dt2
The coordinates of the stone and the train in the Earth
 P. Cornille / Progress in Energy and Combustion Science 25 (1999) 161–210 167

depending on the choice of the reference frame. Conse-

quently, the relativity principle for inertial reference frames
in relative motion is defeated by the existence of external
forces. Brillouin [39] (p. 45) reached the same conclusion
when he says
Let us conclude: the usual statement of the relativity
principle requires that frames of reference be
extremely heavy.
Einstein’s relativity principle refers to laws of physics but
initial conditions have to be taken into account. These initial
conditions are ‘‘fact-like’’ rather than ‘‘law-like’’, they are
not invariant since they depend on the external forces
applied, as shown in the above example.
Fig. 5. Motion of a falling stone relative to a moving train or to the
Earth.
4. Newton’s third law and the principle of covariance in
classical mechanics
reference frame are given by the relations
m m The covariance principle in classical mechanics implies
r1 ˆ r ⫹ 2 R12 ⬇ r ⫹ R12 r2 ˆ r ⫺ 1 R12 ⬇ r …35†
m m the invariance of both the acceleration and the force under a
At the initial time t ˆ 0, we apply an interaction force in change of Galilean reference frame. Newton’s second law
the y direction to drop the stone from the luggage rack. We applied to the particle 1 written in two different reference
also assume that at that time the external forces are zero and frames as shown in Fig. 6 gives the following two equations
the train has reached the uniform velocity U ˆ Ct in the y of motion:
direction in the Earth reference frame as shown in Fig. 5. d2 R12 d2 r1
For an observer located in the reference frame of the train, m1 ˆ F…R12 ; t† m1 ˆ F…r1 ; t† …38†
dt2 dt2
we have
with the condition F(R12, t) ˆ F(r1, t).
d2 Z On the contrary, the relation r1 ˆ r ⫹ m2R12/m in Eq. (35)
m1 ˆ F12 ˆ ⫺m1 g ) Z ˆ ⫺gt2 =2
dt2 implies the formula
…36†
d2 Y d2 r1 d2 r d2 R12
m1 2 ˆ F11 ˆ 0 ) Y ˆ Y1 m1 ˆ m1 2 ⫹ M …39†
dt dt 2 dt dt2
An Earth observer who follows simultaneously the If we have m1 ⬇ M for m1 ⬍ m2, in that case the preceding
motion of the train and the stone will see the same relative equation gives the relation r1 ⬇ r ⫹ R12. Eq. (34) can be
motion in both the Earth and train reference frames, namely rewritten as follows:
a vertical straight line for the free falling stone. However, if
the Earth observer only follows the absolute motion of the m1 d2 r m d2 r m
m 2 ˆ 1 Fe ) m1 2 ⬇ 1 Fe ! 0 …40†
stone relative to the Earth reference frame, he sees a par- m2 dt m2 dt m2
abola given by the relations
zˆZ y ˆ Ut ⫹ Y …37†
which is a Galilean coordinate transformation that results
from the second equation of motion in Eq. (31) in the
absence of external forces.
The reciprocity of reference frames applies only to inter-
nal forces which satisfy Newton’s third law. Therefore, a
change of reference frame cannot cancel an internal force
such as the gravitational force. By contrast, the change of
reference frame for external forces is not reciprocal, since
this kind of force does not satisfy Newton’s third law. There-
fore, the value of the external force will change with the
choice of the reference frame, for example this force can be
made zero in the train reference frame. Thus, it is not
surprising to get two different paths for the stone motion Fig. 6. Galilean change of reference frame.
168 P. Cornille / Progress in Energy and Combustion Science 25 (1999) 161–210

The condition m1Fe/m2 ! 0 is verified if the particle 2 has reciprocal reference frames are attached to particles 2 and
an infinite mass, which is a necessary condition for the the origin 0. However, there is a similarity between the
reference frame to be an inertial frame, and if the external rectilinear uniform motion of particle 2 in Galilean
force is not too great. Brillouin has clearly discussed in his mechanics and the same motion of the center of mass
book [39] of the necessity for a reference frame to have an which is almost located at the position occupied by the
infinite inertial mass. second particle if this particle is massive and provided that
Therefore, Eq. (39) becomes the external force is small or zero.
d2 r1 d2 R12
m1 2
⬇ m1 …41†
dt dt2 5. Covariance and relativity principles in relativistic
Only in that case, do we recover the covariance principle mechanics
and the equality of forces F(R12, t) ˆ F(r1, t) under a change
of reference frame. From the above example, we see that We shall now show that the above discussion does not
even in classical mechanics we can argue about the co- depend upon the existence of the relativistic gamma factor.
variance principle because there are two equations of It follows that the relativity and covariance principles in
motion. Einstein did not understand that the relative motion special relativity can be refuted for the same reasons
equation (first equation of Eq. (38)) is the only equation discussed above because we must recover classical
which is covariant and invariant under a change of reference mechanics for U/c or V/c ! 0. The invariance in form or
frame in the absence of any external force; therefore, this covariance of the equations of electrodynamics under
equation does not depend on the existence of the ether. In Lorentz transformations was shown by Lorentz and Poin-
contrast, the center of mass equation does depend on the caré before the formulation of the special theory of relativ-
choice of a reference frame. This law of motion implies ity. In the relativistic case, the covariance principle
the existence of the ether which can be chosen as the concerning the laws of motion is expressed through the
preferred frame of rest, particularly if we take into account relations
all particles of the Universe.
dP0 dP1 dE0 dE1
Moreover, we can also contest the covariance principle of ˆ F0 ˆ F1 ˆ U 0 ·F0 ˆ U1 ·F1
Eq. (38) from a point of view based on the energy equations: dt0 dt1 dt0 dt1
…44†
d 1 d 1
… m V 2 † ˆ V 12 ·F…R12 ; t† … m U2 † ˆ U1 ·F…r1 ; t†
dt 2 1 12 dt 2 1 1 The covariance of the above equations implies that the
…42† quantities P0, P1, E0, E1 that enter these equations transform
under the following Lorentz transformations:
Thus, the particle one submitted to a force F which is the
same in two reference frames in relative motion has a kinetic E1 ˆ g…E0 ⫹ 1U·P0 †
energy that is different in each reference frame since the  
power is different in the two reference frames. Therefore, g 1
P1 ˆ P0 ⫹ 1 2 E0 ⫹ 2 …g ⫺ 1†U·P0 U
it suffices to change our reference frame to create as much c U
free energy as we want because the velocity of the moving 1
reference frame U ˆ U1 ⫺ V12 can be as large as we wish. U 1 ·F1 ˆ …U0 ⫹ 1U†·F0
D
In not differentiating between internal and external
   
forces, the covariance and relativity principles blend g⫺1 g 1
together in Galilean mechanics as a principle of inertia. F1 ˆ F0 ⫹ 1 2 U0 ·F0 ⫹ 2 …g ⫺ 1†U·F0 U
D c U
This principle states that Newton’s laws of motion and …45†
energy are unaltered by the Galilean transformation
where 1 ˆ ^1 is a coefficient. To compare the laws of
r1 ˆ r ⫹ R12 ˆ Ut ⫹ R12 …43†
motion of the particle 1 of Fig. 6 viewed in two inertial
between two inertial frames in relative motion which led to frames in uniform relative translation in both classical and
the two sets of equations in Eqs. (38) and (42). From the relativistic mechanics, we use the following definitions:
preceding discussion, one can understand that the covar-
iance and relativity principles are radically different in Gali- D ˆ 1 ⫹ 1U·U 0 =c2
lean and Newtonian mechanics. This point is so
E0 ˆ m1 g0 c2 P0 ˆ m1 g0 U 0
fundamental for the understanding of physics that we must
…46†
summarize the similarities and differences between the two E1 ˆ m1 g1 c2 P1 ˆ m1 g1 U 1
mechanics. The main difference concerns the reciprocity
concept between reference frames which applies to the gi ˆ …1 ⫺ Ui2 †=c2 †⫺1=2 g ˆ …1 ⫺ U 2 =c2 †⫺1=2
two reference frames attached to particles 1 and 2 in New-
tonian mechanics, whereas in Galilean mechanics the From the two equations in Eq. (35) one deduces the
 P. Cornille / Progress in Energy and Combustion Science 25 (1999) 161–210 169

composition law of velocities for two particles: They also state:

m2 by no experiment of any kind should it be possible to
U1 ˆ UG ⫹ V ⬇ U G ⫹ V 12
m 12 detect a preferred inertial frame.
…47†
m
U2 ˆ UG ⫺ 1 V 12 ⬇ U G From an experimental point of view, we will contest the
m last claim later in this article. But, the covariance principle is
We see at once, that the Galilean law of addition of velo- not required by physics as already stated by Phipps [42] and
cities in classical mechanics is satisfied only if m1 ⬍ m2. We Cornille [29] in both special and general relativity. In a
can always assume the equality U0 ˆ V12; therefore, we get review of the foundations of general relativity, Norton
U1 ⬇ U ⫹ U0 for U2 ⬇ UG ⬇ U if the reference frame where [43] summarizes Kretschmannn’s objections to the covar-
particle two is at rest has an infinite mass. Now, we must iance principle by stating that general covariance is physi-
recover classical mechanics for U/c or V/c ! 0 which cally vacuous. A good example is given in hydrodynamics
implies to substitute one instead of the gamma factor in where the equations take different forms in different changes
all the preceding relations. The transformation laws of the of coordinates.
force and the power are now given by the relations For Eulerian coordinates r, t defined in the laboratory
  frame, we get
1 1
F1 ˆ F0 ⫹ 2 …U0 ·F0 †U 2r
D c ⫹ 7·…rU† ˆ 0
…48† 2t
1 2rU
U1 ·F1 ˆ …U 0 ⫹ 1U†·F0 ⫹ 7·…rUU ⫹ Py
I† ˆ 0 …50†
D 2t
Let us now suppose that the two particles are charged 2E
particles, then the Coulomb law of interaction in the rest ⫹ 7·‰…E ⫹ P†UŠ ˆ 0
2t
frame of particle two is given by the relation
where the quantities r and r e are respectively the mass and
R internal energy density, E ˆ r (e ⫹ U 2/2) is the total energy
F0 ˆ F12 ˆ q1 q2 12 …49†
R3 density; P and U are the pressure and the velocity of the
fluid.
In classical mechanics, the Coulomb law satisfied For Lagrangian coordinates r0, t0, we get
Newton’s third law and, therefore, the magnitude of the
force has the same value in any reference frame. Contrary 2r r 2J
⫹ ˆ0
to what is said in the literature, this invariance is not a 2t0 J 2t0
consequence of a Galilean transformation since it is verified 2U
when the two particles have the same mass. In contrast, the r ⫹ …70 r†⫺1 ·70 P ˆ 0 …51†
2t0
force F1 in relativistic mechanics does not have the same
magnitude as the force F0 in a change of reference frame. 2
r …e ⫹ 1
U 2 † ⫹ ‰…70 r†⫺1 ·70 Š·…PU† ˆ 0
Worst of all, the conservation law of energy is violated, as 2t0 2

shown by the second relation in Eq. (48). In classical

mechanics, Newton’s third law implies the conservation where J is the Jacobian of the transformation between the
law of energy in any reference frame. Any violation of laboratory frame and the Lagrangian frame. The matrix
this law is due to the work of external forces and is attributed (70r) ⫺1 is the inverse matrix of 70r.
to the motion of the center of mass of the system. The Finally, the fluid equations given on a non-rigid frame
covariance principle is also criticized as a principle which moving with the velocity field Ue[r(t), t] with respect to
has no physical purpose as stated by Moussa and Ponsonnet the laboratory frame have the expression
[40] (p. 59): d…rJ†
⫹ J 7·‰r…U ⫺ Ue †Š ˆ 0
dt
We recall that classical forces are known in the frame
linked to the Earth. Therefore if we keep that frame, d…rJU†
⫹ J 7·‰r…UU ⫺ U e U† ⫹ PyIŠ ˆ 0 …52†
the above relations have no practical use. dt
What are the reasons which have led to the covariance d…EJ†
⫹ J 7·‰E…U ⫺ Ue † ⫹ PUŠ ˆ 0
principle?. The best explanation has been given by Panofsky dt
and Phillips in their book [41] (p. 261) when they say: where J is the Jacobian of the transformation between the
If an equation has a form which is invariant to a laboratory frame and the moving frame. This Jacobian satis-
change in inertial frame, then an experiment based fies the identity
on this equation obviously could not give a result 1 dJ
depending on the particular frame of reference. ˆ 7·Ue …53†
J dt
170 P. Cornille / Progress in Energy and Combustion Science 25 (1999) 161–210
For a rigid moving frame, we verify the condition 7·Ue ˆ
0 which implies to take J ˆ 1 in the preceding equations. For
identical initial and boundary conditions, the above three
sets of equations will give the same numerical values. We
note that the preceding equations are not covariant under a
change of coordinates but the quantities associated with the
three sets of equations have the same numerical values. In
special relativity theory, we adopt the opposite viewpoint
that the equations must preserve the same form after a
change of coordinates, but, contrary to the classical case,
the quantities involved do not necessarily have the same
numerical values. The above discussion demonstrates that
the ignorance of the partition between internal and external
forces is at the origin of the covariance principle.
6. Newton’s third law in relativistic collision
The theory of collision between relativistic particles is of
great importance for nuclear physics. In the absence of
nuclear reactions between the colliding particles the col-
lision between them can be considered as elastic. External
forces produced in a particle accelerator are needed to accel-
erate and direct the particles in order to produce a collision
between them. When these external forces are turned off, the
colliding particles obey the equations of motion
dP1 dP2
⫹ ˆ F12 ⫹ F21 ˆ 0
dt dt
…54†
dE1 dE2
⫹ ˆ …U 1 ⫺ U2 †·F12
dt dt
where all the quantities are generally defined in the so-called
laboratory frame. Depending on the choice of mechanics,
we have the following definitions
Mechanics Momentum Energy
Classical Pi ˆ mi Ui Ei ˆ mi U 2i =2
Relativisic Pi ˆ mi gi Ui Ei ˆ mi gi c2
with the identity
dPi dEi
Ui · ˆ …55†
dt dt
The interaction forces during the collision process
certainly follow Newton’s third law if we use the above
equations. If we want to apply the principles of conservation
of linear momentum and of energy to any closed system,
Newton’s third law must be satisfied, namely:
P1 …t† ⫹ P2 …t† ˆ PG ˆ Ct
…56†
E1 …t† ⫹ E2 …t† ⫹ E12 …t† ˆ ET ˆ Ct
The preceding equalities result from Eq. (54). These equal-
ities are valid in both classical and relativistic mechanics.
Therefore, the conservation laws of momentum and energy
imply that Newton’s third law must be satisfied. There is
certainly a contradiction when relativistic physicists affirm
that Newton’s third law does not apply in relativistic
dynamics and use it when dealing with the collision of rela-
tivistic particles. It is important to note that both particles
are observed in the same reference frame, namely the
laboratory frame. Therefore, no change of reference frame
can be invoked to explain the contradiction. As pointed out
by Beckmann [44] (p. 77)
The fact remains that the Einstein theory has some
explaining to do. For a theory that does not recognize
the equality of action and reaction cannot, without
apology, invoke the conservation of momentum.
The law of conservation of four momentum during the
relativistic collision process cannot hold exactly even if the
external forces due to other particles are zero because we
have in fact the identity
   
dP1 dP2 d q1 d q2
⫹ ˆ⫺ A2 ⫺ A1 苷 0 …57†
dt dt dt c dt c
The terms in the right-hand side of Eq. (57) describe the
radiation effect of the colliding particles. If radiation losses
are completely negligible in a linear accelerator, the circum-
stances change drastically in a circular accelerator and
during the time the collision takes place. The reader is
referred to Jackson’s book [45] (p. 701) for a general discus-
sion of the radiation emitted during atomic collisions. We
must point out that the above equation implies a motion of
the center of mass of the colliding particles. It seems that
Jackson is aware of this point when he introduces the
notions of relative particle and reduced mass in the problem
15.5.
A collision can be described in four different reference
frames, namely:
the reference frame whose origin is the center of mass of
the two particles;
the Earth’s reference frame, also called the laboratory
reference frame. This reference frame can be the ether
frame;
the two reference frames whose origin is one of the two
particles.
When we consider the calculation of the momentum and
of the energy of the colliding particles in different reference
frames, the total classical or relativistic energy may change,
or not, depending on the kind of reference frame we choose.
The only case when this energy changes is when we move
from the laboratory frame or ether frame to one of the three
other reference frames defined above. The difference in
energy must be ascribed to the kinetic energy of the center
of mass which results from the effect of the external forces
 P. Cornille / Progress in Energy and Combustion Science 25 (1999) 161–210 171

in the past. Therefore, the values of the linear momentum PG relativistic mechanics
and of the energy EG of the center of mass are zero in the
reference frame of the center of mass and different from zero P2 ˆ 0 E2 ˆ m0 c2
otherwise as shown in the following table:
P1 ˆ PR ˆ m0 gR UR ˆ 2m0 g2L U L …61†
Reference frame Relativistic case Classical case E1 ˆ ER ˆ m0 gR c2
Laboratory PG ˆ ET UG =c2 PG ˆ m0 UG E1 ⫹ E2 ˆ 2m0 g2L c2
Center of mass PG ˆ 0 PG ˆ 0
Laboratory EG ˆ ET ⫺ m0c 2 EG ˆ m0 U2G =2 where the velocity UR is the velocity of the first particle
Center of mass EG ˆ 0 EG ˆ 0 defined in the reference frame of the second particle. The
relativistic definitions above are obtained by using the
covariance law and the relativistic addition law for the rela-
In the above table, m0 ˆ m1 ⫹ m2 is the proper mass in tive velocity given below; hence it follows that
classical mechanics, whereas m0 ˆ m1 ⫹ m2 ⫹ E12/c 2 is the 4b2L
proper mass in relativistic mechanics where E12 is the gR ⫹ 1 ˆ 2g2L ) b2R ˆ …62†
…1 ⫹ b2L †2
mutual potential energy of the system. We can point out
that potential energy has no meaning in special relativity, In the laboratory frame, the relative velocity between the
no wonder that textbooks avoid discussing potential energy. two particles is the classical relative velocity V ˆ U1 ⫺ U2 ˆ
There is some confusion in the calculation of energy in 2UL with the velocities U1 and U2 measured in the laboratory
relativistic mechanics which results from the ignoring of the frame. In Newtonian mechanics, the relative velocity V ˆ
partition of the kinetic energy between internal motion and UR is invariant in a change of reference frame; therefore, the
external motion related to the motion of the center of mass. total kinetic energy EK of the two particles is also invariant.
As shown in Ref. [29], the violation of the conservation of In contradistinction to classical mechanics, the velocity UR
energy when examining the relativistic collision of two in relativistic mechanics is no longer invariant since this
identical particles in two different reference frames, namely, velocity is given by
the reference frame of the center of mass and the reference
U1 ⫺ U2
frame of one particle, is due to the covariance principle: UR ˆ …63†
U ·U
1⫺ 12 2
1 c
…P1 ⫹ P2 †2L ⫺ …E1 ⫹ E2 †2L
c2 The inconsistency of the above formula may be shown by
noting that the total kinetic energy EK of the two particles is
1
ˆ …P1 ⫹ P2 †2R ⫺ …E1 ⫹ E2 †2R …58† not maintained in the change of reference frame since we
c2 have in the laboratory frame
The covariance of a four-vector momentum-energy in a EK ˆ 2…gL ⫺ 1†m0 c2 ⬇ m0 UL2 …64†
change of reference frame leads to an inconsistency when
one uses the relativistic addition law for the calculation of whereas in the rest frame of the second particle, we have
the relative velocity between two identical particles in a instead
collision viewed in two different frames. EK ˆ 2…g2L ⫺ 1†m0 c2 ˆ 2…gL ⫺ 1†…gL ⫹ 1†m0 c2 ⬇ 2m0 UL2
By definition, we have in the laboratory frame: …65†

classical mechanics Therefore, a change of reference frame can create energy.

This is not surprising since the two preceding relations differ
⫺P1 ˆ P2 ˆ m0 UL E1 ⫹ E2 ˆ m0 UL2 by a factor g L which results from the covariance principle,
…59† whereas Newtonian physics in a collision only implies
relativistic mechanics invariance of the energy and momentum in a change of
reference frame. Moreover, the correct and unique definition
⫺P1 ˆ P2 ˆ m0 gL U L E1 ⫹ E2 ˆ 2m0 gL c2 of m0 has to be rest-mass in a fundamental reference frame
rather then ‘‘proper-mass’’ in any particle-bound frame!
in the rest frame of the second particle:

classical mechanics 7. Newton’s third law and the twin paradox

P2 ˆ 0 E2 ˆ 0 Mˆ 1
2 m0 V ˆ 2UL …60† Einstein stated that an ideal clock which moves in a
closed curve with respect to a clock at rest in the laboratory
P1 ˆ MV ˆ m0 UL E1 ˆ 1
2 MV 2 ˆ m0 UL2 frame will indicate an elapsed proper time smaller than the
172 P. Cornille / Progress in Energy and Combustion Science 25 (1999) 161–210
one given by the stationary clock. The paradox arises
because the difference in time between the two clocks is
considered as a velocity effect; since special relativity is a
reciprocal theory, from the viewpoint of the traveling clock
it can be argued that it is the stationary clock that goes
slower. Clocks can be replaced by twins, hence the name
twin paradox; this has generated one of the longest standing
controversies in twentieth century physics, as proved by the
prolific literature published on this topic by several authors
[29, 46]. The paradox is usually explained by stating that the
moving clock has suffered an acceleration while the station-
ary clock has not. However, it is not consistent to use a
consideration about acceleration in order to explain the
paradox after ruling out any physical effect of this accelera-
tion on the behavior of the traveling clock. We know that the
mass variation of an electron accelerated by an electromag-
netic force in the laboratory frame is m ˆ g m0. This is a real
effect measured in modern particle accelerators. Cullwick
[47] pointed out that the decay rate of a meson depends on
its energy in the same proportion; therefore, a physical
change has taken place during acceleration which is as
real as the mass variation of a moving electron. Since no
physicist will contest that if we slow down a moving elec-
tron we will recover its rest mass in the laboratory frame,
then the preceding formulation predicts that if, after a
measurement on the moving muons has been made, we
slow them down to rest, we will recover the lifetime of
muons at rest. By analogy one can expect that the outcome
of the twin paradox is zero. One may contest the analogy;
however, the experiment has been done by Frisch and Smith
[48] and confirms the validity of the analogy. Let us quote
the authors:
In addition, actually simultaneously, we slowed down
and stopped a sample of m-mesons and measured the
distribution of their decay times when they were at
rest relative to us. Comparison of their rate of decay
at rest with their rate of decay in flight showed that
the moving mesons decay much more slowly.
The reader is referred to Refs. [29, 46] for a full discussion
of the twin paradox.
To understand why the twin paradox is connected with
Newton’s third law, one may ask why reciprocity, also
called kinematical symmetry, which is at the heart of the
paradox, is not a valid concept for the clock problem. To
clarify the concept of reciprocity one must proceed in three
different steps with the help of Fig. 7. We will show that the
difficulty arises from a subtle point which has escaped the
notice of most authors. In a nutshell, in spite of kinetical
symmetry, there is no dynamical symmetry since the clock
at rest is bound to the Earth laboratory frame.
Case (a): apply a force F ⬎ 0 to clock B that will move
forward in the z ⬎ 0 direction from the clock A at rest in the
laboratory frame and will indicate the time tBM ˆ g tAR.
Case (b): apply a force F ⬍ 0 to clock A that will move
Fig. 7. Round trip of a clock and Newton’s third principle.
backward in the z ⬍ 0 direction from the clock B at rest in
the laboratory frame and will indicate the time tAM ˆ g tBR.
We remark that there is no contradiction between the two
cases concerning the time behavior of the moving clock with
respect to the rest clock.
Case (c): apply a force F ⬎ 0 to the clock B and consider
an observer at rest with the moving clock B. This observer
sees the clock A moving away from him in the z ⬍ 0 direc-
tion with a velocity U ⬍ 0 as if the clock A is submitted to a
force F ⬍ 0. This observer will therefore attribute to the
clock A the time tAM ˆ g tBR.
Thus the reciprocity appears in cases (a) and (c) and
yields a contradiction if we write tBM ˆ tBR. We see that in
case (c) the observer tries to put himself in case (b), where
the time dilatation formulas (b) and (c) are the same with the
difference that the time dilatation formula (b) cannot contra-
dict the time dilatation formula (a); therefore, where is the
origin of the contradiction? The explanation resides in the
important fact that for a system we must make a distinction
between internal forces and external forces. For example, a
bullet moves away from a gun or two particles move away
after a collision if they are in interaction with internal forces.
For this system we know from Newton’s third law of motion
that action equals reaction; in that case the origin of the
frame can be either one of the two particles or the center
of mass. We can distinguish external forces from internal
ones by looking to the position of the center of mass in the
laboratory frame, which is moving for external forces or
fixed for internal forces. Reciprocity or symmetry cannot
be invoked in case (c) because the force F is only applied
to clock B and is therefore an external force. Clocks A and B
can be in interaction when we synchronize them in the
laboratory frame; but, when clock B is moved by an external
force we have no right to switch the origin of our frame as
we did in case (c), since the center of mass of the two clocks
moves with a non-uniform velocity in the laboratory frame
for the case of an external force.
8. Newton’s third law in quantum mechanics
Many systems studied in quantum mechanics consist of
two particles. Examples are the electron and the proton of a
hydrogen atom, the two atoms of a diatomic molecule and
 P. Cornille / Progress in Energy and Combustion Science 25 (1999) 161–210
the probe and target particles in a scattering event or a
collision. The quantum mechanical treatment of the two-
body problem starts with Schrödinger’s equation:
1 1 2 2C 2 For N particles, we can use the Jacobi coordinates defined
D C⫹ D C ⫹ 1j ⫺ 2 EP C ˆ 0 …66†
m1 1 m2 2 ប 2t ប
where m1 and m2 are the rest masses of the two particles and
EP(r1, r2, t) is the potential energy between the two particles.
Substituting the particular solution C (r1, r2, t) ˆ
C (r1, r2) e jv t in the preceding equation produces an inhomo-
geneous Helmholtz equation to be solved:
1 1 2
D C⫹ D C ⫹ 2 …ET ⫺ EP †C ˆ 0 …67†
m1 1 m2 2 ប
where we have used Einstein’s relation ET ˆ ⫺ 1 បv with
1 ˆ ^ 1 depending on the sign of ET. As in classical
mechanics, the Schrödinger equation can be partitioned
into parts relating to the center of mass r and the relative
position R:
mr ˆ m1 r1 ⫹ m2 r2 R ˆ r1 ⫺ r2 …68†
where m ˆ m1 ⫹ m2 is the total mass of the system. By
definition, we have C (r1, r2) ˆ C 0(r, R); therefore, the
Schrödinger equation above can be transformed as follows:
1 1 2 where the Lorentz force FLij applied to the particle i is given
DC ⫹ D C ⫹ 2 …ET ⫺ EP †C0 ˆ 0 …69†
m r 0 M R 0 ប
where the reduced mass is defined as M ˆ m1m2/(m1 ⫹ m2).
If the potential function EP(R) does not depend explicitly on
time, the total energy can be split into a sum of two
constants ET ˆ ETr ⫹ ETR ˆ ⫺ប…1r vr ⫹ 1R vR †. Then we
can factor the wave function C0 …r; R† ˆ Cr …r†CR …R† and
substitute it in the preceding equation. After a division by
Cr CR we get a sum of two terms which only depends on
either r or R; therefore, each term must be equal to a
constant, which implies the system of equations:
2m
Dr Cr ⫹ ETr Cr ˆ 0
ប2
…70†
2M
DR CR ⫹ 2 …ETR ⫺ EP †CR ˆ 0
ប The second remark concerns the well-known fact that the
The first equation describes the motion of a free particle
in the absence of any external force. The second equation is
used to calculate the stationary states of the electron in a
hydrogen atom. Therefore, we see that the existence of
Newton’s third law in quantum mechanics is fundamental.
Concerning the theory of measurement in quantum
mechanics, Cavalleri [49] pointed out:
It is not usually emphasized that there are two kinds
of observations, one perturbing and the other non-
perturbing the system under examination.
Of course the perturbing measurement occurs when the
observer is in mutual interaction with the system under
examination, which implies both reciprocity and Newton’s
third law even if external forces are present. The affirmation
173
that an observer always interferes in the process of measure-
ment in quantum mechanics is simply not true because of
the non-reciprocity of external forces.
previously to express the Laplacian of the function
C…r1 ; …rj ; …rN ; t† ˆ C0 …R1 ; …Rj ; …RN ; t† in terms of
the new coordinates [36] (p. 264); we get
!
XN
1 NX⫺1
1 1 1
Dri C ˆ ⫹ DRj C0 ⫹ DRN Y0
iˆ1
m i jˆ1
m 0j mj⫹1 m 0
…71†
9. Newton’s third law in electromagnetism
9.1. The Lorentz force law and the stimulated force
As stated in Section 1, there are two force laws of motion
in electromagnetism. The first one is the Ampère force law
and the second one is the Lorentz force law which leads to
the Lorentz–Maxwell equation of motion:
dPi
ˆ FLij …72†
dt
by the formula
 
1
FLij ˆ qi Ej ⫹ U i ∧ Bj …73†
c
The electromagnetic field Ej ; Bj is an external field
produced by another charged particle j. We can make
three remarks concerning the Lorentz force law above.
The first one is to question the meaning of the velocity Ui
of the charge qi that appears in Eq. (72). As pointed out by
Assis and Peixoto [50], most textbooks do not state
explicitly what the velocity Ui is relative to. Of course,
according to the special theory of relativity, the velocity
of the charge qi is the velocity relative to an inertial
reference frame. Therefore, this velocity will have different
values in different inertial reference frames.
Lorentz forces do not satisfy Newton’s third law since we
have FLij 苷 ⫺ FLji. We will demonstrate again that this fact
implies the existence of external forces that can perform
work whose energy is provided either by the medium or
by the ether.
The third remark concerns the fact that the magnetic part
of the Lorentz force never works. However, it has never
been recognized in the literature, except maybe in the
paper by Galeczki [51], that there is a second definition of
work used currently in electromagnetism where the
magnetic part of the Lorentz force does work. The best
example is the work of the magnetic force dW ˆ F·dr ˆ
I…dr ∧ B†·dr=c exerted on a current element dr ˆ U dt
sustaining a current I which moves in a different direction
dr in an external magnetic field B. This work is not zero and
174 P. Cornille / Progress in Energy and Combustion Science 25 (1999) 161–210

is used in calculating the cutting flux through the surface Eq. (74) can be written in a form often encountered in the
dS ˆ dr ∧ dr in motional electrical circuit theory. I think the literature, namely
paper by Galeczki raises interesting questions concerning    
d q d q
the compatibility of the special relativity theory and Fara- m1 g1 U 1 ⫹ 1 A2 ⫹ m2 g2 U2 ⫹ 2 A1 ˆ 0
dt c dt c
day’s law.
We have shown that the definition of an inertial frame …77†
implies that this frame must have for its origin a particle In that case, Newton’s third law is verified for the general-
with an infinite mass. However, the mass of any real particle ized momentum. It follows that the total canonical momen-
is finite; moreover, we have demonstrated the existence of tum is conserved instead of the total Newtonian momentum.
external forces that can perform work whose energy is From the preceding equation, one can deduce that field
provided by the medium, namely the ether. Therefore, to theory attributes momentum to the electromagnetic field to
show the existence of the ether, we must consider the inter- allow a particle to interact only with fields at the position of
action between two moving charges with forces that violate the particle. It precludes the possibility of instantaneous
Newton’s third law. Since Lorentz forces exerted by freely particle interactions except as an approximation. Therefore,
moving charges upon one another are not equal and opposite the interaction between the particles proceeds by a transfer
in principle, it follows that a system consisting of pair of of momentum from one particle to the field, then the field
charged particles in relative motion can change the state of transports the momentum at the speed of light to the position
motion of its center of mass without external help. Consider of the second particle where it can be transferred from the
two charged particles q1 and q2 moving with velocities U1 field to the other particle. However, this transfer cannot be
and U2 relative to a reference frame where the ether is at rest. symmetric, since the above equation can be rewritten as
We stress that all the following calculations are done in this follows:
reference frame; therefore, no change of reference frame is
dP1 dP2
implied in the discussion. The charge q1 exerts on q2 a force ⫹ ˆ F12 ⫹ F21
F21 ˆ q2 …E1 ⫹ U2 ∧ B1 =c† where E1 and B1 are the electric dt dt
   
and magnetic fields produced by q1 at the position occupied d q1 d q2
by q2. Conversely, the charge q2 produces on q1 a force ˆ⫺ A2 ⫺ A1 苷 0 …78†
dt c dt c
F12 ˆ q1 …E2 ⫹ U1 ∧ B2 =c†. In general, these two forces
have different directions and magnitudes: Therefore, to take the fields into account in the calculation
does not change the fact that there is a stimulated motion of
dP1
⫹
dP2
ˆ F12 ⫹ F21 苷 0 …74† the center of mass. We stress that the condition F12 ⫹ F21 苷
dt dt 0 alone is sufficient to state that a pair of charged particles in
relative motion can change its state of motion without exter-
This can be shown by rewriting the Lorentz force in terms
nal help, as stressed by several other authors [52–55] who
of the potentials:
have reviewed this problem. There is absolutely no escaping
 
1 2A2 1 that conclusion.
F12 ˆ q1 ⫺7F2 ⫺ ⫹ U1 ∧ 7 ∧ A2 for r ˆ r1
c 2t c For small accelerations, we can take into account only the
  velocity fields at the simultaneous positions r1(t) and r2(t) of
1 2A1 1
F21 ˆ q2 ⫺7F1 ⫺ ⫹ U2 ∧ 7 ∧ A1 for r ˆ r2 the two particles which are given by the well-known
c 2t c relations
…75†
q1 1 ⫺ b21
where the linear momenta of the particles are now defined E1 ˆ n
R …1 ⫺ b21 sin2 u†3=2
2
by the relations P1 ˆ m1 g1 U 1 and P2 ˆ m2 g2 U2 . As
already stated in the beginning of this paper, the fact that q2 1 ⫺ b22 …79†
E2 ˆ ⫺ n
the equality of action and reaction is not satisfied in rela- R …1 ⫺ b22 sin2 u†3=2
2
tivistic mechanics is not due to the relativity of simul-
taneity or the retardation effect. Therefore, the two charged cB1 ˆ U1 ∧ E1 cB2 ˆ U2 ∧ E2
particles do not constitute a closed system because of the
violation of Newton’s third law by the Lorentz forces. It with the definitions R ˆ R(t) ˆ r2(t) ⫺ r1(t) and n ˆ R=R.
also follows that the conservation of mechanical energy of Since the velocities Ui are small with respect to the light
the system cannot be verified. Therefore, the classical speed, then the electrical fields can be written as follows:
definition of the center of mass given by Eq. (2), which is q1
E1 ⬇ ‰c2 ⫹ 12 U 21 ⫺ 32 …U1 ·n†2 Šn
2 2
the only definition physically meaningful, yields the equation c R
…80†
q
d2 r dg1 dg2 E2 ⬇ ⫺ 2 2 2 ‰c2 ⫹ 12 U 22 ⫺ 32 …U 2 ·n†2 Šn
m 2 ˆ F12 ⫹ F21 ⫺ m1 U 1 ⫺ m2 U 2 ˆ FG 苷 0 c R
dt dt dt
…76† The forces F12 and F21 experienced respectively by q1 and
 P. Cornille / Progress in Energy and Combustion Science 25 (1999) 161–210 175

q2 in the same reference frame are calculated from the 9.2. The Weber force law
formulas
  The violation of Newton’s third law led Builder to realize
1
F12 ˆ q1 E2 ⫹ 2 U 1 ∧ U 2 ∧ E2 the contradiction between the asymmetry of the Lorentz
c
…81† forces viewed in different inertial frames and the relativity
 
1 principle. Consequently, Builder came to the conclusion that
F21 ˆ q2 E1 ⫹ 2 U 2 ∧ U 1 ∧ E1
c there is no alternative but to admit the ether hypothesis. He
was particularly clear when he said:
Therefore, the force F12 is not equal in magnitude and
opposite in direction to the force F21 since we have FG ˆ It is only necessary to postulate that the phenomena
F12 ⫹ F21 苷 0. are caused by motions of particles and bodies relative
As pointed out by Builder [56] (p. 285), the asymmetry, to an absolute inertial system in accordance with the
between the forces experienced simultaneously by the two Maxwell–Lorentz equations.
charges, obviously precludes any inference that the forces
are determined solely by the relative motions of the charges. However, Builder is partially correct since he ignores the
As already noted, the failure of the third law is not due to a existence of a second force law, namely the Weber force
problem of simultaneity. Since the above forces do not law, and its associated equation of motion:
follow Newton’s third law, we have
q2 d
FG ⬇ ‰…U·V†n ⫺ 3…U·n†…V·n†n ⫹ …U·n†V ⫺ …V·n†UŠ MV ˆ FWij …85†
c2 R2 dt
…82†
where M ˆ mi mj =…mi ⫹ mj † is the reduced mass and V ˆ
with the definitions q ˆ q1 ˆ ⫺ q2. In the above relation, V ij ˆ U i ⫺ Uj is the relative velocity which keeps the
V ˆ U2 ⫺ U1 and U ˆ U2 are respectively the relative and same value in any reference frame. The connection between
absolute velocities where we assumed V p U. We can still the Ampère force law and the Weber force law is well
simplify this formula by taking V·R ⬇ VR, U·R ⬇ UR cos u described in Assis’s book [58].
and U·V ⬇ UV cos u in a conductor: it follows that The Weber force law is deduced from the Weber
potential:
q2
FG ⬇ ⫺ ‰…U·V†R ⫹ …V·R†UŠ …83† "
c2 R 3  2 #
qi qj V·R
EP ˆ 1⫺ …86†
The stimulated force in the Coulomb gauge, as given in R acR
two preceding papers [33, 57], has the expression
p
2q2 where a is a parameter which takes the value a ˆ 2 in the
FG ⬇ 2 3 …U·V†R …84† Weber formula. Note that for a ˆ 2, we can consider that 2c
c R
is the relative speed of two photons moving in opposite
where we have also neglected the acceleration terms in the directions; therefore, for two particles also moving in
calculation of the force. opposite directions, each one has c as the speed limit in
The two force laws in Eqs. (83) and (84) are different one direction.
because we used two different definitions of the center of The Weber force can be calculated in two different ways.
mass in the calculation of the stimulated force. The above First, the force is obtained by taking the time derivative of
expressions of the stimulated force depend upon an absolute EP and using the equality dEP/dt ˆ ⫺ V·F to get
velocity U which is defined with respect to a preferred refer-
ence frame. In special relativity theory, we consider that the 
1 1
Earth is an inertial reference frame where the velocity U is FWij ˆ qi qj ⫺ ‰3…V·n†2 ⫺ 2V 2 Š
R2 …acR†2
zero; consequently, no stimulated motion can be expected in 
this theory. But we all know that the Earth is moving, which 2 dV
⫹ R· nij …87†
implies the existence of a stimulated rectilinear and rota- …acR† 2 dt
tional motion as will be discussed in the section concerning
all the experiments which reveal our motion through the with the definition nij ˆ R=R. This force clearly obeys
ether (11). Newton’s third law since we have FWij ˆ ⫺FWji . The
We can generalize the preceding calculation by consider- above force is the sum of three terms, namely, the Coulomb
ing a cluster of N particles which are closed to one another force depending on the relative position, the Ampère
and use the Jacobi coordinates in order to calculate the magnetic force, depending on the relative velocity, and the
stimulated force for the cluster. We must obtain an expres- third is the induction force depending on the relative accel-
sion that will depend upon the absolute motion U of the eration.
center of mass of the cluster with respect to the ether. The Weber force can also be obtained from F ˆ ⫺ 7REP
176 P. Cornille / Progress in Energy and Combustion Science 25 (1999) 161–210

which yields another expression for the force: 1

Lorentz force density f ˆ rE ⫹ J∧B
  c
1 3
FWij ˆ qi qj ⫺ …V·n† 2
n
R2 …acR†2 ! 1 1 2
 Stress tensor Tr ˆ ‰ …E ⫹ B2 †y
I ⫺ …EE ⫹ BB†Š
2 4p 2
⫹ …V·n† 7 R …V·R† …88†
…acR†2 then taking into account Newton’s third law, the continuity
equations for matter have the expression
One can demonstrate that the two expressions of the
Weber force are the same by using the identities 2Em
⫹ 7·Gm ˆ f ·U
2t
…V·R†‰V ⫹ …R·7R †V ⫹ R ∧ 7R ∧ VŠ …92†
2Pm !
⫹ 7· T m ˆ f
ˆ {V 2 ⫹ R·‰…V·7R †VŠ}R …89† 2t

dV with the definitions

ˆ …V·7R †V !
dt Em ˆ 1
rm U2 Gm ˆ Em U Pm ˆ rm U T m ˆ rm UU
2
The Weber force conserves the total energy ET ˆ EK ⫹ …93†
EP ˆ Ct since the Weber force satisfies Newton’s third law.
On the contrary, the Lorentz force can never satisfy the We can now integrate the above formulas on the volumes
conservation of energy, even if we include the so-called Vr(t) and Vm(t), we get
radiation force, as pointed out correctly by Wesley [32]. It d Z Z Z
Er dV ⫹ …Gr ⫺ Er c†·dS ˆ ⫺ f ·U dV
is also interesting to note that Moon and Spencer [18–21] dt Vr …t† Sr …t† Vr …t†
and Wesley [31] via the field theory succeeded in introdu-
d Z Z ! Z
cing the retardation effect in Weber electrodynamics. Since Pr dV ⫹ dS·… T r ⫺cPr † ˆ ⫺ f dV
there is no external force in the Weber approach, then the dt Vr …t† Sr …t† Vr …t†

equation of motion of the center of mass is d Z Z

Em dV ˆ f ·U dV
d2 r dt Vm …t† Vm …t†
m ˆ Fe ˆ 0 …90†
dt2 d Z Z
P dV ˆ f dV
The center of mass has a constant motion with respect to the dt Vm …t† m Vm …t†
ether frame. …94†
For a charged point particle, we have r…r; t† ˆ
9.3. Newton’s third law between matter and radiation
qd‰r ⫺ rS …t†Š and rm …r; t† ˆ m0 d‰r ⫺ rS …t†Š, it follows:
One must point out that the Lorentz force cannot be dEM dER dPM dPR
deduced from Maxwell’s equations. Therefore, it appears ⫹ ˆ0 ⫹ ˆ0 …95†
dt dt dt dt
as a postulate. However, if we assume that matter and radia-
knowing that the surface integrals tends to zero when Sr(t) !
tion form a closed system, then we can use Newton’s third
∞.
law to link the continuity equations of matter and radiation
The recoil effect in a radiating system is a manifestation
as follows.
of Newton’s third law which justifies the above equations.
Knowing that the energy and momentum conservation
Consider a stationary atom P0 ˆ 0 of mass m0 ˆ E0/c 2 that
laws for radiation obtained from Maxwell’s equations are
emits a photon of energy Év and momentum Ék. Conserva-
2Er tion of energy and momentum yields
⫹ 7·Gr ˆ ⫺f ·U
2t
…91† P ⫹ បk ˆ 0 E ⫹ បv ˆ m0 c2 …96†
2Pr !
⫹ 7· T r ˆ ⫺f After squaring the two preceding equations, we get
2t
with the following definitions c P ⫹ c2 ប2 k2 ⫹ 2c2 បP·k ˆ 0
2 2

…97†
1 E2 ⫹ ប2 v2 ⫹ 2Eបv ˆ m20 c4
Energy density Er ˆ …E2 ⫹ B2 †
8p
The emission of 0 a photon by the atom modifies its rest
Poynting flux Gr ˆ
c
…E ∧ B† energy which is m0 c2 in its final state. Therefore, we can
4p subtract the0 two above equations and use the identity E2 ˆ
c2 P2 ⫹ …m0 c2 †2 to obtain the equation:
1
Momentum density Pr ˆ …E ∧ B† 0
…m0 c2 †2 ⫹ 2ប…Ev ⫺ c2 P·k† ˆ m20 c4 …98†
4pc
 P. Cornille / Progress in Energy and Combustion Science 25 (1999) 161–210
Both equations in Eq. (96) can be used to rewrite Eq. (98) in
the form
0 examples.
…m0 c2 †2 ⫹ 2m0 c2 បv ˆ m20 c4 …99†
In the co-moving frame, the energy of the photon is
0
បv 0 ˆ m0 c2 ⫺ m0 c2 ˆ E2 ⫺ E1 …100†
0
2 complex form has the expression
One can now eliminate the rest energy m0 c between the
two above equations to obtain the energy of the photon in
the laboratory frame:
! where the vector Ei …r† is a complex quantity of the form
0 បv 0
បv ˆ បv 1 ⫺ …101†
2m0 c2
These results have important physical implications, for
example in the Mössbauer effect [59], because they place
restrictions on the ability of atoms and nuclei to re-absorb
their own radiation. We can also point out that the above
theory can only explain the existence of spontaneous radi-
ation. The existence of another kind of radiation, namely
stimulated radiation, is a manifestation of the partition
between internal and external forces which do not verify
Newton’s third law.
10. Newton’s third law and the superposition principle
A medium is said to be linear if it obeys the linear super-
position principle, namely the field due to several sources is
the sum of the fields produced by each source. This principle
is a consequence of the linearity of the wave equations in the
medium. As pointed out by Jackson [45] (p. 10), this prin-
ciple is exploited so often in electromagnetism and in quan-
tum mechanics that it is taken for granted. There are, of
course, circumstances where non-linear effects occur, but
here we are only concerned with fields in vacuum at the
microscopic level inside atoms and nuclei. However, this
principle does not apply to field energy and momentum.
In most textbooks in physics, the non-linearity of field
energy and momentum is not discussed. Even in the pro-
fessional literature, we have been able to find only a few
relevant papers dealing with the subject.
For example, the total electric energy associated with the
superimposed electric field E…r; t† ˆ E1 …r; t† ⫹ E2 …r; t† has
the expression
1 Z 1 Z
ET ˆ E21 dV ⫹ E2 dV
8p V 8p V 2
…102†
2 Z
⫹ E ·E dV
8p V 1 2
Therefore, the total energy can be written in a formal way
as the sum of four terms ET ˆ E11 ⫹ E22 ⫹ 2E12 where the
terms Eii and Eij are respectively the proper (or self-) energy
and the interaction (or mutual) energy of the wave fields.
Because of the presence of the interaction energy term 2E12,
it appears that the conservation of energy is violated. Before
177
examining the compatibility of the principles of super-
position and energy conservation, let us discuss two simple
10.1. Light interference
A real monochromatic electric field Ei …r; t† written in
Ei …r; t† ˆ 1
2 ‰Ei …r† ejvt ⫹ Eⴱi …r† e⫺jvt Š …103†
Ei …r† ˆ E0i …r† e⫺j…ki ·r⫹ai † , knowing that the real vector E0i is
a function which slowly varies with respect to space. The
total energy density Et(r, t) is
Et ˆ E21 ⫹ E22 ⫹ 2E1 ·E2 …104†
with the definitions
4E2i …r; t† ˆ E2i …r† ej2vt ⫹ E2i 2…r† e⫺j2vt ⫹ 2Ei …r†·Eⴱi …r†
4E1 …r; t†·E2 …r; t† ˆ E1 …r†·E2 …r† ej2vt ⫹ Eⴱ1 …r†·Eⴱ2 …r† e⫺j2vt
⫹ E1 …r†·Eⴱ2 …r† ⫹ E2 …r†·Eⴱ1 …r†
…105†
Most optical detectors used (eye, photographic plate and
photoelectric detector) are sensible to the flow of light
energy. These detectors integrate the received density of
energy in a certain volume of space during a lapse of time
TR called the time response of the detecting device, this time
is about 10 ⫺9 s for a photoelectric detector while the light
period has the value T ⬇ 10 ⫺14 s. Therefore, the rapidity of
the oscillating wave motion does not allow an optical detec-
tor to measure the time dependence of the energy field but
rather its time average:
具2Et …r; t†典 ˆ 兩E1 …r†兩2 ⫹ 兩E2 …r†兩2 ⫹ E1 …r†·Eⴱ2 …r† ⫹ E2 …r†·Eⴱ1 …r†
…106†
where the symbol 具 典 means a time average operation during
the period T, which is defined by the expression
1 ZT
具Et …r; t†典 ˆ E …r; t† dt …107†
T 0 t
Taking into account the preceding definition, we get
具2Et …r; t†典 ˆ E201 …r† ⫹ E202 …r† ⫹ 2E01 …r†·E02 …r†cos w…r†
…108†
with the definition w…r† ˆ …k1 ⫺ k2 †·r ⫹ a1 ⫺ a2 where the
quantity a 1 ⫺ a 2 represents the difference between the two
optical paths of the two sources. The oscillatory term cos w
is at the origin of the fringe effect. Therefore, the non-
linearity of energy results from the mutual interference
term since we have
1 Z
E12 ˆ E …r†·E02 …r† cos‰w…r†Š dr3 …109†
16p V 01
178 P. Cornille / Progress in Energy and Combustion Science 25 (1999) 161–210

Some authors [60, 61] doing a one-dimensional study of known, the proper energies become infinite if the particles
the problem state incorrectly that the above integral is zero are reduced to points; however, the mutual energy calcu-
due to the oscillatory behavior of the functions inside the lated from the relation
1 Z
integral. In that case, the conservation of energy is satisfied.
To show that this is not the case, consider two punctual EM ˆ E ·E dV …116†
4p V 1 2
sources S1 and S2 located at a distance 2L, where the origin
O is a hall-way between the sources. Although no isotropic
source of transverse light wave does exist, this does not is finite since we get
change the demonstration if we use such a source. More- q1 q2 Z⫹ ∞ Z⫹ ∞ Z⫹ ∞ R1 ·R2 3 q q
over, the following demonstration does rigorously apply to EM ˆ 3 3
dr ˆ 1 2 …117†
4p ⫺∞ ⫺∞ ⫺ ∞ R1 R2 R12
the case of sound waves. Therefore, a spherical wave has the
expression with the definition R12 ˆ 兩r1 ⫺ r2兩.
Ei ⫺…a2 ri ⫹b2 =ri † By reading the literature on the subject discussed above,
E0i …r† ˆ e …110† one gets the impression that the mutual energy term is the
ri
cause of the violation of the conservation of energy. The
The presence of the parameters a and b is necessary to problem becomes even more acute when dealing with
obtain a finite energy solution in the following calculation: special relativity theory, since potential energy is not
E ·E Z⫹ ∞ Z4p 1 ⫺2…a2 r⫹b2 =r† jw included in any relativistic definition of energy. To our
E12 ⬇ 1 2 e …e knowledge, with the exception of the relativistic potential
32p 0 0 r2
energy EP ˆ m0c 2(1 ⫺ b 2) 1/2 introduced by Kundu [62, 63],
⫹ e⫺jw †r2 dr dV …111† Brillouin is the only physicist who discussed the meaning of
potential energy in relativistic theories in several remarkable
Knowing that r1 ˆ ⫺L ⫹ r and r2 ˆ L ⫹ r, it follows papers [64–66]. If the rest mass of a particle is totally of
the phase relation w…r† ˆ k1 ·r1 ⫺ k2 ·r2 ⬇ ⫺4kL·r=r with electromagnetic energy, then Brillouin concluded that the
ki ˆ kri =ri . After integration on the solid angle, we get mass of potential energy can be considered as localized in
sin…kL† Z⫹ ∞ ⫺2…a2 r⫹b2 =r† the interacting charges q1q2 and split 50/50 between the
E12 ⬇ 14 E1 ·E2 e dr …112† particles as follows:
kL 0

If we now integrate over r, we obtain 1 1

m01 ˆ m11 ⫹ EM m02 ˆ m22 ⫹ EM …118†
2c2 2c2
sin…kL† b
E12 ⬇ E1 ·E2 K …4ab† …113†
kL 2a 1 Brillouin correctly stated that the definitions of the third
law of Newton and the notion of center of mass are in
where K1 is the modified Bessel function of the second
trouble in special relativity theory. However, Brillouin did
species.
not solve the problem because, contrary to his statement,
Finally, the total energy has the value
  special relativity theory does not join smoothly with Newto-
sin…kL† b nian mechanics, as shown in this paper. In fact, we know
ET ⬇ E21 ⫹ E22 ⫹ 2E1 ·E2 K …4ab† …114†
kL 2a 1 that the mutual energy terms are the only terms which
The mutual energy is not zero, contrary to the statements satisfy the conservation of energy since, from Newtonian
of the literature. This energy will be zero only in the case dynamics, one can write
where the distance L between the two sources tends to d 1
infinity. We must note that the magnetic field must be … mU 2 † ˆ U·Fe ˆ P11 ⫹ P22
dt 2
taken into account in the preceding calculation; however, …119†
d 1
it turns out that its contribution is exactly the same as the … MV 212 † ˆ V 12 ·Fi1 ˆ 2P12
contribution of the electric field. dt 2
knowing that the external and internal forces have the
10.2. Electrostatic interference following expressions:
The experimentally observed linear superposition of 1
Fe ˆ F11 ⫹ F22 Fi1 ˆ F12 ⫹ …m2 F11 ⫺ m1 F22 †
forces due to several charges means that we can write the m
total electric field Et …r† at r due to two charges q1 and q2 …120†
1
located at ri as the vector sum of the two fields: Fi2 ˆ F21 ⫺ …m2 F11 ⫺ m1 F22 †
m
R1 R2
E1 …r† ˆ q1 E2 …r† ˆ q2 …115† Therefore, the equality P12 ˆ P21 is satisfied in Newtonian
R31 R32
dynamics because of the reciprocity concept V12 ˆ ⫺ V21
with the definitions R1 ˆ r ⫺ r1 and R2 ˆ r ⫺ r2 . The total and Newton’s third law Fi1 ˆ ⫺ Fi2. It follows that for
energy can be calculated by using Eq. (102). As is well- two charged particles in the absence of any external forces,
 P. Cornille / Progress in Energy and Combustion Science 25 (1999) 161–210 179

we have the source terms can be written as follows:

d r…r; t† ˆ r1 …r; t† ⫹ r2 …r; t†

MV 12 ˆ F12 ˆ ⫺7R12 EM …121†
dt
J…r; t† ˆ J 1 …r; t† ⫹ J 2 …r; t†
…123†
where we have written EM ˆ 2E12.
E…r; t† ˆ E1 …r; t† ⫹ E2 …r; t†
Therefore, in analyzing the compatibility of the principles
of conservation of energy and superposition of fields, one B…r; t† ˆ B1 …r; t† ⫹ B2 …r; t†
must conclude that the proper energy terms are the only
terms which do not satisfy the conservation of energy. The preceding relations imply that the continuity equations
Chen [67] also examined the non-linearity of energy and can be partitioned in four sets of equations:
momentum densities of electromagnetic waves generated 2Eij
by non-interacting sources. He resolved the problem by ⫹ 7·Gij ˆ ⫺J i ·Ej
2t
noting the existence of an unsuspected degree of freedom   …124†
of the energy–momentum four electromagnetic tensor 2Pij ! 1
⫹ 7· T ij ˆ ⫺ ri Ej ⫹ J i ∧ Bj
which can undergo a four gauge transformation with a 2t c
constraint that allowed the situation to be physically iden-
where the indices ij have the values 11, 22, 12, 21.
tical. However, the Lorentz covariance has nothing to do
In the above equations, the following definitions are used:
with the problem, since we know from experiments that
energy and momentum of photons can have physically 1
Eij ˆ …E ·E ⫹ Bi ·Bj †
distinct effects. 8p i j

1
Pij ˆ …E ∧ Bj †
10.3. Carson reciprocity theorem 4pc i

The question concerning the compatibility of the energy c

Gij ˆ …E ∧ Bj †
conservation principle with the superposition principle 4p i
cannot be correctly answered if we do not take into account
! 1 1
the energies given by the sources. Therefore, the discussion T ij ˆ ‰ …E ·E ⫹ Bi ·Bj †yI ⫺ …Ei Ej ⫹ Bi Bj †Š …125†
must start from the continuity equations of the electromag- 4p 2 i j
netic fields: The preceding conservation equations satisfy certain reci-
procity relations first discovered by Carson [68, 69]. These
2Er relations are of particular importance to antenna theory in
⫹ 7·G ˆ ⫺J·E
2t describing the relationship between the receiving and trans-
  …122†
2Pr mitting properties of an antenna. Consider now a volume V
y ˆ ⫺ rE ⫹ 1 J ∧ B
⫹ 7·T bounded by a surface S and containing two sources r 1, J1
2t c
and r 2, J2 and subtract the mutual conservation equations of
with the definitions energy and momentum, then the integrals of the continuity
equations throughout the volume V give
1 Z 2 Z
Energy density Er ˆ …E2 ⫹ B2 † …E12 ⫺ E21 † dV ⫹ …G12 ⫺ G21 †·dS
8p V 2t S
Z
1 ˆ⫺ …J 1 ·E2 ⫺ J 2 ·E1 † dV
Momentum density Pr ˆ …E ∧ B† V
4pc …126†
Z 2 Z ! !
…P12 ⫺ P21 † dV ⫹ dS·…T 12 ⫺ T 21 †
V 2t S
c
Poynting vector Gˆ …E ∧ B† Z
4p ˆ⫺ …f 12 ⫺ f 21 † dV
V

where f ij ˆ ri Ej ⫹ Ji ∧ Bj =c is the Lorentz density force.

Stress tensor y ˆ 1 ‰ 1 …E2 ⫹ B2 †y
T I ⫺ …EE ⫹ BB†Š
4p 2
The above conservation equations are non-linear fluid
equations depending on Eulerian coordinates. The non-
linearity results from the superposition principle since for
two sources r1 …r; t†, r2 …r; t†, J 1 …r; t†, J 2 …r; t† the fields and
In the above relations, we have converted the volume
integrals of the divergence terms to surface integrals by
means of the divergence theorem. Since all sources are of
finite extent, we can extend the surface S of the volume to
infinity, then the surface integral in the energy equation
vanishes identically at infinity because the electromagnetic
180 P. Cornille / Progress in Energy and Combustion Science 25 (1999) 161–210

fields away from the sources can be approximated as We can also consider the sum of the mutual continuity
spherical waves: equations; we obtain
Z 2 Z
e⫺jkr r e⫺jkr …E12 ⫹ E21 † dV ⫹ …G12 ⫹ G21 †· dS
Ei …r; t† ˆ Ei …t† Bi …r; t† ˆ Ei …t† ∧ …127† V 2t S
r r r
Z
with the conditions Ei …t†·r ˆ Bi …t†·r ˆ 0. As a consequence, ˆ⫺ …J 1 ·E2 ⫹ J 2 ·E1 † dV
the vector G12 ⫺ G21 is proportional to the vector V
…134†
Z 2 Z ! !
E1 …t† ∧ …E2 …t† ∧ r† ⫺ E2 …t† ∧ …E1 …t† ∧ r† ˆ 0 …128† …P12 ⫹ P21 † dV ⫹ dS·…T 12 ⫹ T 21 †
V 2t S
By definition, we have E12 ˆ E21; therefore, from the energy
Z
equation, one obtains the generalized Carson form of the ˆ⫺ …f 12 ⫹ f 21 † dV
reciprocity theorem: V
Z If the surface S goes to infinity, then the surface integral in
…J 1 ·E2 ⫺ J2 ·E1 † dV ˆ 0 …129† the energy equation does not vanish identically at infinity,
V
unlike the preceding case, because Carson’s theorem
The reciprocity theorem relating two different electromag- implies that the radiation terms are of the same sign.
netic fields has also been discussed by Rumsey [70] and However, the mutual power integral term can be zero in
Welch [71]. Since the preceding equation is satisfied for an the particular case where one of the two following relations
infinite volume, it is also verified for the volumes V1 and V2 is verified:
containing the sources. It follows from the equality Z Z
Z Z G12 ·dS ˆ ⫺ f 12 ·U1 dV
J 1 ·E2 dV ˆ J 2 ·E1 dV …130† S V
…135†
V1 V2 Z Z
G21 ·dS ˆ⫺ f 21 ·U 2 dV
The integrals in the above equation characterize the S V
interaction of one source with the field produced by the
Therefore, in the general case, the sum of the mutual
other source. By definition, we have J i ˆ ri Ui then it follows
powers is not zero and cannot be used to explain the viol-
J i ·Ej ˆ f ij ·U i and the above relation becomes
Z Z ation of the conservation of energy in the superposition
f 12 ·U1 dV ˆ f 21 ·U 2 dV …131† principle. Let us now assume that Newton’s third law is
V1 V2 satisfied; then, it follows that the condition U1 ˆ ⫺ U2
If the mutual density of force satisfies Newton’s third law, since the right-hand side terms in the above equations are
namely f 12 ˆ ⫺f 21 , then the above equation implies the equal. In that case, the two sources must move in opposite
equality U 1 ˆ ⫺U2 . For separated sources, the above equal- directions, as expected from Newton’s third law.
ity is a manifestation of the reciprocity concept associated Two sets of conservation laws of energy and momentum
with Newton’s third law. To prove this assertion, let us can be written in the following form:
recall the power equations in the case of two particles inter- Z 2 ! !
‰…Pii ⫹ Pij † ⫹ 7·… T ii ⫹ T ij †Š dV
acting with external forces: Vi …t† 2t
d 1 d 1 Z
… MV 212 † ˆ Fi1 ·V 12 ˆ Fi2 ·V 21 ˆ … MV 221 † …132†
dt 2 dt 2 ˆ⫺ …f ii ⫹ f ij † dV
Vi …t†
From a physical point of view, the reciprocity concept for   …136†
Z 2
two identical antennas means that the receiving and radia- …Eii ⫹ Eij † ⫹ 7·…Gii ⫹ Gij † dV
tion properties of each antenna must be the same. Vi …t† 2t
For the momentum equation, we get Z
Z 2 ˆ⫺ …f ii ⫹ f ij †·Ui dV
…P12 ⫺ P21 † dV Vi …t†
V 2t
where the volume Vi containing the source of the fields
1 Z moves with the velocity Ui with respect to a given reference
⫹ dS ∧ …E1 ∧ E2 ⫹ B1 ∧ B2 † frame. Jiménez and Campos [72] in their paper concerning
4p S
Z the equations of energy and momentum balance in classical
ˆ⫺ …f 12 ⫺ f 21 † dV …133† electrodynamics did a similar analysis by stressing the
V distinction between the external fields and the proper fields.
The equality G12 ˆ G21 at infinity implies P12 ˆ P21 at However, they did not realize that the partition of the fields
infinity. Since the mutual density of force does not satisfy is a necessity imposed by the superposition principle and
Newton’s third law f 12 苷 ⫺f 21 , it follows that the condition Newton’s third law. On the contrary, Cray et al. [73] pointed
P12 ˆ P21 is possible for f 12 ˆ f 21 if the two electro- out the existence of three contributions to the total intensity
magnetic fields are parallel over S. of the electromagnetic field: the intensity of the incident
 P. Cornille / Progress in Energy and Combustion Science 25 (1999) 161–210 181

wave, the intensity of the field radiated by the atom and the relations
interference between the incident wave and the radiated
wave. The standard textbook treatments of spontaneous
and stimulated emission make no mention of interference; d Z Z
to stress this omission the above authors quote Lamb: r U dV ˆ …f ii ⫹ f ij † dV
dt Vi …t† mi i Vi …t†
…138†
When stimulated emission by an excited atom is d Z Z
1
rmi U2i dV ˆ …f ii ⫹ f ij †·Ui dV
treated, either quantum mechanically or by a suitable dt Vi …t† 2
Vi …t†
classical model, one finds that the numbers of photons
in those modes of the radiation field which were
initially excited are increased by the interaction. On
the other hand, the electromagnetic field radiated by If we compare the right-hand sides of the field and fluid
such an atom is found to have the appropriate multi- laws of motion, we see that they have an opposite sign which
pole character and shows no trace of the above is again a manifestation of Newton’s third law in a general-
augmentation of the incident wave. In order to get ized form. If the emitted radiation can be considered as a
amplification of the incident wave it is necessary to photon particle with momentum, then, during the radiation
consider the interference of the incident and radiated process, the material medium must recoil. To verify this
waves. affirmation, one must add the laws of motion of the fields
and the fluids; we get
We note that Lamb clearly speaks of an increase of
energy due to the superposition principle, a very important
subject that will be discussed again in antenna and circuit d Z
…r U ⫹ Pii ⫹ Pij † dV
theory. However, the point of view followed by the authors dt Vi …t† mi i
is opposite from our approach since the wave radiated by the Z ! !
atom is considered as a spontaneous emission, whereas the ˆ⫺ dS·‰… T ii ⫹ T ij † ⫺ …U i Pii ⫹ Ui Pij †Š
Si …t†
interference contribution is due to stimulated emission …139†
according to them. We will show later that an interference d Z
term is a mutual term related to Newton’s third law and … 1 r U 2 ⫹ Eii ⫹ Eij † dV
dt Vi …t† 2 mi i
conservation of energy and is better considered as a term
Z
associated with spontaneous energy. ˆ⫺ ‰…Gii ⫹ Gij † ⫺ …Eii ⫹ Eij †U i Š·dS
One can show that the preceding equations can also be Si …t†
expressed as laws of motion:
The energy equation above can be found in Ginzburg’s
d Z Z book [76] (p. 44, formula 3.16). When the surfaces
! !
…Pii ⫹ Pij † dV ⫹ dS·‰… T ii ⫹ T ij † surrounding the sources tend to infinity, all the surface
dt Vi …t† Si …t†
terms depending on Ui vanish while the electromagnetic
Z terms decrease as R ⫺2, but since the surface elements dS ˆ
⫺ …Ui Pii ⫹ Ui Pij †Š ˆ ⫺ …f ii ⫹ f ij † dV R 2 dV increase as R 2, the surface integrals depending on the
Vi …t†
…137† electromagnetic fields tend to finite values which represent
d Z Z
the radiated fields. It follows that the surface integrals are
…Eii ⫹ Eij † dV ⫹ ‰…Gii ⫹ Gij †
dt Vi …t† Si …t† not zero, as stated by several physicists, such as Cohen-
Z Tannoudji et al. [77] (p. 64), Landau and Lifchitz [78] (p.
⫺ …Eii ⫹ Eij †U i Š·dS ˆ ⫺ …f ii ⫹ f ij †·U i dV 105) and Ginzburg [76] (p. 53). The surface integrals are
Vi …t†
correctly calculated in the books of Plonsey and Collin [79]
(p. 396) and Becker [80] (p. 285). We have no right to
We have experimental proofs concerning the generation of assume that the radiation has not yet reached the surface
the Poynting vector Gij ˆ c…Ei ∧ Bj †=4p by an antenna since S, as stated by Ginzburg, since the radiation emitted by a
Kabbary et al. [74] successfully developed revolutionary dipole of momentum p…t† ˆ qr…t† has a finite value given by
antenna systems called crossed-field-antennas which PR ˆ 2…d2 p=dt2 †2 =3c3 in the non-relativistic case. Even if we
synthesize directly the mutual Poynting vector from sep- neglect radiation, we can see that the recoil effect and the
arately stimulated Ei and Bj fields. There is also the observa- conservation of energy cannot be satisfied without the
tion by Graham and Lahoz [75] of electromagnetic angular presence of a mutual field defined by the subscripts ij.
momentum in the vacuum gap of a cylindrical capacitor This justifies the sentence quoted in the literature that a
created by quasi-static electromagnetic fields where the Ei particle cannot radiate in a conservative manner without
and Bj fields arise from independent sources. the presence of an external field.
The laws of motion for a material fluid are given by the For two material fluids, the preceding relations for the
182 P. Cornille / Progress in Energy and Combustion Science 25 (1999) 161–210

energy become physicist in 1973 to recognize the origin of the difficulty

d Z
by making the statement:
‰ 1 r U 2 ⫹ …E11 ⫹ E12 †Š dV
dt V1 …t† 2 m1 1 Although the passing particle exerts forces on the
Z solenoid, it is not true that the solenoid exerts a
ˆ⫺ ‰…G11 ⫹ G12 † ⫺ …E11 ⫹ E12 †U 1 Š·dS force on the passing particle.
S1 …t†
…140† Therefore, Boyer’s assertion implies the violation of
d Z Newton’s third law for the magnetic interaction between
‰ 1 r U 2 ⫹ …E22 ⫹ E21 †Š dV
dt V2 …t† 2 m2 2 the electrons outside and inside the solenoid. This is not
Z surprising, since the magnetic Lorentz force is the part of
ˆ⫺ ‰…G22 ⫹ G21 † ⫺ …E22 ⫹ E21 †U 2 Š·dS the Lorentz force which does not obey Newton’s third law;
S2 …t†
this fact was later fully recognized by O’Raifeartaigh et al.
By adding the above equations, we obtain a relationship [90] when they say:
describing an energy conservation law for both matter and
The analysis in terms of energy shows quite clearly
radiation of a two-fluid system. However, the system is not
and simply where the effect originates, namely not in
closed because the sum of the surface integrals is not zero in
the interaction of the external magnetic field with the
the general case and also because the proper radiation terms
electrons from which it is shielded but with the
in these integrals cannot compensate one another. There-
magnetic field of the electron, from which it is not
fore, if there is a violation of the conservation of energy
shielded.
due to the superposition principle, the difference of energy
must be ascribed to the center of mass of the material Since the first paper by Boyer concerning this problem,
system. This is corroborated by the fact that the material several papers [90–95] have now be published containing
system must have a stimulated motion since the proper the same analysis, namely that an electron moving around a
and mutual densities of the Lorentz force do not satisfy solenoid produces a magnetic field which penetrates into the
Newton’s third law: solenoid. In the case in which the interior of the solenoid is
d Z d Z
shielded, the magnetic field of the electron interacts with
1
rm1 U 2
1 dV ⫹ 1
r U2 dV currents in the shielding material. A complete analysis of
dt V1 …t† 2 dt V2 …t† 2 m2 2
the A.B. effect requires the calculation of all the forces
Z Z involved between the electrons in the beams outside the
ˆ …f 11 ⫹ f 12 †·U 1 dV ⫹ …f 22 ⫹ f 21 †·U 2 dV solenoid and the electrons inside the solenoid, as well as
V1 …t† V2 …t†
…141† all the electrons in the photographic plate where the inter-
ference pattern takes place.
Therefore, one cannot expect that the sum of the right- A simpler analysis used in the literature consists of calcu-
hand side terms in the above equation is zero in the general lating the interaction only between the electrons outside and
case. It is important to stress that the preceding analysis does inside the solenoid, which is described by the relations
not depend on the presence or not of the relativistic gamma d Z
factor, since one can replace U2i =2 by (g i ⫺ 1)c 2 in the above …r U ⫹ Pbs † dV
dt Vb …t† mb eb
equation.
Z !
ˆ⫺ 7·…T bs ⫺Ueb Pbs † dV ˆ 0
10.4. Newton’s third law and the Aharonov–Bohm effect Vb …t†
…142†
Aharonov and Bohm (A.B.) [81, 82] proposed that elec- d Z
…r U ⫹ Psb † dV
tromagnetic potentials have a physical role in quantum dt Vs …t† ms es
theory in contrast to their auxiliary role in classical electro- Z !
magnetism. One of the experiments purporting to illustrate ˆ⫺ 7·…T sb ⫺Ues Psb † dV 苷 0
Vs …t†
this role involved the shift in an electron interference pattern
formed as electrons passed around opposite sides of a whis- where we used the subscript b for the beam electrons and the
ker or a microscopic solenoid. Experiments [83–88] have subscript s for the solenoid electrons. We also have the
confirmed the existence of the A.B. effect. However, the definitions
interpretation of the effect has been discussed in the litera- 1
ture for more than 30 years and the effect is still regarded as Pij ˆ …E ∧ Bj †
4pc i
something of a mystery. One of the aspects of the A.B. effect
1
that generates the most scepticism is that shifts in the inter- f ij ˆ ri Ej ⫹ J ∧ Bj …143†
ference pattern occur with no Lorentz force acting upon the c i
electrons passing around the solenoid. ! 1 1
Boyer, in a not well-known paper [89], was the first T ij ˆ ‰ …E ·E ⫹ Bi ·Bj †y
I ⫺ …Ei Ej ⫹ Bi Bj †Š
4p 2 i j
 P. Cornille / Progress in Energy and Combustion Science 25 (1999) 161–210 183

Since the electromagnetic field produced by the solenoid Integrating the above equation over the volume V and
electrons is zero, it follows that the conditions applying the divergence theorem, we find
!
f bs ˆ 0 Pbs ˆ 0 T bs ˆ 0 …144† jv Z c Z
…兩B0 兩2 ⫺ 兩E0 兩2 † dV ⫹ …E ∧ Bⴱ0 †·dS
whereas all quantities inside the solenoid are different from 4p V 4p S 0
zero. The violation of Newton’s third law is obvious since Z
we have f bs ˆ 0 苷 ⫺f sb 苷 0. Therefore, owing to the ˆ⫺ J ⴱ0 ·E0 dV …146†
V
action of the magnetic field of the outside electrons on the
inside electrons, the velocity U es of the electrons inside If we multiply the preceding equation by 12 , we obtain the
the solenoid must change. However, for a good conductor, time-averaged complex power provided to the fields by the
the current density J s of the solenoid is given by the relation source J0 located inside V. The above Poynting theorem now
J s ˆ res Ues ⫹ ris Uis ˆ res V ⫹ rU is ⬇ res V. Since the may be separated into real and imaginary parts and written as
Z 
v Z
current density J s must remain constant if the electrons
c
outside the solenoid are to experience precisely zero Lorentz …兩B0 兩2 ⫺ 兩E0 兩2 † dV ⫹ Im …E0 ∧ Bⴱ0 †·dS
8p V 8p S
force, then the relative velocity V ˆ U is ⫺ U es must be
Z 
constant. Therefore, the solenoid must move, a point of
ˆ ⫺ 12 Im J ⴱ0 ·E0 dV
view shared by Herman [94]. V
However, there is a difficulty with the above interpreta-
  Z 
tion if one realizes that the electrons in the beams are c Z
discrete and uncorrelated particles that pass through the
1
2 Re …E0 ∧ Bⴱ0 †·dS ˆ ⫺ 12 Re J ⴱ0 ·E0 dV
4p S V
interferometer in a very short time of around 10 ns. There-
…147†
fore, the mutual magnetic interaction occurs during a short
time with respect to the longer time interval required to The real part of the flux of the time-averaged Poynting
create the interference pattern by the arrival of a large vector through the surface S is equal to the rate of energy
number of independent electrons. Therefore, one may delivered by the source terms and cannot be zero even if the
think that the shift is induced rather by the mutual interac- surface goes to infinity as already explained.
tion between the electrons of the solenoid and the electrons The imaginary equation represents the difference between
in the photographic plate, since the presence of a magnetic time-averaged magnetic and electric energies stored within
field inside the solenoid modifies the topology of space. This V. As stated by De Broglie in his book [97] (p. 56) about the
fact is particularly clear in the Bay’s experiment [96] where photon, one can question the physical meaning of the
the A.B. phase shift was demonstrated by fastening the film imaginary part of the above equation when we work with
to a small electric motor and advancing the film at a rate real physical sources. No satisfactory explanation is given at
proportional to the rate of increase of current through the the present time in the literature.
coil. The film showed a continuous lateral displacement of A close relationship between circuit theory and field
the fringes within the enveloping pattern. However, as soon theory can be found in the above equations. We know that
as the current through the solenoid becomes constant, the the impedance of a series combination of a resistance R, an
shifted pattern is frozen and shifts back to its original inductance L and a capacitance C as shown in the Fig. 8 has
position when the current is stopped. the expression
 
1
10.5. Linear circuit theory Z ˆ R ⫹ jv L ⫺ …148†
Cv2
Sinusoidal time variation at a given frequency v is of This impedance is a complex quantity which can be writ-
practical interest in electronic circuit theory, as many of ten as Z ˆ 兩Z兩(cos u ⫹ j sin u ) with the definitions
our sources generate sinusoidal outputs. Even if the output  
is not sinusoidal, it can be represented as a summation of R 1 1
cos u ˆ sin u ˆ Lv ⫺ …149†
sinusoidal components of different amplitudes, phases and 兩Z兩 兩Z兩 Cv
frequencies. For sinusoidal time variation, it is convenient to
use the complex form of Maxwell’s equations: The resistance R is a positive quantity by definition; there-
  fore, it follows that ⫺ p/2 ⭐ u ⭐ p/2.
1 2Eⴱ 2B c For a complex current I ˆ I0 e jv t, the complex power is by
E· ⫹Bⴱ· ⫹ 7·…E ∧ Bⴱ† ˆ ⫺J ⴱ ·E
4p 2t 2t 4p definition the quantity
…145†
Pˆ 1
2 Z兩I兩2 ˆ Pr ⫹ jPi …150†
and represent the instantaneous values of the electromag-
netic fields as the real parts of the complex exponentials Taking into account the relations in Eq. (149), the active
E…r; t† ˆ E0 …r† ejvt and B…r; t† ˆ B0 …r† ejvt where E0 …r† power Pr ˆ 兩Z兩 cos u is always positive, whereas the reactive
and B0 …r† are also complex vector functions of position. power Pi ˆ 兩Z兩 sin u can be either positive or negative. By
184 P. Cornille / Progress in Energy and Combustion Science 25 (1999) 161–210

circuit elements by the relations

 
c Z ⴱ
1
2 GV 0
2
ˆ 1
2 Re …E 0 ∧ B 0 †· dS
4p S

1 V02 1 Z
ˆ 兩B 兩2 dV …154†
2 Lv 2 8p V 0
1 Z
2 CV0 ˆ 8p
1 2
兩E0 兩2 dV
V

knowing that
Fig. 8. Series combination of a resistance R, an inductance L and a
Z
capacitance C. Pˆ 1
2 YV02 ˆ ⫺ 12 J ⴱ0 ·E0 dV …155†
V

It is the topology of the electromagnetic system that indi-

definition, we write
cates which formulation must be chosen for a given
Z problem. We can also define the circuit elements from the
Pˆ 1
2 ZI02 ˆ ⫺ 12 J ⴱ0 ·E0 dV …151† scalar and vector potentials by using the identities
V
v ⴱ
兩E0 兩2 ˆ 4prⴱ0 F0 ⫺ 7·…F0 Eⴱ0 † ⫺ j E ·A
c 0 0
If we consider that the imaginary part of the surface inte- …156†
gral in Eq. (146) is small in comparison with the other terms 4p ⴱ v ⴱ
兩B0 兩2 ˆ J ·A ⫹ 7·…A0 ∧ Bⴱ0 † ⫺ j E ·A
to a first approximation, then the classical circuit elements c 0 0 c 0 0
are given by the relations
It follows the relation
   
c Z 1 Z 1 Z 1 ⴱ
2 RI0 ˆ 2 Re 4p
1 2 1
…E0 ∧ Bⴱ0 †·dS …兩B0 兩2 ⫺ 兩E0 兩2 † dV ˆ J 0 ·A0 ⫺ rⴱ0 F0 dV
S 8p V 2 V c
1 Z 1 Z
2 LI0 ˆ 8p
1 2
兩B0 兩2 dV …152† ⫹ …A ∧ Bⴱ0 ⫹ F0 Eⴱ0 †·dS
V 8p S 0
…157†
1 I02 1 Z
ˆ 兩E 兩2 dV
2 Cv 2 8p V 0 We note that left-hand side of the preceding equation is a
real quantity, whereas the right-hand side is a sum of
In the same way, the admittance of a parallel combination complex quantities; therefore, the sum of the imaginary
of a conductance G ˆ 1/R, an inductance L and a capaci- parts must be zero.
tance C as shown in Fig. 9 has the expression For complex source terms of the form r…r; t† ˆ r0 …r† ejvt
and J…r; t† ˆ J 0 …r† ejvt , the potentials F 0 and A0 are related
  to the charge and current densities of the system through:
1
Y ˆ G ⫹ jv C ⫺ …153†
Lv2 Z⫹ ∞ Z⫹ ∞ Z⫹ ∞ e⫺jkR0
r0 …r 0 † dr 0
3
F0 …r† ˆ
⫺∞ ⫺∞ ⫺∞ R0
For a complex voltage V ˆ V0 e jv t, we can also define the
1 Z⫹ ∞ Z⫹ ∞ Z⫹ ∞ e⫺jkR0
J 0 …r 0 † dr 0
3
A0 …r† ˆ …158†
c ⫺ ∞ ⫺ ∞ ⫺ ∞ R0

with the definitions k ˆ v /c and R0 ˆ 兩r ⫺ r 0 兩.

After substituting the above potentials into the first term
of the right-hand side of Eq. (157), we obtain
 
1 Z 1 ⴱ 1 Z Z e⫺jkR0
J 0 ·A0 ⫺ rⴱ0 F0 dV ˆ
2 V c 2 V V 0 R0
 
1
 2 J ⴱ0 …r†·J 0 …r 0 † ⫺ rⴱ0 …r†·r0 …r 0 † dV dV 0 …159†
c
Fig. 9. Parallel combination of a resistance R, an inductance L and a
capacitance C. By expanding the right-hand side of Eq. (159) into its real
 P. Cornille / Progress in Energy and Combustion Science 25 (1999) 161–210 185

and imaginary parts, we can define the relations by Hoh [100] who starts from the equation
  Z 
1 Z Z cos…kR0 † ⴱ 1 c Z 1
2 LI0 ˆ
1 2
J 0 …r†·J 0 …r 0 † dV dV 0 Re …E0 ∧ Bⴱ0 †·dS ˆ ⫺ Re J ⴱ0 ·E0 dV
2c2 V V 0 R0 2 4p S 2 V

1 Z Z cos…kR0 † ⴱ …162†
1
2 CV02 ˆ r0 …r†·r0 …r 0 † dV dV 0
2 V V0 R0 which expresses the balance between real power flow for
v Z Z one radiating source located inside volume V.
1
2 RI02 ˆ For several sources, the impedance is now given by the
2 V V0
  formula
sin…kR0 † 1 ⴱ 0 ⴱ 0
× J 0 …r†·J 0 …r † ⫺ r0 …r†·r0 …r † dV dV 0 Z
R0 c2 Zij Iiⴱ Ij ˆ ⫺ J ⴱi ·Ej dV …163†
…160† Vi

where we used the relation I02 ˆ 兩I 2 兩 ˆ C 2 v2 V02 which with the definitions Iiⴱ …t† ˆ I0i e⫺jvt and Ij …t† ˆ I0j ejvt .
expresses the current as a function of the voltage at the Carson’s theorem implies the following identity for two
capacitor plates. sources:
In the Appendix, we demonstrate that the above integrals
are positive quantities. The inductance and the capacitance
1
2 Re…I1ⴱ I2 Z12 † ˆ 1
2 Re…I2ⴱ I1 Z21 † …164†
defined above do not depend on the current or the voltage
Since at first order the mutual impedances depend on the
but on the geometrical form of the source. However, unlike
geometrical forms of the sources, it follows that these impe-
the definitions in Eq. (152), the circuit elements are now a
dances are independent of the currents; therefore, we can
function of frequency. At very high frequencies, where the
assume reciprocity Z12 ˆ Z21. The real parts of Zii define the
circuit dimensions become appreciable fractions of a wave-
so-called radiation resistance Rri.
length, we must use the above formulas. For circuits that are
The time-averaged powers delivered by two sources S1
not too large in terms of wavelengths, kR0 ⬍ 1, we can
and S2 when each source is excited at a time are given by
expand the cosine cos(kR0) ⬇ 1 ⫺ (kR0) 2/2 in series and
Z 
use the first and second terms. The inductance and capaci-
tance defined in Eqs. (152) and (160) are not equivalent P1 ˆ 12 Re…I1ⴱ I1 Z11 † ˆ ⫺ 12 Re J ⴱ1 ·E1 dV
V1
since the formulas in Eq. (152) are independent of the Z  …165†
frequency, whereas the formulas in Eq. (160) are frequency P2 ˆ 1
2 Re…I2ⴱ I2 Z22 † ˆ⫺ 1
2 Re J ⴱ2 ·E2 dV
dependent. Moreover, the formulas in Eq. (160) do not take V2
into account the surface integral in the right-hand side of Eq.
(157) which is not zero, contrary to Levich’s statement [98] When both sources are excited simultaneously there is a
(p. 505). mutual coupling between them which results from the super-
When there are several separate sources in the medium, position principle. It follows that the time-averaged powers
then the inductance and the capacitance are given by the flowing out of the closed surfaces enclosing the sources will
formulas contain more terms since we have

1 Z Z
0
1 ⴱ P1 ˆ Re…I1ⴱ I1 Z11 ⫹ I1ⴱ I2 Z12 †
1
2 Lij Ii Ij ˆ
1
J i …r†·J j …r 0 † dV dV 0 2
2c2 V V 0 R Z 
…161†
1 Z Z 1 ⴱ ˆ ⫺ 12 Re …J ⴱ1 ·E1 ⫹ J ⴱ1 ·E2 † dV
0 0
2 Cij Vi Vj ˆ 2
1
ri …r†rj …r † dV dV V1
V V0 R …166†
0
P2 ˆ Re…I2ⴱ I1 Z21 ⫹ I2ⴱ I2 Z22 †
1
2
The properties of the above relations are analyzed in the
Z 
Appendix. From the above relations, we see that the mutual
terms which are supposed to violate the conservation of ˆ ⫺ 12 Re …J ⴱ2 ·E1 ⫹ J ⴱ2 ·E2 † dV
V2
energy cannot be space-averaged to zero as some authors
pretend [60, 61, 99] since these terms depend only on the Consequently, the total time-averaged power radiated at
geometric forms of the sources. infinity by the two sources is PT ˆ P11 ⫹ P22 ⫹ 2P12 with the
definitions
10.6. Antenna radiation Z
Pij ˆ ⫺ 12 Re J ⴱi ·Ej dV
The above relations show that one must take into account V

the sources to answer the question about the compatibility of

the principles of superposition of fields and the conservation c Z
Pij ˆ 1
Re …E ∧ Bⴱj †·dS
of energy. We will now follow the analysis of this question 2 4p S i
186 P. Cornille / Progress in Energy and Combustion Science 25 (1999) 161–210
Z that a source is generally an antenna which is a metallic
PT ˆ ⫺ 12 Re …J ⴱ1 ⫹ J ⴱ2 †·…E1 ⫹ E2 † dV
V conductor with a resistance Rc ˆ 1/s c and a generator
c Z
PT ˆ 1
2 Re ‰…E1 ⫹ E2 † ∧ …Bⴱ1 ⫹ Bⴱ2 †Š·dS …167†
4p S
The equality P12 ˆ P21 is a consequence of Carson’s
theorem. The proper power terms Pii are always positive
quantities, whereas the mutual power terms Pij are quantities
which can be either positive or negative. Therefore, there
exist cases where the total power radiated by the sources is
zero. This case is best illustrated by the situation of two
similar antennas that are parallel and closely spaced which
verify the condition J ⴱ1 ·E1 ⫹ J ⴱ2 ·E2 ˆ ⫺…J ⴱ1 ·E2 ⫹ J ⴱ2 ·E1 †.
This condition is satisfied if the current densities J 1 ˆ
⫺J 2 are equal in magnitude but 180⬚ out of phase which
imply the equalities E1 ˆ ⫺E2 and Z11 ˆ Z22.
We know that an electron traveling in its circular orbit
around the proton in the hydrogen atom must radiate as
required by classical electromagnetic theory. Since the
point electron accelerates, it should lose energy and spiral
into the proton within a fraction of a second. The first answer
to the problem of atomic collapse was the quantum postulate
of Niels Bohr: electrons in stationary orbits do not radiate. It
is only in the transition between stationary states that radia-
tion is emitted. In this paper, we can give another answer
concerning this problem and provide a simple general
criterion using Hoh’s analysis applied to the case of two
different continuous distributions of charge which move in
a given reference frame. All quantities in the above relations
depend on the coordinate r and the angular frequency v
because we have assumed that the particles are continuous
distributions of charge. For two moving particles located
inside V, the total radiated power PT is zero if the following
condition is satisfied J ⴱ1 ·E1 ⫹ J ⴱ2 ·E2 ˆ ⫺…J ⴱ1 ·E2 ⫹ J ⴱ2 ·E1 †
where J ⴱ1 and J ⴱ2 are the current densities associated with
the motions of the electron and the proton in a given reference
frame. This implies that both the electron and the proton must
move with respect to the center of mass. The error in the
classical reasoning was to consider that only the electron
moves with respect to the massive proton at rest in a given
reference frame. One can think that the problem can be split
into the overall center of mass motion and the relative motion.
The latter describes circular motion of a charged particle with
a reduced mass, leading to radiation in the usual way and,
therefore, there is still an issue concerning the radiation
problem. However, in doing so, physicists calculate the
radiation due to the proper field of the electron and neglect
the effect due to the mutual radiation fields and the proper
field of the proton which contribute to the calculation of the
radiated power when we use a reduced mass.
The fact of taking into account the sources terms does not
cancel the mutual power term 2P12 in the expression of the
total power, which implies the existence of a mutual
radiated energy 2E12 ˆ 2P12/v outside the volume V
confirming the discussion of light interferences. We recall
which delivers energy to the antenna. The generator is char-
acterized either by its current density JS or by its source
electric field ES. Inside the source (antenna ⫹ generator),
the corresponding Ohm’s laws are satisfied J ˆ sc E ⫹ J S
or J ˆ sc …E ⫹ ES †. In that case, the source terms now have
for expression
Z Z
Pii ˆ ⫺ 12 兩J i 兩2 Rci dV ⫹ 1
2 Re J ⴱi ·J Si Rci dV
Vi Vi
…168†
Z Z
Pii ˆ ⫺ 12 兩J i 兩2 Rci dV ⫹ 1
Re J ⴱi ·ESi dV
Vi
2
Vi
The first terms in the right-hand side of the preceding
equations represent the power dissipated to heat the conduc-
tors of the antennas and the generators. The second terms
account for the proper powers delivered by the antennas
independently of the fact they may or may not radiate simul-
taneously, especially if the generators are shielded from any
induced electromagnetic fields. Therefore, the question
concerning the compatibility of the superposition principle
and the conservation of energy must be answered by stating
if the difference of energy is delivered by the generators or
by the medium. In the first case the principle of conservation
of energy is saved; in the second case the principle is
violated, but the energy is provided by the medium and
must be ascribed to the motion of the center of mass of
the system.
We are now able to comment the answers given by Hoh
[100] and Levine [101] concerning this problem. Both
authors stress that the mutual power 2P12 results from the
coupling between the sources as demonstrated by the equal-
ities in Eq. (167). Levine examines the case of two half-
wave antennas which are physically parallel and very close
together. Each antenna is driven by a generator, where I0 is
the magnitude of the sinusoidal current. The power radiated
into space by each antenna acting alone is P ˆ I02 Rr =2 with
Rr ˆ 73 V. If both antennas are driven by in-phase currents
of the same magnitude and radiate simultaneously, the
power P ˆ I02 Rr =2 is now quadruple owing to the super-
position principle, which implies the equality Rr ˆ 292 V.
This is the reason why the folded dipole antenna, used as the
main receiving element of most television antennas, is fed
by a two-wire flat cable with 300 V impedance. This folded
antenna is equivalent to two in-phase antennas where the
second current source in the second leg is induced by the
current in the first leg.
However, these authors do not answer the question since
one must make the distinction between the antennas and the
generators. When Levine compares the two cases, before
and after the superposition of the fields, he ascribes the
difference of power to a change of the radiation resistance
Rr of the medium which implies an automatic change of
the powers delivered by the generators according to the
 P. Cornille / Progress in Energy and Combustion Science 25 (1999) 161–210
formulas P ˆ I02 Rr =2 or P ˆV02 =2Rr (we neglect Rc and the
internal resistance Ri of the generators which are small quan-
tities with respect to Rr) and this change occurs without any
external help from an observer. This point of view is
correctly criticized by Hoh who notes that the wave impe-
dance Rr is a derived quantity that is computed only after the
radiated power is determined. Moreover, the radiation resis-
tance Rr in antenna theory [102] (p. 46) depends only on the
geometrical form of the antenna and is independent of the
current; therefore, the radiation resistance cannot be deter-
mined by the medium. To save the conservation of energy,
Levine makes the statement that there exists no generator
giving a constant power, which is an incorrect statement
since, for the pendulum experiment described hereafter,
we bought two generators which both delivered DC voltage
and current with maximum limited values and, therefore,
with a fixed maximum power. If the generators use the
maximum power they can provide, one cannot understand
how they deliver more power to account for the difference in
radiated power. Hoh does not indicate whether or not the
power P ˆ V0I0/2 delivered by each generator is the same
before and after the superposition of the fields takes place:
does the e.m.f. V0 or the current I0 given by each generator
become doubled or not? We do not know. Consequently, it
is difficult to explain the gain or the loss in radiated power if
the part played by the medium is not taken into account. To
show the ambiguity concerning this problem in the liter-
ature, let us examine the comparison of the power radiated
by a wave antenna with the power radiated by a folded half-
wave antenna as described by Houzé [103] (p. 36):
In the folded antenna, we recover only half of the
current IF ˆ I0/2 for an identical voltage V0…. With
respect to a half-wave antenna, we get the same
power P ˆ 4Z0 IF2 =2 ˆ Z0 I02 =2 with necessary different
impedances for the same voltage V0.
If we follow Houzé, when a wave antenna fed by a given
generator with a fixed voltage is folded then the current
suddenly decreases to half of its value to radiate the same
power as before; manifestly some thing is wrong in Houzé’s
reasoning. We can make an analogy by comparing the case
of a magnetic field Bu ˆ 2I0/cr produced by a rectilinear
wire fed by a constant current I0 and the magnetic field
produced by the same wire wound as a coil. We know that
the magnetic field is stronger when the same wire is
wounded with N turns per unit length as a solenoid since
we have Bz ⬇ 2pNI0/c.
The same question concerning the compatibility of the
principles of superposition and energy conservation arises
when one wants to calculate the radiated power of the
concerted oscillations of the billions of electrons that
account for the current in an antenna. For example, for a
simple antenna of length l, the total radiated power is given
by P ˆ 10v20 I02 l2 =c2 [102] (p. 36); therefore, the total
radiated power for a 2l antenna is 4P. When discussing
the double slit experiment, Crawford [99] affirms that the
187
total average power is 2P. If this statement were true, then
no radiation from antennas would be possible since the total
radiated power according to the Larmor formula would
depend on the proper quantity Nq 2, a very small quantity
indeed, instead of the mutual quantity N(N ⫺ 1)q 2 as
correctly pointed out by Apsden [104]. The proper radiated
power depending on Nq 2 must be associated with the motion
of the center of mass of the antenna. This power is small and
generally not observable since all antennas are strongly
fixed on building walls.
This question has also been examined by Mathews [105]
in the case of two initial wave trains propagating in opposite
directions normally incident upon the interface between two
different elastic media. By taking into account all energies
of four waves (two reflected and two transmitted which
result from the scattering of the two incident wave trains
by the interface), Mathews demonstrates that the principles
of superposition and conservation of energy are fully
compatible with one another. However, to prove the
compatibility of these principles, Mathews uses two
mediums and affirms without proof that his demonstration
can be extended to a homogeneous medium since the
surroundings will behave in such a way as to guarantee
energy conservation. This is not correct; for instance,
consider two light pulses emitted simultaneously from two
widely separated stars located far away from Earth which
overlap later in the Earth’s frame: it would be absurd to
pretend that the luminosity of the stars will change to
account for the change in energy when these two pulses
overlap.
10.7. Radiation reaction and conservation of energy
We know that there are two kinds of radiation: spon-
taneous and stimulated radiations. Therefore, two kinds of
electromagnetic force can be associated with these radia-
tions. For a spontaneous radiation, the force satisfies
Newton’s third law and should be called a spontaneous
force, whereas a stimulated force violates Newton’s third
law in the case of a stimulated radiation. Unfortunately,
most authors called spontaneous force a force that violates
Newton’s third law and, therefore, a confusion results in the
literature when we deal with the case of spontaneous radia-
tion. As already stated, these two kinds of radiation are
related to the existence of closed and opened radiating
systems.
For a closed system, there is conservation of energy as
shown by Eq. (95). Since the spontaneous radiation emitted
by a charge possesses both energy and momentum, then
there is a transfer of momentum from charge to field and
the charge must recoil because of Newton’s third law. It also
follows that the spontaneous radiated power is given by the
equality PR ˆ ⫺ dEK/dt and the radiation must come at the
expense of kinetic energy.
For an open system, there is no longer a conservation of
energy since the energy is provided by the medium. A
188 P. Cornille / Progress in Energy and Combustion Science 25 (1999) 161–210

striking example of an open system is the free-electron laser, acceleration and hence the stimulated emission; the second
where an electron beam crosses a magnetic undulator. Since force is the proper force F11 ˆ FR or radiation-reaction force
the magnetic Lorentz force, the part of the Lorentz force of the particle on itself. It follows the equations
which does not obey Newton’s third law, does not produce dP1 dE1
any work ˆ F12 ⫹ F11 ˆ U1 ·F12 ⫹ U1 ·F11 …171†
dt dt
d d with the definitions P1 ˆ m1 g1 U 1 and E1 ˆ m1 g1 c2 . There
m gc2 ˆ U· m0 gU ˆ FB ·U ˆ 0 …169†
dt 0 dt are two ways of calculating the radiation-reaction force
It follows that the kinetic energy EK ˆ (g ⫺ 1)m0c 2 is which go back to Lorentz and to Abraham. Lorentz’s
constant. Therefore, the radiated energy for point-charge method, as described by Becker [80] (tome II, p. 23), uses
particles cannot come at the expense of the beam kinetic the Lorentz force f 11 ˆ r1 …E1 ⫹ U1 ∧ B1 =c† without the
energy and is provided by the medium. magnetic force for U1/c ⬍ 1; we get
Now, it is natural to go one step further and to investigate 4 EQ dU 2 q2 d2 U
the possibility of introducing a supplementary force FR, the FR ˆ ⫺ 2
⫹ …172†
3 c dt 3 c3 dt2
so-called radiation-reaction force, in order to obtain a
conservation law for an open system. However, this where EQ is the electrostatic energy. Abraham’s formula of
approach, contrary to Becker’s statement [80] (tome II, p. the radiation-reaction force has the expression
21), does not avoid the violation of the conservation of  
2 q2 4 1
energy for stimulated emission, and this is clearly shown FR ˆ g K ⫹ U ∧ …U ∧ K† …173†
3 c3 c2
in Becker’s equation:
where the quantity K is defined as
d 1
… mU2 ⫹ 1
f r2 † ˆ U·FR …170†  
dt 2 2 d2 U g2 dU dU
Kˆ ⫹ 3 U· …174†
However, the force FR exerted on the charge cannot be dt2 c2 dt dt
called a radiation-reaction force contrary to Newburgh’s It follows that the work of the reaction force during the
[106] assertion: time dt has the value U·FR ˆ 2q2 g4 …U·K†=3c3 . The above
Newton’s third law states that the field must exert a reaction force can also be written in the form
force distinct from that causing the acceleration and 2 q2
hence the emission. It is this force which is called the FR ˆ
3 m20 c5
radiation-reaction force, the complete description and "
(      # )
explanation of which have remained a problem. As d dP g dP 2 1 dE 2
we shall see below, the radiation force is a proper  E ⫺ ⫺ 2 P
dt dt m0 dt c dt
force which cannot satisfy Newton’s third law.
…175†
Griffiths and Szeto [107] addressed the problem in more
Thus, we have
comprehensible terms. They noted that a charged particle
 
accelerates less than a neutral particle to account for the 2 q2 d dP
radiated energy. Therefore, a force called the radiation-reac- U·FR ˆ P·
3 m20 c3 dt dt
tion force must be present in order to avoid violating the "    #
principle of conservation of energy. They correctly pointed 2 q2 g2 dP 2 1 dE 2
⫺ ⫺ …176†
out that this force is attributable to the breakdown of 3 m20 c3 dt c2 dt
Newton’s third law in classical electrodynamics, a fact
recognized by Lorentz and before him by Thomson. When We recognize in the last term in the right-hand side of
an extended charge accelerates, the force of one part on Eq. (176) the radiated power by the charged particle in the
another is not equal and opposite to the force of the second so-called radiation zone, namely:
part on the first. When one integrates over the entire charge "    #
2 q2 g2 dP 2 1 dE 2
configuration, the result is a net force of the charge on itself; PR ˆ ⫺ 2 …177†
3 m20 c3 dt c dt
therefore, the radiation-reaction force is a self-force or
proper force. The authors in their paper developed the The radiated power is a positive quantity because we have
basic theory of the self-force on a dumbbell in longitudinal the identity
motion. "     #
We will review briefly this old problem with a new 2 q2 4 dU 2 2 dg 2
PR ˆ g ⫹c
insight, since we know that the particle and its radiation 3 c3 dt dt
do not constitute a closed system. Therefore, there are two !
forces: the first one is the ‘‘mutual’’ Lorentz force F12 ˆ FL 2 q2 g2 d2 P E d2 E
ˆ⫺ P· 2 ⫺ 2 …178†
between the particle and another particle which causes the 3 m20 c3 dt c dt2
 P. Cornille / Progress in Energy and Combustion Science 25 (1999) 161–210 189

Eqs. (171) and (176) can be used to write the variation of the momentum as follows:
kinetic energy in the form
PT ˆ P ⫺ PS ET ˆ E ⫺ ES
dEK
⫺
dEL
ˆ
dES
⫺
dER
…179† "   #
dt dt dt dt 2 q2 dP 2 q2 g2 dU g2 dU
PS ˆ E ˆ ⫹ 2 U· U
3 m20 c5 dt 3 c3 dt c dt
with the following definitions:
the quantity dEK/dt is a positive or negative power term 2 q2 dP 2 q2 g4 dU
ES ˆ P· ˆ U·
accounting for the variation of the kinetic energy EK ˆ 2
3 m0 c 3 dt 3 c3 dt
(g 1 ⫺ 1)m1c 2 of the charged particle which produces the "     #
emission of the radiation; 1 2 q2 g4 dU 2 g2 dU 2
⫺FR ˆ 2 PR U ˆ ⫹ U· U
the quantity dEL/dt ˆ U·FL is also a positive or negative c 3 c5 dt c2 dt
term which represents the variation of the internal energy
given by the other particle; ⫺U·FR ˆ PR …1 ⫺ 1=g2 †
the quantity dER/dt ˆ PR is always a positive term which "    #
gives the radiated power by the moving particle; 2 q2 g4 b2 dU 2 g2 dU 2
ˆ ⫹ 2 U·
the quantity dES/dt ˆ U·FR ⫹ PR is the so-called Schott 3 c3 dt c dt
term and may be positive or negative. The energy ES is
dPS dES P
interpreted as an internal energy bounded to the moving U· ˆ ⫺ R2
particle. dt dt g
…181†
Eq. (179) is a conservation law for an opened system
owing to the existence of the reaction force as already stated. This is the grouping of terms first suggested by Teitelboim.
Therefore, the radiated energy is provided by the medium.
One can easily check the above affirmation in the case where 11. Review of several experiments which show the
the Lorentz force derives from a potential EL ˆ ⫺ EP. Then, Earth’s motion through the ether
if ET ˆ EK ⫹ EP is the total energy in the system given by the
observer at some initial time, after this time we get an We will now challenge the claim made by the special
increase in the kinetic energy and correspondingly an relativity theory concerning the impossibility of detecting
increase of the radiated energy emitted by the moving par- our motion through the ether by internal experiments.
ticle if we neglect the Schott term. Therefore, the total initial
energy ET ˆ EK ⫹ EP is not conserved. One may think that 11.1. Is special relativity theory a relativity theory?
the Schott term cannot be ignored so readily in any consid-
eration of energy balance based on Eq. (179). However, for The result of the Michelson–Morley experiment can be
a uniformly accelerated particle we get FR ˆ 0 which, in easily explained in terms of a ballistic model of light, in
turn, requires dES/dt ˆ PR; in that case the total energy ET ˆ which the speed is uniquely defined with respect to the
EK ⫹ EP is conserved, but clearly the particle radiates energy source, not with respect to a medium. This result is in perfect
which is provided by the medium through the Schott term. agreement with the Galilean relativity and covariance prin-
The physical picture provided by the Schott term becomes ciples, namely that motions observed within a uniformly
satisfactory if one recognizes the existence of open systems. moving inertial reference frame cannot reveal any informa-
Although the above analysis of the reaction force is more tion about the velocity with which the whole system is
satisfactory from a physical point of view, it is the introduc- translated. However, the ballistic theory of light is disqua-
tion of the reaction force which must be criticized. In fact, in lified by many experiments which show that the velocity of
the case of stimulated emission, there is a second particle light is completely unaffected by the motion of its source.
involved in the process that must be taken into account. But, the absence of any fringe shift in the Michelson–
Therefore, the reaction force is not useful and one must Morley experiment is in direct conflict with the wave theory
instead have recourse to the relations in Eqs. (139) and of light since an effect was expected due to the light depen-
(140) to obtain the conservation laws concerning stimulated dence on the motion of the receiver through the ether. As
emission. discussed in Ref. [110], there is a flaw in the experiment
Teitelboim [108, 109] reworked the point-charge theory since Michelson–Morley have to adjust the optical path
by introducing a different splitting in the terms of the four- lengths of their interferometer to an integer number of the
vector relativistic approach of the radiation force. These wavelengths in order to obtain the fringes. This adjustment
equations are better written remained constant and, therefore, the initial conditions are
never changed with respect to time. The fringe effect
dPT dET
ˆ FL ⫹ FR ˆ U·FL ⫺ PR …180† depends on the intensity of the field with no explicit time
dt dt dependence in the mathematical formulas if the Earth speed
by adding the Schott terms in the definitions of energy and is constant, consequently one cannot be surprised if no
190 P. Cornille / Progress in Energy and Combustion Science 25 (1999) 161–210
fringe shift has been observed since everything is fixed with
respect to time. This is the reason why, later, Michelson–
Gale succeeded with the same interferometer to get a fringe
shift related to the rotational velocity of the Earth through
the ether. In their experiment, they switch with respect to
time the trajectory of light between two loops and by
comparing the fringe displacement of the large loop with
that of the small loop, the effect of the Earth’s motion
through the ether was thus discovered. Moreover, a
frequency-locking phenomena [111] in their interferometer
may also explain their null result.
As pointed out by Allais [112–116], Miller [117]
performed a series of experiments extending over
25 years, from 1902 to 1926, which reported non-negative
fringe shifts corresponding to velocities of about 8 to
9 km s ⫺1. These results were interpreted at that time as
due to measurement errors. But Allais showed by a different
analysis that there is an unexpected coherence in Miller’s
data. Moreover, there is a fundamental difference between
the experiments by Michelson and Miller. The Michelson–
Morley experiments were done at a given time, whereas
Miller’s experiments were done during many days at differ-
ent periods of the year. Therefore, it is not surprising that
Miller obtained positive results. If one wishes to make a
measurement of a quantity which is slowly varying with
time, we may either take a long time to make the measure-
ment or take a shorter time by varying rapidly the initial
conditions. Recently, several experiments with interferom-
eters done by Kantor [118], Marinov [119–121] and Silver-
tooth [122–124] have obtained positive results concerning
the motion of the Earth through the ether. However, these
positive results have not been confirmed by other research-
ers. As noted by Whitney [125], these positive results are not
surprising if one interprets them not as linear velocity
measurements but instead as measurements of the rotation
velocity of the Earth with respect to a center of rotation
located in the Milky Way galaxy.
Therefore, there is no contradiction between the Michel-
son–Morley and Michelson–Gale experiments, since both
experiments must give a null result for constant translation
and rotation motions. The failure by Michelson–Morley to
observe a fringe shift is due to a flaw in the experiment
which has never been noticed by physicists until now.
However, the success of the Michelson–Gale experiment
does not mean that one can ascribe or measure the velocity
of the ether. The difference between the cases of the ether
and a material medium resides essentially in the fact that one
can isolate and move parts of the medium and by doing so
put in evidence the influence of this motion on the wave
speed. If the ether permeates everything including material
particles, we cannot isolate and move specific parts of it;
hence the impossibility of measuring the ether motion.
When physicists speak of the ether wind, they use the reci-
procity concept and Newton’s third law to a case where the
concept cannot be applied, especially if the ether is some
kind of universal external force field. Therefore, the claim of
our textbooks that the Michelson–Morley experiment
disproved the existence of the ether is incorrect. Since the
velocity of a material particle is by definition a relative
concept, one must choose a material body considered by
hypothesis to be at rest in the ether which can be used as
a reference frame for velocity measurements. The origin of
this preferred frame can be the center of mass of all the
particles in the universe. Today the ether is seriously
being re-examined by astrophysicists and is characterized
as an energy-rich particulate, subquantic medium and is
sometimes called the ‘‘neutrino sea’’.
Before reviewing several experiments which refute the
claim by relativist physicists that no internal experiment
can reveal our motion through the ether, we must clarify
two points.
The first point concerns the definition of the word relative.
For example, a velocity is said to be relative because it is
referred to the choice of a reference frame which is not
necessarily an inertial reference frame. This statement is
perfectly correct and not ambiguous. However, from the
discussion on the application of Newton’s third law in clas-
sical mechanics, we have shown that there are two kinds of
relative velocity depending on whether or not the magnitude
of the velocity depends on the choice of a reference frame.
The distinction between these two kinds of velocity is not
made in special relativity theory. A good example which
proves this affirmation can be given concerning the relative
light speed of two photons which is zero when the two
photons travel in the same direction in a given inertial
frame and which becomes c instead of 2c when they travel
in opposite directions. It seems that experiments by Pappas
and Obolensky [126] report measurements of this relative
speed which is twice the speed of light.
Moreover, this is our second point: we contest the claim
made by relativist physicists who pretend to do the distinc-
tion. This claim is perfectly clear when French [30] (p. 65),
commenting on Einstein’s work, states:
At the beginning of his wonderful paper in which
special relativity was brought into existence, he
comments on the fact that in such phenomena as
the mutual interaction of a magnet and a conductor,
it is only the relative motion that matters, and not the
separate motion of either.
Later, French insists by saying:
But equally impressive was Einstein’s conviction that
all observable physical phenomena must depend only
on relative motions.
Unfortunately, these statements are wrong because the
magnitude of the velocity and also all the other quantities
do depend on the choice of an inertial frame. Therefore, one
cannot pretend that Maxwell’s equations and the Lorentz’s
force are formulated in terms of the relative positions,
 P. Cornille / Progress in Energy and Combustion Science 25 (1999) 161–210
velocities and accelerations of the particles in a given refer-
ence frame as correctly stated by Wesley [127] (p. 291).
Bartocci and Capria asserted in a paper published in 1991
[128] that Maxwell’s theory gives for the force exerted on a
stationary charge by a translating magnetic dipole a value
only half as large as the value that the theory gives for the
force experienced by the charge moving relative to the same
stationary magnetic dipole. Thus, the authors have actually
asserted that Maxwell’s theory is incompatible with Gali-
lean relativity. Soon after the publication of this paper, Jefi-
menko submitted an article [129] explaining the errors of
Bartocci and Capria’s calculations (I am not sure of these
errors because there are some assumptions in Jefimenko’s
paper which can be challenged). He demonstrated that the
force exerted by the magnetic dipole on the stationary
charge is F12 ˆ ⫺qU ∧ B=c which is opposite to the force
F21 ˆ qU ∧ B=c experienced by the charge when it is
moving and the magnetic dipole stationary. Moreover, Jefi-
menko made in his paper the following statement:
Observe that the two forces are different regardless of
how small the velocity of the charge is. This is a
curious result since it conflicts with the most funda-
mental principle of classical physics: the principle of
Galilean relativity according to which the magnitude
of the two forces should be the same.
However, Jefimenko’s statement is not correct since the
forces must also have the same direction (see Eq. (38)),
which is not the case. In fact, Jefimenko’s calculation proves
the correctness of our viewpoint concerning the fact that the
reciprocity in the change of reference frames does imply
Newton’s third law F12 ˆ ⫺ F21. One can also criticize
Jefimenko’s calculation by noting that he did not prove that
his calculation applies when both the charge and the
magnetic dipole are in relative motion. However, we can
affirm that it is impossible to reconcile the Lorentz approach
and the Weber approach as shown in this paper.
In fact, Weber’s electrodynamics as reviewed in Assis’
book [58] is the only relativity theory. In contrast, special
relativity theory with its infinite set of inertial frames and its
variable quantities is almost in agreement with the existence
of the ether, a point of view defended by Builder [56].
However, the viewpoint sustained in Newtonian mechanics
is totally different since one associates an infinite set of
material reference frames located at the centers of mass of
the different material systems considered in the spirit of the
Jacobi coordinates introduced at the beginning of this paper.
The difference between the quantities can be attributed to
different choices of the centers of mass.
11.2. Doppler and aberration effects
The stellar aberration has been discussed by Hayden
[130]. By reviewing Einstein’s explanations of aberration,
Hayden reached the important conclusion:
191
The Lorentz transformation equations of the special
relativity theory assert that there is an aberrational
angle (Uorb ⫺ Ustar)/c radians due to the relative
velocity of star and Earth.
Of course, Hayden challenged this conclusion since the
experiments show that stellar aberration does not depend
at all on star velocity but is only due to the Earth’s orbital
velocity. An argument frequently used to explain stellar
aberration in special relativity theory is simply to note that
the measurements of stellar aberration depend upon obser-
vations taken at different times in the Earth’s orbit around
the Sun. Therefore, the analysis of the effect ought to
involve only the difference between earth velocities at
these different times. Hayden [131] and Whitney [132]
pointed out the fact that this argument simply disregards
the inconsistency between stellar aberration and Doppler
shift which depends on star velocity. In fact, both aberration
and Doppler effect in special relativity theory are derived
together as a common consequence of the Lorentz transfor-
mation applied to a four-vector.
Moreover, many physicists, like French [30] (p. 134),
state that for light in vacuum there is no distinction concern-
ing the Doppler effect between motion of the source or the
observer that moves with respect to the vacuum. This state-
ment implies that the Doppler shift depends only on the
relative velocity between the Earth and the star. As noted
in Refs. [29, 110], this affirmation is refuted by experimental
facts. Indeed, one can make the distinction between the
motions of a star light source and the Earth-fixed observer
with respect to the ether as indicated by Born [133] (p. 122),
who clearly states that the Doppler effect due to the emission
of the stars moving in the ether does not coincide exactly
with the corresponding lines on the Earth but shows small
displacements due to the Earth motion around the sun. Here
also there is no reciprocity between source and receiver
motions. A reciprocity would imply a link between the
source and the receiver and the verification of Newton’s
third law.
11.3. Sagnac effect, Allan’s experiment, anisotropy in the
blackbody radiation
Post [134] and Anderson [135] have given a detailed
analysis of the Sagnac effect in their papers. More recently,
Hayden [136] reviewed the Sagnac effect in the context of
an analysis of the isotropy of light in the frame of the
rotating Earth. Consider a source and an observer located
on a disk which rotate with a velocity U ˆ V R and two light
signals issued from this source constrained to propagate in
the ether with a velocity c in two opposite directions around
the disk. The time taken by the two light signals to reach the
observer will be different t^ ˆ 2p(R ^ DL)/c and, therefore,
the observer will notice a time difference Dt ˆ 4pDL/c
between the arrivals of the two light pulses. Since the obser-
ver has moved 2pDL ˆ Ut during the time t ˆ 2pR/c taken
192 P. Cornille / Progress in Energy and Combustion Science 25 (1999) 161–210
by the light to make a turn, we have
Ut VR 2
Dt ˆ t⫹ ⫺ t⫺ ˆ 2 ˆ 4p 2 …182†
c c
Knowing that S ˆ pR 2 is the surface encompassed by the
two light rays, the fringe shift in an interferometer is given
by the formula
cDt VS
DN ˆ ˆ4 …183†
l lc
The expected fringe shift was observed and Sagnac
concluded that he had proved the existence of the ether.
Later, Michelson and Gale performed a Sagnac interference
experiment which successfully measured the Earth’s
rotation. The Sagnac effect is sometimes interpreted as an
effect of acceleration which allows us to measure our
absolute motion through the ether and as such does not
contradict the null result obtained in the Michelson–Morley
experiment for the rectilinear propagation of light in an
inertial frame. But light speed cannot be relative or absolute
depending whether it propagates along a rectilinear or a
circular path in the same medium. Moreover, this depen-
dency cannot be related to the concept of an inertial frame
since the mass of a moving ring laser gyroscope is finite. In
Newtonian mechanics, there is no such thing as an inertial
frame where the light speed is defined. We have only refer-
ence frames where both velocity and acceleration can be
relative or absolute depending on Newton’s third law. As
pointed out by Winterberg [137], the outcome of the Sagnac
experiment was used by Sagnac as a decisive argument
against Einstein’s claim that physics could do without the
ether hypothesis. Since the special theory of relativity denies
the existence of an ether, a Sagnac effect is impossible in
this theory because the relevant conditions are the same for a
co-moving receiver and for a receiver at rest in the labora-
tory frame. In order to obviate the above objection, the
relativist physicists remark that the co-moving frames can
be considered as successive inertial frames attached to the
rotating circular light path with a synchronizing discrepancy
given by the Lorentz time transformation. This is an ad hoc
procedure to save the special theory of relativity which can
be challenged, since there is no procedure of synchronization
and no physical change of frame in the Sagnac experiment.
As discussed in Ref. [110], the Sagnac effect can be
applied to the motion of clocks or to the propagation of
electromagnetic signals emitted by satellites towards several
ground stations as in the microwave experiment of Allan et
al. [138]. The discontinuity in time observed in the Allan et
al. experiment is not a consequence of the relativity of
simultaneity since the observers located in the ground
stations are all in the same reference frame and do not
make any change of reference frame. It is quite common
in special relativity theory to invoke a hypothetical observer
at rest in some hypothetical inertial frame to explain the time
discontinuity. The effect is simply a classical Sagnac effect
due to the rotation of the Earth in the ether.
The discovery of the 2.7 K cosmic black body radiation
by Penzias and Wilson [139] is presented by most astro-
physicists as the strongest evidence in favor of the Big-
Bang theory since this microwave radiation is assumed to
have been emitted shortly after the Big-Bang. Within the
accuracy of the first measurements this radiation appeared to
be isotropic. The isotropy of the radiation indicates that the
universe is isotropic and homogeneous on a large scale. This
radiation is a background in front of which all astrophysical
objects lie. Therefore, one can expects anisotropy due to the
motion of the Earth with respect to the ancient matter which
emitted the radiation. This cosmic radiation can be defined
as a privileged frame determined by the rest frame for which
light is isotropic in all directions. This is a natural conse-
quence of the existence of the ether provided that light speed
is independent from the motion of the source. This inde-
pendence is well grounded as proved by the review paper
by Fox [140] on this subject. However, an anisotropy of
light speed will result with respect to the motion of any
detector trough the ether if the light speed depends on the
velocity of the receiver. For b ˆ U/c ⬍ 1, the temperature
measured by a moving observer is given by
TO ⬇ TS …1 ⫺ b cos u† …184†
where u is the angle between the direction of motion and the
direction of measurement. The cosine anisotropy is readily
interpreted as being caused by the motion of the Earth relative
to the rest frame of the blackbody radiation. The ^3.5 mK
anisotropy measurement as measured by Smoot et al. [141]
corresponds to an Earth velocity of about 400 km s ⫺1 in the
direction towards the constellation Leo. This experiment fits
the results obtained by Marinov [119, 120].
12. Review of experiments on the motion of conductors
fed by direct high current or voltage
12.1. Experiments by Graneau, Phipps and Saumont
We will now examine the question concerning the appli-
cability of Newton’s third law to the interaction of current
elements in the earliest days of classical electrodynamics.
Historically, the first quantitative law of action between two
current elements was propounded by Ampère and validated
by him through a remarkable combination of experiments
and theory.
Rather than considering line-current elements, one can
write the differential force proposed by Ampère in terms
of volume-current elements J1 dV1 and J2 dV2:
n
d2 FA12 ˆ ‰3…J 1 ·n†…J 2 ·n† ⫺ 2…J 1 ·J 2 †Š dV1 dV2 …185†
c2 R2
with the definitions R12 ˆ r1 ⫺ r2 and n ˆ R12/R for R ˆ
兩R12兩. The differential force d 2FA12 is the force exerted on
any volume element dV1 due to a second volume element
dV2 which serves as the origin of the vector n. To get
 P. Cornille / Progress in Energy and Combustion Science 25 (1999) 161–210 193

this formula, Ampère had to assume the application of [143] to claim that the two laws lead to different distribu-
Newton’s third law to individual current elements. tions of force within a circuit because of the divergence of
Eq. (185) can be rewritten in a more symmetric form as the integrals. It has been shown by Graneau [144] and
follows: Cornille [28] that the mathematical difficulty arising from
 the non-physical assumption of a single filamentary current
1
d2 FA12 ˆ …J 2 ·72 † dA1 ⫺ …J 1 ·71 † dA2 circuit does not disappear when the line-current elements
c
are replaced by volume-current elements with finite current
  densities.
1 1
⫹ …J 1 ·J 2 †71 dV1 dV2 …186† The reader is referred to the Graneau and Graneau book
c R
[15] and the experiments by Phipps and coworker [145–
where the vector potentials dA1 and dA2 are given by the 147] and Saumont [25, 26] concerning the experimental
relations evidence of longitudinal forces in metallic conductors.
1 1 One must point out that if a closed circuit contains a moving
dA1 ˆ ‰J ⫹ …J 1 ·n†nŠ dA2 ˆ ‰J ⫹ …J 2 ·n†nŠ
2cR 1 2cR 2 part then Newton’s third law implies that another part of this
…187† circuit must move in the opposite direction since the
Ampère law implies
which satisfy the Coulomb gauge.
In contrast, the Biot–Savart force, which is the magnetic dP1 dP2
⫹ ˆ FA12 ⫹ FA21 ˆ 0 …191†
term of the Lorentz force, does not satisfy Newton’s third dt dt
law since it is given by the formulas This fact is demonstrated clearly in the MIT version of the
1 Ampère hairpin experiment described in Ref. [15] (p. 63)
2
d FL12 ˆ 2 2 J 1 ∧ …J 2 ∧ n† dV1 dV2 where the observation of the jets in the mercury confirms the
c R
…188† existence of longitudinal electrodynamics forces for an
1
2
d FL21 ˆ ⫺ 2 2 J2 ∧ …J 1 ∧ n† dV1 dV2 experiment which was done for the first time 173 years
c R ago. Therefore, the Ampère force law implies that the center
The Biot–Savart expressions can be rewritten in a form first of mass of a closed circuit is at rest in the laboratory frame.
obtained by Grassmann: Pappas [148] and Graneau and Graneau [149] have carried
out electromagnetic pendulum experiments which are varia-
1
d2 FL12 ˆ ‰…J 1 ·n†J 2 ⫺ …J1 ·J 2 †nŠ dV1 dV2 tions of Ampère’s hairpin experiment. They challenged the
c 2 R2
…189† field energy–momentum concept of special relativity theory
1 by stating that the opposite momentum in their experiments
2
d FL21 ˆ ⫺ 2 2 ‰…J 2 ·n†J1 ⫺ …J 1 ·J 2 †nŠ dV1 dV2
c R should be taken by the emitted electromagnetic radiation.
We note that the last terms in the preceding equations Hatzikonstantinou and Moyssides [150] correctly refute
always satisfy Newton’s third law, whereas the first terms their claims by noting that the recoiling momentum of the
do not. Since current elements are not supposed to exist but moving part of the pendulum cannot be imparted to the
are part of complete circuits, one must integrate the Ampère electromagnetic field as radiation, since the radiated energy
and the Lorentz force laws over the entire current distribu- emitted by the moving part of the pendulum is a negligible
tions. It appears that the contribution of the first terms in quantity, but must go to the fixed part of the pendulum. In
Eqs. (186) and (189) add up to zero. Therefore, the Ampère fact, by using the Lorentz force law for the two parts of the
and the Lorentz force laws invariably predict the same net pendulum, we can explain the way by which the reaction
reaction forces between two closed circuits and it is always a force of the moving part of the pendulum is transferred to
repulsion or attraction in compliance with Newton’s third the stationary part of the pendulum by writing the relation
   
law. dP1 dP2 d q1 d q2
⫹ ˆ⫺ A2 ⫺ A1 ⬇ 0 …192†
To these magnetic force laws one must add the electric dt dt dt c dt c
Coulomb law as expressed for charge elements:
Generalizations of the above force laws were given by
1 Whittaker [151, 152] by adding terms to the Ampère force
d2 FE12 ˆ r1 r2 n dV1 dV2 …190†
R2 law:
The Biot–Savart and the Ampère force law give identical n
d2 FW12 =dV1 dV2 ˆ 2 2 ‰3…J 1 ·n†…J 2 ·n† ⫺ 2…J 1 ·J 2 †Š
results when used to calculate the interaction or mutual force c R
between complete circuits provided these circuits are sep-
arate. However, the two force laws predict different internal ⫹ f1 …J 1 ·n†J 2 ⫹ f2 …J 2 ·n†J 1
stresses in a metallic conductor. The Ampère law gives a ⫹ f3 …J 1 ·J 2 †n ⫹ f4 …J 1 ·n†…J 2 ·n†n …193†
longitudinal repulsive force between proximate elements of
the same conductor contrary to the Lorentz law. The result- where all quantities f i are arbitrary functions of R.
ing uncertainty has led Ternan [142] and Christodoulides However, one can demonstrate that all these functions
194 P. Cornille / Progress in Energy and Combustion Science 25 (1999) 161–210

must be of the form f i(R) ˆ a/R n where a is a constant. law which depends on the masses of the particles:
Later, Warburton [153] proposed another expression which 
1
includes relative acceleration terms. More recently, Munier d2 FAD12 ˆ 2 2 …J 1 ·n†J 2
c R
[154] derived a general force law that satisfies the symmetry

group properties of space. The most general expression for m
the interaction between volume current distributions accord- ⫺ 1 …J 2 ·n†J 1 ⫺ …J 1 ·J 2 †n dV1 dV2 …200†
m2
ing to Munier is
However, following our discussion on the interaction
d2 FM12 =dV1 dV2 ˆ f1 …J 1 ·n†…J 2 ·n†n ⫹ f2 …J 1 ·J 2 †n between two particles in Newtonian mechanics, it is better
to define the force law from Eq. (4), as follows:
⫹ f3 ‰…J1 ·n†J 2 ⫹ …J 2 ·n†J 1 Š
1
d2 FC12 ˆ d2 F12 ⫹ …m2 d2 F11 ⫺ m1 d2 F22 † …201†
⫹ f4 …J 1 ∧ J2 † ⫹ f5 ‰…n ∧ J 1 † ∧ …n ∧ J 2 †Š m1 ⫹ m2
…194† where we have included the electrostatic force in the
definitions:
We can make a list of several magnetic force laws with  
their integrated formulation as given in the literature. 1 1
d2 F12 ˆ 2 r1 r2 ⫺ 2 …J 1 ·J 2 † n dV1 dV2
Ampère force law R c
n 1
d2 FA12 ˆ ‰3…J1 ·n†…J 2 ·n† ⫺ 2…J 1 ·J 2 †Š dV1 dV2 d2 F11 ˆ …J 1 ·n†J 2 dV1 dV2 …202†
c 2 R2 c 2 R2
1 1
dFA12 ˆ …J ∧ 7 ∧ A2 ⫺ …7·A2 †J 1 ⫹ J 1 ·77C2 † dV1 d2 F22 ˆ …J 2 ·n†J 1 dV1 dV2
c 1 c 2 R2
…195† For two identical particles, we get the following inte-
with the definitions grated force law:

1 Z J2 1 Z J 2 ·R
1
dFC12 =dV1 ˆ ⫺r1 7F2 ⫹ ‰J ∧ 7 ∧ A2 ⫹ 1
…7·A2 †J 1
A2 …r1 † ˆ dV2 C2 …r1 † ˆ dV2 c 1 2
c V2 R c V2 R
…196† ⫹ 1
2 …J 1 ·7†A2 Š
…203†
Whittaker force law
with the definition
1
d2 FW12 ˆ ‰…J 1 ·n†J 2 ⫹ …J 2 ·n†J 1 ⫺ …J1 ·J 2 †nŠ dV1 dV2 Z r
c2 R 2 F2 …r1 † ˆ 2
dV2 …204†
V2 R
1
dFW12 ˆ ‰J ∧ 7 ∧ A2 ⫺ …7·A2 †J1 Š dV1 The inclusion of mass quantities in the expression of the
c 1
…197† above force laws implies the existence of two kinds of force
law to describe the interaction between particles. In the book
Biot–Savart force law by Graneau and Graneau [15] (p. 143), one can find the
1 following comment:
d2 FL12 ˆ ‰…J 1 ·n†J2 ⫺ …J 1 ·J 2 †nŠ dV1 dV2
c2 R 2 There seems to exist no rational grounds for the claim
…198†
1 of conventional electromagnetic field theory that one
dFL12 ˆ J ∧ 7 ∧ A2 dV1 and the same force law should apply to both the flow
c 1
of electric current in a wire and an electron beam in a
Marinov force law cathode ray tube.
1 We subscribe to such a statement.
d2 FM12 ˆ ‰…J1 ·n†J2 ⫹ …J 2 ·n†J 1 ⫺ 2…J1 ·J 2 †nŠ dV1 dV2
2c2 R2 Recently, Phipps [157] conducted an ingenious exper-
1 iment in order to show that the masses of the particles
dFM12 ˆ ‰J ∧ 7 ∧ A2 ⫺ 1
…7·A2 †J 1 ⫺ 1
…J 1 ·7†A2 Š dV1 have an effect in the measurement of forces exerted between
c 1 2 2

…199† two closed electrical circuits. Phipps makes the reasonable

In Aspden’s books [155, 156], one can find a discussion
concerning the formulation of the interaction between two
material particles from the point of view of Newtonian prin-
ciples. By assuming the non-existence of a stimulated
couple, Aspden was the first physicist to present a force
assumption that the physically effective force exerted on a
test element of mass m1(s1) by an external element of mass
m2(s2) can be represented as the product of the force and an
inertial factor a…s1 ; s2 † ˆ m2 =…m1 ⫹ m2 † where s1 and s2 are
length parameters measured along continuous electrical
loops. In that case, the contributions of the first terms in
 P. Cornille / Progress in Energy and Combustion Science 25 (1999) 161–210
Fig. 10. Rotating mica disk polarized with a high voltage.
Eqs. (186) and (189) do not add up to zero in a closed loop
integral because of the presence of the factor a (s1, s2).
Phipps succeeded in showing that a closed external current
loop does exert a non-zero longitudinal force on a test
element m1(s1) by configuring his external current loop in
such a way that a part m2(s2) of his external current loop
could recoil a (s1, s2) ⬇ 0 or not a (s1, s2) ⬇ 1. He demon-
strated that the longitudinal force tends to disappear when
the weak link in the external circuit is stiffened. We must
point out that Phipps did his analysis in the center of mass
frame where his two electrical circuits are at rest. However,
the same analysis can be used with the Lorentz force as done
in Eq. (201); therefore, it is difficult to discriminate in the
Phipps’s experiment as to what part of the motion can be
attributed to the recoil effect or to the motion of the center of
mass of the two electrical circuits.
We must point out the fact that all the force laws given in
the literature differ only by terms which either satisfy or do
not satisfy Newton’s third law for translations and rotations.
This fact has nothing to do with either a change of reference
frame or a problem of simultaneity. As already discussed
previously, it is the covariance principle which is the source
of the difficulties encountered in the application of the force
law for particles in motion even if Newton’s third law is
satisfied. This problem can be illustrated from a simple
example taken from the literature. Consider two charged
particles moving initially in the same direction with the
same velocity U; then the Biot–Savart force law satisfies
Newton’s third law since we have
U2 R
FL12 ˆ ⫺q1 q2 …205†
c 2 R3
By adding the electrostatic force, the Lorentz force is
given by the formula
! le disque s’envole…
U2 R
FL12 ˆ q1 q2 1 ⫺ 2 …206†
c R3
This force satisfies Newton’s third law and has the same
value in the laboratory frame or in the rest frame of the
charges. In special relativity theory, physicists such as
Panofsky and Phillips [41] (p. 293) and Ougarov [158]
195
(p. 166) use the Lorentz transformation between the refer-
ence frame where the two charges are at rest U0 ˆ 0 and the
laboratory frame where the velocities U of the two moving
particles are defined. In the rest reference frame, the charges
are submitted to a Coulomb force F0 ˆ q1q2R/R 3 satisfying
the condition U·F0 ˆ 0; therefore, by using the Lorentz
transformation given by Eq. (45), the force in the laboratory
frame becomes
!1=2 !
U2 R 1 U2 R
FL12 ˆ q1 q2 1 ⫺ 2 ⬇ q q
1 2 1 ⫺
c R3 2 c2 R3
…207†
We note that the two force laws do not give the same
numerical results in the laboratory frame. It is not correct
to assume, as the authors did, that both charges are at rest if
they are in mutual interaction only through Coulomb forces.
Moreover, from experiments on parallel conducting wires
carrying currents, we know that only a magnetic force of
attraction or repulsion exists which is independent of the
position of the observer. It is absurd to pretend that the
mutual magnetic force will disappear for an observer
located on a wire. Of course, we know that the total electro-
static force between electrons and ions in a wire is assumed
to be zero.
12.2. Experiments by Faraday, Ducretet, Pagés, Brown,
Saxl, Allais and Graham
It seems that the first experiment described in the litera-
ture concerning discs charged with a high voltage was done
in Faraday’s time around 1870, where a mica disc moving
on a point, as shown in Fig. 10, takes a rapid rotation when
connected with a Wimshurst machine. This fact is reported
in a communication presented by Ducretet to The Academy
of Sciences around 1898 concerning a similar experiment.
We give below the text in French published in Pagés’ book
[159] (p. 87):
Nous avons également vu dans la maison Ducretet un
ancien appareil oublié depuis longtemps et qui mérite
d’être remis en honneur. C’est, comme on le voit, un
disque de mica qui est mobile sur une pointe et qui
prend un mouvement de rotation très rapide lorsqu’on
le présente à une machine électrique très puissante
comme les machines de Wimshurst. La rotation est
alors si énergétique que la pesanteur paraı̂t supprimée
par la force centrifuge, quoique celle-ci ne semble
devoir donner que des composantes horizontales, et
Ne pourrait-on pas invoquer cette expérience pour
rendre compte du retard à la chute des plans horizon-
taux que Monsieur Langley a constaté lorsque le plan
est lancé dans l’air avec une vitesse horizontale plus
ou moins considérable?
196 P. Cornille / Progress in Energy and Combustion Science 25 (1999) 161–210
La marche du fluide électrique est facile à
comprendre, l’effluve sort de la machine et se préci-
pite vers la pointe. Il monte le long de la première
colonne verticale, passe de là sur le disque, puis il sort
du disque par la second colonne verticale, et de là se
rend à la terre; mais le phénomène de la rotation est
beaucoup plus difficile à expliquer.
J’ai vu le disque tourner, pour la première fois à
Londres, quelques temps après le coup d’état, lorsque
je suivais les cours de Faraday. Quelques temps après
être revenu d’exil, Ruhmkorff me montra de nouveau
l’expérience, et nous discutâmes sur les causes du
phénomène que Faraday n’avait pas indiquées, mais
ni l’un ni l’autre nous ne pûmes arriver à une idée
acceptable.
Cette circonstance me revint à l’esprit vingt années
plus tard, lorsque j’imaginai d’employer un disque en
fer qui ne tourne pas avec une rapidité moins grande,
et que l’on met en mouvement d’une foule de
manières différentes, comme nous aurons l’occasion
de l’expliquer plus en long. Alors je découvris pour le
mouvement du disque de fer une explication, qui je
crois est la bonne, et que j’ai l’espoir de voir accepter
par la science officielle. Je me réserve de voir si elle
ne s’applique pas par hasarde au disque de mica,
mutatis mutandis.
Le mouvement du disque de fer produit par l’électro-
magnétisme a déjà été employé dans l’industrie sous
la forme que j’ai imaginée et par les procédés que j’ai
indiqués. Des modifications plus ou moins heureuses,
ont permis d’en étendre considérablement l’usage et
nous pensons qu’il est loin d’avoir dit son dernier mot
dans la grande question du transport de la force à
distance.
Quel est l’inventeur du disque en mica, qui me paraı̂t
un complément obligatoire de toute machine électri-
que qui se respecte, à un moment où il est tant ques-
tion de champs magnétiques tournants et de rotations
directes auxquelles, par une série de circonstances
bizarres, il a indirectement donné naissance?
Monsieur Ducretet qui a construit le modèle que nous
présentons m’a appris que Ruhmkorff prétendait
l’avoir inventé, et que l’invention lui était disputée
par l’Abbé Laborde; mais la description insérée dans
Les Mondes N⬚23 ne date que de 1870, à une date
bien postérieure à l’expérience à laquelle j’ai assisté.
Reste la question de la priorité de Faraday que je
réserve.
Ce qui est certain, c’est qu’un disque analogue se
trouve décrit sous le nom de tourniquet de Franklin
à la page 271 du traité de Sigaud de la Fond, mais ce
disque est pourvu d’une bande d’étain qui n’existe
pas dans la machine dont nous parlons. Placé entre
les deux boules d’une machine de Wimshurst ou de
Holtz, le disque de Franklin prend une vitesse très
grande, sans que l’on ait besoin d’employer de
pointes.
Cette expérience oubliée pendant plus d’un siècle, est
évidemment analogue aux deux autres et leur sert de
préface.
The mica disk experiment was also done by Ruhmkorff as
quoted above in the French text and described in 1876 by
Mascart [160]. This experiment was also studied in Jefimen-
ko’s book [161] on electrostatic motors. Below the disk, as
shown in Fig. 10, there are two vertical corona-producing
needles mounted on a hard rubber base. One of the needles is
connected to earth while the other is connected to a long,
stiff, horizontal wire terminating in a sharp point. To set the
disk in rotation, a high voltage terminal is brought into
proximity with the sharp point of the horizontal wire. It is
correct to state that, by a corona discharge, one needle
sprays charges onto the disk while the other one discharges
them to the ground. However, these corona discharges are
perpendicular to the disk; therefore, the rotation cannot be
attributed to the electrostatic forces which are also perpen-
dicular to the disk. In fact, this charging process produces a
small current and a polarization of matter necessary to
induce a stimulated rotation of the mica disk. As discussed
below, the corona effect cannot be the direct cause of any
stimulated motion.
Pagés, who was a physician by education, reproduced
such an experiment with similar results in 1921. He also
quotes an experiment with a capacitor [159] (p. 56) which
shows a 5 g weight decrease for an applied voltage 200 kV.
Taking account Eq. (208), one obtains a force FG ˆ 4.9 ×
10 3 dynes which involves 5.5 × 10 18 electrons in the calcu-
lation of this force. From this date up to 1960, Pagés did
many experiments with disks charged with high voltages
which led him to the theory of the electromagnetic Magnus
effect as described in his book.
In 1923, Biefield, a physicist at the California Institute for
Advanced Studies, discovered that a heavily charged elec-
trical capacitor moved towards its positive pole. He assigned
Brown to study the effect as a research project. Although
Brown carefully conducted experiments for 30 years with
charged bodies in air, oil and in a high vacuum, he was
nevertheless unable to have the results published in the
 P. Cornille / Progress in Energy and Combustion Science 25 (1999) 161–210
Fig. 11. Copper cone charged with a 250 kV high voltage with a
spinning paper cylinder above it.
scientific media of America. The author of this article has
viewed a movie taken in Brown’s laboratory which does
show these effects. We have now to rely on secondary
sources, such as the books by Schaffranke [162], LaViolette
[163], Valone [164], the report made for the Air Force by
Cravens [165] and the patents taken by Brown to get a
partial report of his experimental achievements.
The results have usually been discounted because they
were attributed to ion wind [166] and corona discharge.
The criticisms formulated concerning the results of these
experiments can be easily refuted because the ion wind
effect is too small as we shall show later. Moreover,
Brown performed experiments in a high vacuum and
observed that the effect remained, as explained in
LaViolette’s book [163]:
The earlier misconception that Brown’s discs were
powered by an ion wind was finally cleared up toward
the end of 1955. During laboratory experiments
conducted in Paris under the auspices of a French
aeronautics corporation, Brown was able to observe
how his devices performed under vacuum conditions.
He attached two aluminum plate gravitors to each end
of a rotor arm so that their combined thrust would
rotate the assembly somewhat like a fireworks
pinwheel. He placed this device inside a vacuum
chamber and brought the air pressure down to less
than one billionth of an atmosphere. This dropped the
ion wind contribution to a negligibly small value.
But, rather than slowing down, as skeptics had
expected, his rotor sped up. His gravitor apparently
operated far more efficiently in a vacuum. In fact,
when he increased the voltage to 200 kV, the rotor’s
197
speed began to increase unchecked, reaching such a
high rate of rotation that they had to reduce the
voltage to keep the rotor from flying apart.
In fact, we will show that the stimulated force is propor-
tional to the current flowing through the conductor. There-
fore, the effect of the corona discharge in air is just to
produce the necessary current inside the conducting metal
to show the effect; one can use instead a capacitor with a
dielectric with a high leakage current. Moreover, the
rotation also can produce a lag effect between the motion
of the ions and the electrons. There is one more fact
involved in these experiments, namely only a non-uniform
electric field can produce a current. But, non-uniform
electric fields can also set uncharged bodies in motion, a
fact which has been recognized only in 1960 by Pohl
[167]. One has also to take into account electrostatic forces
produced by the environment. Brown made specific experi-
ments in order to eliminate any electrostatic effect, which
confirmed the existence of the force. The maximum effect
was observed in 1928 for a body weighing approximately
10 kg charged at 150 kV which results in a 10 5 dynes thrust.
Several experiments over many years were done by Brown
at different laboratories throughout the world with the
following findings:
a charged body is found to be acted on equally well in
every direction;
the acceleration effect exhibits a forward thrust towards
the positive pole of the charged body, as demonstrated
above;
the effect seems to be more pronounced when the
symmetry axis of the affecting body and the charge
distribution coincide;
the higher the voltage, the greater was the force observed.
Brown claimed that the force can rise exponentially with
increasing voltage.
One of Brown’s experiment described in his US patent
5 949 550 has been successfully duplicated recently by
Deavenport [168].
A similar effect has recently been reported by Deyo [169],
who used a standard, classroom-style Van de Graff gener-
ator to produce the high voltage, which is about 250 kV, on
the top of the copper cone of the high tension terminal; see
Fig. 11. The surface of the copper cone had been coated to
reduce any premature coronal discharging before the
charges crowded to the focal point where the small ball is
placed. A coronal discharge composed of a thin, blue, flame
about 2.5 cm in height with an inverted funnel of lavender
haze above the flame. A vigorous buzzing sound was
emanating from the coronal discharge. A small paper cylin-
der about 5 cm high and 6 mm in diameter is released above
the cone, then let us quote Deyo:
For a split second it just floated above the cone [Fig.
11] and then it accelerated into a spin of about
198 P. Cornille / Progress in Energy and Combustion Science 25 (1999) 161–210
400 rpm about its vertical axis! After it had reached
its top speed, it began a secondary oscillation about
its centre of mass. The loci of the gyrating cylinder
formed a surface similar to an hourglass. In the
darkened room, the ends of the cylinder were giving
off a lavender glow which sprayed behind the issuing
edge.
We must point out that the coronal wind cannot produce
by itself the two stimulated rotations observed here. As we
will show hereafter with the examination of the Trouton–
Noble experiment, the stimulated rotations result from the
violation of Newton’s third law for rotation. Therefore, the
coronal wind is necessary only to polarize the neutral matter
of the cylinder in order to produce the rotation effect.
Saxl, a post-doctoral student with Einstein, made thou-
sands of careful observations and records for more than
10 years with electrically charged torque pendulums. Saxl
[170] shows that the voltage versus the pendulum period
follows a square law, as expected from the above theory.
Unusual variations of the pendulum period were noted parti-
cularly during solar and lunar eclipses [171]. A retrospective
discussion concerning the experimental results of Saxl can
be found in the review by Maccabee [172]. We can also
quote the pendulum experiments by Allais, the French
Nobel Prize winner in Economics, who is a physicist by
education. A complete report concerning the research
work by Allais can now be found in his recently published
book [116].
All the authors quoted above explain their experimental
results by invoking some physical phenomenon which
cancels or modifies the gravitation field. The idea that the
gravitational and electromagnetic fields might be induc-
tively coupled is not new, since it was first proposed by
Faraday. The reader interested by the subject can consult
the experimental work of Woodward [173, 174]. However,
we refute their interpretations concerning the existence of
such an effect. On the contrary, the existence of external
forces due to the violation of Newton’s third law shows
that classical electromagnetic forces can partially counter-
balance the existing gravitational force.
Ball lightning is another phenomena which has a connec-
tion with the subject of stimulated forces. Several eye-
witness reports refer to the direct developments of long-
lived fireballs in air. Ball lightning has been the subject of
investigations in science since the early nineteenth century
[175]. The nature and origins of ball lightning remain a
subject of controversy [175–178]. Ball lightning is consid-
ered as a spherical standing wave of electromagnetic radia-
tions trapped in a plasma shell [176]. Recently, Ohtsuki and
Ofuruton [178] reported the production of plasma fireballs
in a natural atmosphere by microwave interference. Ball
lightning is an interesting phenomena for two reasons: the
relatively long lifetime poses a major problem for any
theory dealing with the existence of a stable soliton object
and their stimulated motion cannot be easily explained.
Although several witnesses report that fireballs move in
an apparently capricious manner, certain general features
have been observed. Fireballs created in the upper
atmosphere have relatively high velocities and travel
towards the Earth’s surface in a near vertical direction,
whereas fireballs which occur close to the Earth’s surface
tend to have low velocities. The question of whether the
motion of fireballs is guided by local air motion is still a
controversial subject. However, there are some reports that
fireballs did not follow the wind direction and took an inde-
pendent path. This independence is a problem for several
theoretical models where the fireballs are supposed to be
guided by external fields. The independence of motion is
not a problem if we consider that fireballs are self-propelled
by stimulated forces which result from the violation of
Newton’s third law inside the plasma.
In 1980, Graham and Lahoz [75] made the first direct
observation of quasi-static electromagnetic angular momen-
tum in vacuum. The experiment consists of the measure-
ment of the axial torque on a cylindrical capacitor located
in an axial magnetic field. Thus the Poynting vector Gij ˆ
c…Ei ∧ Bj †=4p is azimuthal inside the vacuum gap of the
capacitor. They observed a stimulated torque which is in
good agreement with the calculation done with Maxwell’s
equations. However, if we take into account both the elec-
trons and the ions particles, this experiment can be inter-
preted as a consequence of the violation of Newton’s third
law for rotation.
Finally, we can quote plasma experiments with theta
pinches [179] which prove that a cylindrically symmetric
plasma column, globally but not necessarily locally charge
neutral, without external currents and subject to a radial
magnetic compression starts to rotate ‘‘spontaneously’’. In
two papers, Witalis [180, 181] explains the origin of this
stimulated rotation as the consequence of the violation of
Newton’s third law about central force interaction, which is
the same effect that we have considered for the case of
rectilinear motion.
All the different experiments reported by many physicists
throughout the world do show that one can detect our motion
through the ether by internal experiments, contrary to the
claims of special relativity theory. Today, there are so many
experiments proving this fact, more than 10 experiments are
quoted in this paper, that negating them is an attitude which
belongs more to religious faith than to science.
12.3. Calculation of the stimulated force for a charged
capacitor
The violation of Newton’s third law by the Lorentz forces
implies that a charged capacitor must accelerate its center of
mass or rotate without external help if the capacitor has an
absolute motion with respect to the ether. Moreover, the
existence of an external force must also result in the viol-
ation of energy conservation. An experiment showing the
linear stimulated motion of the capacitor through the ether
 P. Cornille / Progress in Energy and Combustion Science 25 (1999) 161–210
Fig. 12. Various forces acting on a double solid pendulum (n ˆ 2).
has been reported elsewhere [34, 182, 183]. The experiment,
as shown in Fig. 12, consists of two heavy metallic balls
suspended by fine cotton wires to the ceiling of the labora-
tory. In order to keep the balls at a fixed distance D, an
insulating rod is used between the balls. Therefore, the bi-
filar pendulum with the two balls make a capacitor that
moves as a solid with the Earth’s velocity U ˆ Ui where
Ui is also the ionic velocity defined with respect to the ether
frame. We know that an electric current circulating through
a metal consists in the motion of free electrons contained in
the body of the metal. If the capacitor moves through the
ether, the free electrons will be accelerated differently,
lagging behind with a relative drift velocity V ˆ Ui ⫺ Ue.
This effect has been shown to exist in the Earth’s frame by
Tolmann and Stewart [184] and Barnett [185] and must also
exist in the ether frame since V is the same quantity in any
frame. At all times, there is an electron drift motion in each
plate trying to follow the motion of the ions in the two
plates. Therefore, the stimulated force will exist if there is
always a drift velocity between the electrons and the ions.
This drift velocity can be increased if the capacitor is not
perfect; in that case, there is a leakage current which will
enhance the magnitude of the stimulated force since the
velocity V depends on the current (J ˆ r V).
In a first step, let us assume that only the presence of
electrons and ions on the surface of the balls and the wires
affect the calculation; this implies that all the internal forces
cancel one another. In that case, the stimulated force is then
proportional to the square of the applied voltage V0 by virtue
of the formula Q ˆ CV0, where C is the capacity of the
capacitor; therefore, we get
U·V D
FG ⬇ 2Q2 …208†
c2 D3
where D can be taken as the distance between the center of
the two balls. If d ˆ 6.7 cm is the diameter of a ball, the
capacitance can be calculated from the formula C ˆ d(1 ⫺
d 2/4D 2)/(4 ⫺ 2d/D), knowing that D ⬇ 2d, we get C ⬇ 15d/
48 ˆ 2.09 cm or 2.33 pF. The capacitance of the bi-filar line
which brings the voltage to the balls is given by the formula
C ˆ (L × 10 ⫺9/36) log(2D/d) F, where d ˆ 0.05 cm is the
diameter of the wires and D ˆ 14 cm is the distance between
199
the two wires. Therefore, we get C ˆ 8.8 pF for a line of
length L ˆ 2 m. The relative drift velocity of the free elec-
trons circulating in the wires and the balls is small, about V ˆ
10 ⫺1 cm s ⫺1. Knowing that U/c ⬇ 10 ⫺3 and V0 ˆ (5/3) ×
10 2 statvolt or 50 kV, we get a small force FG ⬇ 1 ×
10 ⫺10 cos u dynes for Ne ⬇ 3.5 × 10 12 surface electrons.
Eq. (208) gives the minimum force one can expect from a
calculation that neglects volume forces. The value of the
stimulated force will be greatly enhanced if the charges
inside the balls participate in the calculation of this force
and if the total resulting force does not cancel. The number
of conducting electrons in a body of mass M is given by the
formula Ne ˆ neM/(mpA), where ne is the number of free
electrons per atom. Therefore, we realize the importance
of the quantity Q ˆ Neq since the stimulated force is roughly
proportional either to Q 2 or to Ne2 q2 . This effect has been
tested in the experiment described below.
In the Coulomb gauge, the direction of the stimulated
force and the resultant motion thereby produced are toward
the positive electrode of the capacitor, as shown by the
experiment described hereafter. Eq. (208) shows that it is
the magnitude and not the direction of the stimulated force
that will vary with the direction of the Earth’s absolute
motion through the ether. To show this effect, one must
register the amplitude of this force over months, which is
not possible at the present time. However, we tested the
direction effect by switching the poles of the generator in
the experiment. We verify that the direction of the stimu-
lated force has indeed changed 180⬚ since the stimulated
force depends on the direction of the current given by V
in Eq. (208).
12.4. Cornille’s pendulum experiments
Fig. 12 shows a pendulum of mass nM where M ˆ 500 g
is the mass of one ball, n the number of balls and L is the
length of the string which makes an angle u with the
vertical. The forces acting on the system are the gravita-
tional force nMg, the tension T in the string and the
stimulated force FG. The horizontal component of the
tension force is balanced by the stimulated force FG when
the stationary state is reached; therefore, we have
FG ˆ nMgtgu ⬇ nMgx=L, where x ⬇ Ltgu is the displace-
ment of the ball.
The bi-filar pendulum was placed in the middle of the
laboratory room empty of any metallic object. We used
high quality power supplies which were grounded and lay
on a table which was parallel to the axis of symmetry of the
capacitor. The distances between the laboratory walls and
the balls or the wires were about h ˆ 2.25 m. The wall
surface was about 1.3 × 10 5 cm 2; therefore, the induced
force [80] (p. 122) between one ball and the insulating
wall of the laboratory room is less than F ˆ QE/2 ˆ
2pQ 2/S ⬇ 5.7 dynes which is 10 2 smaller than the force F ˆ
CV02 =2h ˆ 6:2 × 102 dynes between one wire and the wall,
200 P. Cornille / Progress in Energy and Combustion Science 25 (1999) 161–210
⫺9
knowing that C ˆ (L × 10 /18) log(4h/d) F is the capacity
of the wire with respect to the wall.
First question: is the stimulated force produced by the
electrostatic forces resulting from the induced charges in
the surroundings?
Four tests were done to reject the hypothesis that the force
is induced by the surroundings.
First test: we switch the polarity of the power supplies and
observe that the direction of the force has also changed 180⬚
with no observable effect on the magnitude of the stimulated
force. We recall that the direction of the force must not
change if the stimulated force is produced by asymmetries
of the electrostatic forces. From the above calculation, any
perturbation of the symmetry of the laboratory geometry
will induce a force which will be smaller than 6.2 ×
10 2 dynes.
Second test: we put a wooden plate of about 5 mm near
the negative ball. When the voltage is increased, one can see
the pendulum attracted by the induced charges in the
wooden plate, at about 30 kV; when we increase the voltage
above this value, then the stimulated force takes over and
one can see the pendulum moving away from the wood plate
in the opposite direction.
Third test: the induced forces in the surrounding environ-
ment are tested by replacing the bare wires by coated wires.
In this case, the leakage current drops to 0.003 mA and no
translation motion of the pendulum, even with oscillating
the DC voltage, was observed in spite of the fact that the
electrostatic forces are rigorously the same in both cases.
We recall that the leakage current I ˆ 1.5 mA is mainly due
to the thin bare wires, d ˆ 0.5 mm, which induce the ioniza-
tion of the air surrounding the wires and to the balls and that
the stimulated force is proportional to the current I ˆ
Nq兩V兩S, where S is the cross-sectional surface of the metallic
conductors: no current, no stimulated force!
Fourth test: when the ionization current is present, we
oscillate the DC voltage and obtain a huge increase of the
kinetic energy of the pendulum, which proves that we are
using an external force to produce work. We recall that an
internal force can be distinguished from an external force by
oscillating the potential function, since for an internal force
the oscillating kinetic energy does not increase with respect
to time (think of the case of the harmonic oscillator),
whereas for an external force the kinetic energy does
increase (think of the case of a swing pushed by an external
observer).
We can conclude that no induced forces in the surround-
ing environment can explain the existence of the huge
stimulated force. As soon as the voltage is increased and a
current is flowing through the capacitors, one can see a
thrust of the two balls in the direction of the positive ball.
Second question: is the stimulated force produced by
electrical wind or corona discharge?
We must point out again that the stimulated force does not
exist if there is no current circulating inside the conductors,
as proved by Eq. (208). Let us recall that a current flows
inside a conductor if there is a permanent non-uniform elec-
trical field (at least inside the generator) inside the conduc-
tor. There are several ways to produce this non-uniform
field; for example, it can be produced by the presence of
thin wires near to the balls, as explained in paragraph 6-11
high-voltage breakdown in the Feynman lecture book; see
also the very important and not well-known paper by Pohl
[167].
The current can also be produced by ionization of the air
or by the leakage current in a dielectric. In the experiment
described in the report by Talley [186], the pendulum was in
vacuum, no effect was observed because there was no
current involved in the experiment except in one experiment
where a dielectric was placed between the two electrodes. In
that case, the observed effect can be explained by the leak-
age current in the dielectric. I think that this positive result
justifies our viewpoint that a current is needed in order to
produce a stimulated force through the violation of
Newton’s third law. One can also criticize the experiment
by noting that the voltage of 19 kV is too small to show the
effect. Brown used voltages up to 150 kV and obtained huge
forces; see the book by LaViolette [163].
There are several possible mechanisms to explain the
motion of the pendulum by an electrical wind effect.
The first is that the observed thrust can result from the
ejection of charged particles by the wires due to the corona
effect and ionization in the air surrounding the wires. But the
corona discharges around each thin cylindrical wire must
have the same cylindrical symmetry and, therefore, the reac-
tion forces must cancel to zero on the average.
The second is that electrons are attracted by the positive
ball and the positive ions by the negative ball; due to the
difference of mass of the two species of particles, the motion
should be in the direction of the negative ball and cannot
explain the thrust in the positive direction.
The third is that both negative and positive ions are
attracted by the balls of opposite polarity. The transfer of
momentum in the positive direction can be explained by a
collision process and is due to the difference of mass
between the two kinds of ion. Let us assume that the stimu-
lated motion is due to a direct collision of both positive and
negative ions with the metallic conductors. Then the transfer
of momentum must be attributed to the difference of masses
between the two kinds of ion, namely the masses of the
emitted electrons. In Moore’s book [187] (p. 84), it is stated
that 6 × 10 12 electrons s ⫺1 leave the negative electrode for a
corona amounting to 10 ⫺6 A. For a 1.5 mA leakage current,
we obtain 9 × 10 15 electrons s ⫺1, which amounts to a mass
transfer 8 × 10 ⫺12 g s ⫺1 which is several orders smaller than
the 3.5 g stimulated force observed. Therefore, the calculation
taking into account the mass of the electrons shows that this
transfer is quite small in comparison with the stimulated force.
We also recall that the stimulated rotation in the exper-
iment of Graham and Lahoz [75] is obtained in vacuum
without any possible ionization effect. Moreover, as
shown in Fig. 14, the stimulated force is roughly
 P. Cornille / Progress in Energy and Combustion Science 25 (1999) 161–210
Fig. 13. Force versus voltage.
proportional to the mass; this fact cannot be explained by an
ionization effect, since both the voltage and the leakage
current are the same for different values of the mass. There-
fore, the thrust observed cannot be caused by ambient ion
momentum transfer when the experiment is conducted in the
air. Moreover, Deyo’s experiments [169] at low voltage and
high current show the same stimulated force with no poss-
ible ionization effect. It is interesting to point out that in the
high voltage experiment we use 75 W of power whereas in
the low voltage experiment we use almost the same power,
i.e. 50 W.
Third question: is the stimulated force produced by the
Earth’s magnetic field?
Owing to the leakage current, the capacitor (wires ⫹
balls) can be considered as a linear conductor of length
L ˆ 2 m located in the Earth’s magnetic field. In that
case, there is a force applied to the conductor given by the
relation F ˆ IL ∧ B=c. Knowing that the Earth’s magnetic
field is about B ˆ 0.5 G, the magnitude of this force is 1.5 ×
10 ⫺2 dynes. Therefore, the thrust observed cannot result
from the Earth’s magnetic field since the Laplace force
due to the leakage current is smaller than the stimulated
force by several orders of magnitude and, moreover, is not
applied in the right direction.
To measure the displacement x of the pendulum when it
reaches the stationary position, we used two wooden plates
placed near each ball at the same distance, which was
measured before the balls were charged. This distance is
measured when the positive ball almost touches the positive
wooden plate. We also used the wooden plates to test the
space-charge effects in the surrounding environment, since
these effects are greater than the corresponding effects
induced by the laboratory walls. We know that an insulating
plate always exerts less influence than a conducting plate.
Knowing the charge Q ⬇ 3.48 × 10 2 statcoulomb, we can
estimate that the force exerted by the wooden plate on a ball
will be less than F ˆ QE/2 ˆ 2pQ 2/S ⬇ 3 × 10 2 dynes,
201
Fig. 14. Force versus mass.
where S ⬇ L 2 ˆ 2.5 × 10 3 cm 2 is the surface of the wooden
plate. The magnitude of this force must be compared with
the magnitude of the stimulated force, which is about 3.5 ×
10 3 dynes for two balls charged at 50 kV. To test the fact
that the force exerted by a wooden plate on a ball is smaller
than the stimulated force, we put only one wooden plate near
to the negative ball. When the voltage is increased, one can
see the pendulum attracted by the wooden plate; at about
30 kV, when the stimulated force takes over, one can see the
pendulum moving away from the wooden plate in the direc-
tion of the positive ball. However, when we used two
wooden plates, the forces of attraction on the two balls
cancel one another since the insulating plates attract the
balls in opposite directions. Therefore, the induced force
due to a lack of symmetry in the wooden plates is quite
small.
The distances x measured for two balls weighing M ˆ
500 g are respectively 3 mm, 5 mm, 8 mm for the applied
voltages 30 kV, 40 kV, 50 kV and 8 mm, 5 mm, 5 mm for n
balls 2, 4, 6 charged with a potential of 50 kV. These
distances are used to plot the magnitude of the stimulated
force as a function of the voltage in Fig. 13 and of the mass
in Fig. 14. The accuracy of the measurements is roughly
^1 mm; however, we think that the increase of the
stimulated force versus the mass must be confirmed by
more accurate measurements. The experiment is perfectly
reproducible and we did it several times for many physicists
who witnessed this experiment. Owing to the V02 depen-
dence of Eq. (208), the stimulated force is too small to be
measured with a good accuracy below 30 kV. However, the
accuracy with two different kinds of measurement is suffi-
cient to prove the existence of the effect, which is, of course,
the main point of this experiment. The results are reliable,
since we can increase the effect to 5 cm by oscillating the
high voltage. In that case, no measurement is indeed neces-
sary to prove the existence of this effect. We also used
another method to measure the displacement of the balls
202 P. Cornille / Progress in Energy and Combustion Science 25 (1999) 161–210

which consisted of placing a wooden measuring rod parallel of the power supply wires connecting the hand-piece to the
to the pendulum and taking a video movie of the experiment transformer. This phenomena can be explained either by
when the voltage was switched on and off. By measuring the using the Ampère force, in which case another part of the
amplitude of the oscillation one can determine the displace- equipment must also move in the opposite direction to
ment. We did check that the displacement measured with the counterbalance the momentum of the wires, or by the
wooden plates was almost the same as the displacement generation of a stimulated force applied to the center of
obtained when using the video recorder without the wooden mass of the equipment.
plates. Deyo duplicated this phenomena by hanging a loop of
In classical circuit theory, the generator, the wires and the 0.08 mm diameter wire across the laboratory room, each
capacitor form a closed system where the conservation law end of a portion of the wire was fixed to the walls. A car
of energy for internal forces applies. Therefore, the energy battery was used to supply the high-current to the test wire.
ES of the generator is converted into energy stored EP in the When the power was applied to this experimental setting,
charged capacitor and into heat ER dissipated during the the portion of the wire which drooped between the two
charging process; it follows the conservation law anchor posts deflected toward one wall for a given polarity
ES ˆ EP ⫹ ER and toward the other wall when the polarity of the battery
was reversed. In both cases, as the circuit was closed the
with
wire deflection was momentarily exaggerated before
Z∞
EP ˆ 1
CV02 ˆ ER ˆ RI 2 …t† dt …209† coming to rest slightly off its unenergized position.
2
0 Deyo also tested the interaction of the Earth’s magnetic
field with the magnetic field of the wire by hanging four
If the capacitor is not perfect, there is a leaking current
loops from the ceiling, each loop facing a cardinal direction
and a corresponding dissipated energy which is provided by
of the compass. Whenever, he applied power to the system,
the generator. However, the above law will be violated when
the loops would all deflect equally either toward or away
there is a stimulated force FG since we have now
from the center of the loop arrangement, as shown in the Fig.
d 1 15. We know that two extended parallel conductors in close
… nMU 2 † ˆ U·FT …210†
dt 2 proximity mutually repel one another when carrying current
where FT is the sum of the gravitational force nMg, the in opposite directions. Although the portions of the wire
tension T in the string and the stimulated force FG, knowing which face one another are not in close proximity, the
that U is the velocity of the pendulum in the Earth’s refer- outside deflections can be easily explained by the action
ence frame. When the generator is switched off, a kinetic of the mutual repulsive Ampère forces. However, the inside
energy EK ˆ nMU 2/2 ˆ nMLg(1 ⫺ cos u ) ⬇ nMgx 2/2L is
recovered. This energy cannot be given by the generator but
is taken from the ether. For two balls charged at 50 kV, the
kinetic energy of the pendulum is EK ˆ Mgx 2/L ⬇ 1.4 ×
10 3 ergs, whereas the electrostatic potential energy is
EP ˆ CV02 =2 ⬇ 1:4 × 105 ergs. The kinetic energy due to
the stimulated force is not a small quantity and cannot be
taken from the generator since in classical circuit theory no
motion of the capacitor is taken into account during the
charging process. We also applied the high voltage in an
oscillatory manner in synchronism with the oscillatory
motion of the pendulum. It results in an amplification of
the displacement of the pendulum which reaches a magni-
tude of ^ 5 cm. This implies the existence of the stimulated
force and an increase of the kinetic energy almost 25 times
the above kinetic energy. We also measured the existence of
the stationary state where the stimulated force is present for
more than 6 min; during this time both the voltage and the
leakage current are constant.

12.5. The Deyo and Rambaut experiments

Deyo points out in his book [169] (p. 171) that when an
arc has been struck between a welding machine, typically
using 20–100 A of direct-current electricity at 20–60 V and
the aluminum stock, one notices the sudden jerking motion Fig. 15. Top view above the ceiling of hanging loops.
 P. Cornille / Progress in Energy and Combustion Science 25 (1999) 161–210
deflections corresponding to a change of the polarity of the
battery contradict this interpretation since the currents are
always circulating in opposite directions for the portions of
the wire facing one another, whatever the polarity of the
battery.
Finally, Deyo repeated the first experiment with this time
a portion of the wire tightly stretched between the anchor
posts. Along the length of the portion of the wire were glued
small strips of paper. All of them were in an upright position
along the wire. When the power was applied to this config-
uration, the pieces of paper were seen to twist about the
length of the wire and then to return to their upright, rest
position after power was removed.
Deyo’s experiments confirm the findings of the pendulum
experiments described above. The bare wires in the pendu-
lum experiments are fixed on the nylon wires supporting the
two metallic balls. When we loosened the copper wires from
the nylon wires, we can see an interesting phenomenon,
namely the oscillation of both wires bringing the high
voltage to the balls. This oscillation can be explained as
follows: the attractive electrostatic forces between the two
wires bring them closer to each other and, therefore,
increase the ionization current to a value where the repulsive
magnetostatic forces take over. It then follows that the two
wires move in the opposite direction from one another until
the ionization current decreases to such a value that the
electrostatic forces take over again and the whole cycle
repeats. However, one can see that the oscillations of the
two wires are not symmetric, since the magnitude of the
oscillation of the positive wire is far greater and is subject
to a torque which was so violent at one time that the wire
loosened itself from the ceiling.
Rambaut, a retired scientist from the French Atomic
Energy Commission, published several papers on the
Ampère force [188–190] and the cold fusion problem
[191–196]. He participated in the pendulum experiments
described above. After witnessing the translation motion
of the electrostatic bi-filar pendulum, not knowing of
Deyo’s experiments, Rambaut duplicated these experiments
in a different manner since he used a one-ball pendulum
connected to a low-voltage generator (12 V) with a high
current (4 A) crossing the metallic ball. The experiment is
so simple that any reader can repeat it in his garage and
convince himself of the veracity of our assertion concerning
the existence of the stimulated force. It suffices to connect a
car battery with wires to the metallic ball. One must use very
thin wires in order to provide the necessary resistance to
avoid short-circuiting the battery. Moreover, the fineness
and the flexibility of the wires which must be hung from
the ceiling prevent any mechanical coupling through a heat-
ing process between the wires and the ball (m ˆ 0.5 kg). As
soon as the current is turned on, one can see, if the experi-
ment is properly done, a rotation and a small translation of
the ball. These effects certainly do not result from any wind
effect or induction effects. To increase the translation effect,
one can oscillate the DC voltage in phase with the
203
oscillatory motion of the pendulum. The fact that the ampli-
tude of the oscillatory motion increases is proof that the
stimulated force is an external force whose work increases
the kinetic energy of the pendulum, as anybody who has
played with a swing in his youth knows very well.
12.6. Review of the Trouton–Noble experiment
The Trouton–Noble [197] experiment is generally
regarded as the electrostatic equivalent of the Michelson–
Morley optical experiment: it looks for an effect predicted to
be caused by the absolute motion of the Earth through the
ether. This experiment has recently been reviewed in a
Ph.D. thesis by Janssen [198]. The Trouton–Noble exper-
iment was performed with a parallel plate capacitor, but it is
generally described in textbooks with the much simpler
configuration of two charges Q1 and Q2 fixed to the ends
of a stick of length R. The stick is free to pivot about its
center of mass, which is presumed to be moving with respect
to the ether with a constant velocity U. The Lorentz forces
between the charges are given by the relation
 
1 1
F12 ˆ Q1 Q2 R ⫹ 2 U ∧ …U ∧ R† ˆ ⫺F21 …211†
c R3
which can be rewritten in the form
" ! #
U2 1 1
F12 ˆ Q1 Q2 1 ⫺ 2 R ⫹ 2 …U·R†U …212†
c c R3
The force is not along the direction of the vector R;
consequently, there is an electromagnetic torque which
tends to orient the stick perpendicular to the velocity if the
charges have opposite sign. Therefore, if a parallel plate
capacitor is suspended by means of a fine torsion fiber and
charged, an electromagnetic torque is expected due to
magnetic forces since the capacitor is moving through the
ether. Specifically, the torque G should be G ˆ (Q 2U 2/
2c 2D) sin(2u ) sin 2 w , where Q is the charge of the capacitor,
D the distance between the capacitor plates, U the velocity
of the capacitor carried along by the Earth in its motion
around the Sun, u the angle between the velocity vector
and the normal to the capacitor plates and w the angle
between the velocity vector and the fiber. The original
Trouton–Noble experiment looked for the effect due to the
orbital velocity U ˆ 3 × 10 6 cm s ⫺1 of the Earth about the
Sun. It found a null result. However, Chase [199] identified
experimental problems making the original Trouton–Noble
null result inconclusive. Chase repeated the experiment
without the identified sources of error and found the same
null result. More recently, Hayden [200] designed an exper-
iment which is 10 5 times more sensitive than the original
Trouton–Noble experiment, and that also yielded a null
result.
As pointed out by Page and Adams [201] and more
recently by Singal [202], there is a fallacy in the usual
reasoning about the Trouton–Noble experiment. It is
wrong to neglect the torque caused by the forces exerted by
204 P. Cornille / Progress in Energy and Combustion Science 25 (1999) 161–210
Fig. 16. Torque on a charged capacitor in motion.
the insulating separators necessary to keep the plates from
approaching each other under their mutual electric attraction.
Therefore, the torque must not be obtained by calculating the
interaction between the charges of the plates which face one
another, but instead by calculating the interaction between
the charges of the plates symmetric with respect to the axis of
symmetry of the capacitor, as shown in Fig. 16. For a
symmetric and homogeneous distribution of charges on the
plates, the total torque will be zero at low voltage. Thus the
capacitor is in equilibrium under both the electromagnetic
and the mechanical forces of constraint exerted by the rods
for all orientations of the capacitor in all reference frames
without the need to invoke the relativity principle. Since the
torque is proportional to the square of the voltage we must
increase the applied voltage to show the effect.
Hayden [203] recently offered an analysis of the Trou-
ton–Noble experiment in which he concluded that it is not
competent to decide about the existence of the luminiferous
ether. But I will argue here that the Trouton–Noble effect
can indeed be observed, under the proper conditions. As
discussed in recent papers [34, 57, 182, 183, 204], any
stimulated motion, either rectilinear or circular, of a charged
capacitor located in the Earth’s reference frame is a conse-
quence of the violation of Newton’s third law. We show
previously that the effect is small if the charges on the
surfaces of the plates are the only charges which participate
in the effect. However, the charges inside the plates can give
a more important contribution to the predicted effect
provided one uses a voltage higher than 40 kV. Therefore,
the Trouton–Noble experiment previously failed because
the voltages of 2 or 0.6 kV used in the experiments were
too small to show any stimulated rotation effect in the case
of a small homogeneous distribution of charges on the
plates. However, we would like to report that the stimulated
rotation of a parallel plate capacitor [204] has been observed
and reproduced recently. The parallel plate capacitor of
about 505 pF was obtained by sticking two thin aluminum
foils 150 × 190 mm 2 on an insulating Plexiglas plate (1 r ˆ
4) with a thickness of 2 mm and suspended by a thin wire to
the ceiling of the laboratory. The wires bringing the voltage
were coated; therefore, the leakage current was below
0.003 mA. The plan of the capacitor was initially oriented
in the north–south direction; as soon as the voltage was
increased to about 70 kV using a Wimshurst machine, one
could see the torque effect bringing the plates of the
capacitor to the east–west direction where they rested in
an equilibrium position. On the contrary, nothing happened
when the capacitor plates were initially parallel to the east–
west direction parallel to the Earth’s rotational velocity.
Therefore, we did observe the expected motion or rest of
the capacitor as a function of its initial position with respect to
the north–south and east–west directions. The experiment is
easy to do and suffers no ambiguity concerning its interpreta-
tion. This positive result alone justifies our interpretation
concerning the violation of Newton’s third law and proves
that the special relativity theory cannot be correct.
A recent study by Szames [205] sheds new light on the
historical aspects of the Trouton–Noble experiment. This
author reviewed the original papers of Trouton and Noble
and their subsequent, inadequate analysis by physicists.
Szames demonstrated that Trouton and Noble observed
the long-sought effect but amazingly reported a negative
result. Additionally, he showed how physicists quoted
these ‘‘null’’ results in the literature, without ever consult-
ing the original papers. Among others, the Trouton–Noble
experiment was replicated in the 1920s by Tomashek and
gave a null result. This experiment is often quoted to
confirm the Trouton–Noble fiasco. However, Tomashek’s
replication was experimentally disproved by Kennard, see
Ref. [205]. In the early 1920s, positive results of Trouton–
Noble-like experiments were achieved by Thomas Town-
send Brown and his professor, Dr. Paul A. Biefeld, giving
birth to the Biefeld–Brown effect. The connection between
the two experiments was not established at that time. The
full details of this story and some of its possible applications
have been explored in depth by Szames.
13. Conclusion
By taking into account Newton’s third law, we have
shown at the beginning of this paper that Newtonian
mechanics is not equivalent to Galilean mechanics. The
non-existence of Newton’s third law in both Galilean and
special relativity mechanics necessarily leads to the false
concepts of covariance and inertial frames. Moreover, we
demonstrated that the negation of Newton’s third law and
the existence of the ether in special relativity theory contra-
dicts one another. Most physicists believe erroneously that
the luminiferous ether of the nineteenth century has been
ruled out by the Michelson–Morley experiment and by the
development of the theory of special relativity. As pointed
out in Ref. [110], there is a flaw in the Michelson experiment
which can explain the negative result. Moreover, the posi-
tive result of the Michelson–Gale experiment has later
proved the existence of the ether. All the experiments
reviewed in this paper and the experiments done with
 P. Cornille / Progress in Energy and Combustion Science 25 (1999) 161–210 205

conductors supplied with direct, high-voltage, low-current However, the proof based on the Fourier transform of the
or high-current, low-voltage prove the existence of stimu- integral
lated forces which are external forces violating Newton’s Z Z 1
J…r†·J…r 0 † dr3 dr 0
3
third law. The experimental evidence concerning these Iˆ …A3†
R
forces can no longer seriously be denied and should lead
to important technical applications in the near future. A is the most interesting one as we will see hereafter. In the
growing minority of physicists working today on the preceding integral, we have written J…r† ˆ aJ 1 …r† ⫹ bJ 2 …r†.
foundations of special relativity seem now to be ether We can also make the similar study for the quantity
oriented. A new physics of the ether is emerging that in r…r† ˆ ar1 …r† ⫹ br2 …r†. The three quantities inside the
our opinion will explain better the constitution of matter above integral admit the following inverse transforms:
and radiation. In this paper, we have shown that Newton’s Z⫹ ∞ Z⫹ ∞ Z⫹ ∞ e⫺jK·R
1 2
third law is the key for a better understanding of physics. ˆ dK 3
Moreover, the experimental proofs of violation of Newton’s R …2p† 2
⫺∞ ⫺∞ ⫺∞ K2
third law reviewed in this paper prove the existence of the 1 Z⫹ ∞ Z⫹ ∞ Z⫹ ∞
luminiferous ether. A serious revision of our understanding J…r† ˆ e⫺jk·r J…k† dk3 …A4†
…2p†3
⫺∞ ⫺∞ ⫺∞
of the physical laws which govern the universe seems now
unavoidable. 1 Z⫹ ∞ Z⫹ ∞ Z⫹ ∞ ⫺jk 0 ·r 0
J…r 0 † ˆ J…k 0 † dk 0
3
e
…2p†3 ⫺ ∞ ⫺ ∞ ⫺ ∞
Appendix
Inserting these relations into the integral in Eq. (A3), we
The inductance Lij and the capacitance Cij of a system of find that
conductors where currents Ii, Ij and voltages Vi, Vj have been 2 Z Z Z 1
defined can be calculated from the equations of energy: Iˆ J…k†·J…k 0 † d…K ⫹ k†
…2p†8 K2
1 Z Z 1
J …r†·J j …r 0 † dr3 dr 0
3
2 Lij Ii Ij ˆ
1
 d…K ⫺ k 0 † dk3 dk 0 dK 3
3
2c2 R i …A5†
…A1†
1 Z Z 1 0 03 Then it follows that
2 Cij Vi Vj ˆ 2
1
r …r†rj …r † dr dr3
R i 2 Z⫹ ∞ Z⫹ ∞ Z⫹ ∞ 1
knowing that R ˆ 兩R ˆ r ⫺ r’兩. Iˆ J…⫺K†·J…K† dK 3 …A6†
…2p†2 ⫺ ∞ ⫺ ∞ ⫺ ∞ K 2
The coefficients Lij and Cij defined above have the follow-
ing properties: Since the function J(r) is a real quantity, we have
J…⫺K† ˆ J ⴱ …K† and therefore Eq. (A6) becomes
Reciprocity Lij ˆ Cji Cij ˆ Cji
2 Z⫹ ∞ Z⫹ ∞ Z⫹ ∞ 1
Proper inductances and capacitances Lii ⬎ 0 Cii ⬎ 0 Iˆ 兩J…K†兩2 dK 3 ⭓ 0 …A7†
…2p†2 ⫺ ∞ ⫺ ∞ ⫺ ∞ K 2
Mutual inductances and capacitances Lij ⬎⬍ 0 Cij ⬍ 0 The same demonstration can be applied when the current
densities are complex quantities:
Condition for positive definiteness of energy: Z Z 1
J ⴱ …r†·J…r 0 † dr3 dr 0
3
X
n Iˆ …A8†
Lii Ljj ⭓ L2ij Cjj ⭓ 兩Cij 兩 …A2† R
j苷iˆ1 In that case, we obtain instead
The above definitions can be applied to a system of two 2 Z Z Z 1
conductors. In that case, we obtain the positive definite Iˆ J ⴱ …k†·J…k 0 † d…K ⫺ k†
…2p†8 K2
quadratic forms I ˆ a2 L11 ⫹ 2abL12 ⫹ b2 L22 and I ˆ
a2 C11 ⫹ 2abC12 ⫹ b2 C22 for any real a and b constants.  d…K ⫺ k 0 † dk3 dk 0 dK 3
3
…A9†
This quadratic form results from the superposition principle
and since the inductances and the capacitances are defined and the same relation follows:
from the energy relations in Eq. (A1), then we may again ask 2 Z⫹ ∞ Z⫹ ∞ Z⫹ ∞ 1
the question of the compatibility of the superposition prin- Iˆ 兩J…K†兩2 dK 3 ⭓ 0 …A10†
…2p†2 ⫺ ∞ ⫺ ∞ ⫺ ∞ K 2
ciple and the energy conservation principle. However, the
mutual inductances and capacitances in circuit theory are We can generalize Power’s proof to the following integral
quantities which can be measured in experiments and it Z Z e⫺jk0 R
J ⴱ …r†·J…r 0 † dr3 dr 0
3
would be absurd to pretend that these quantities can in Iˆ …A11†
R
any manner be averaged to zero.
The positive definiteness of energy can be demonstrated and apply the same analysis as above, knowing that the
in three separate proofs, as shown by Power [206]. spectral component of the Green function G…R† ˆ e⫺jk0 R =R
206 P. Cornille / Progress in Energy and Combustion Science 25 (1999) 161–210

has the expression [3] Graneau P. Ampère and Lorentz forces. Phys Lett A
1985;107(5):235.
1 j
G…K† ˆ ⫺ 1…k0 † d…K 2 ⫺ k02 † …A12† [4] Graneau P. Ampère–Neumann electrodynamics of metals.
K 2 ⫺ k02 2 Nonantum, MA: Hadronics Press, 1985.
[5] Graneau P. Comments on equivalence of the Lorentz and
where 1 (k0) ˆ ⫹ 1 for k0 ⬎ 0 and 1 (k0) ˆ ⫺ 1 for k0 ⬍ 0.
Ampère force laws in magnetostatics. J Appl Phys
The integral I is now a complex quantity:
1985;58(9):3638.
2 Z⫹ ∞ Z⫹ ∞ Z⫹ ∞ 兩J…K†兩2 [6] Graneau P, Graneau PN. The electromagnetic impulse
Iˆ dK 3 pendulum and momentum conservation. Il Nuov Cimento
…2p†2 ⫺ ∞ ⫺ ∞ ⫺ ∞ K 2 ⫺ k02
D 1986;7(1):31.
1…k0 † Z⫹ ∞ Z⫹ ∞ Z⫹ ∞ [7] Graneau P, Graneau PN. Electrodynamic momentum
⫺j 兩J…K†兩2 d…K 2 ⫺ k02 † dK 3 measurements. J Phys D: Appl Phys 1988;21(5):1826.
…2p†2 ⫺ ∞ ⫺ ∞ ⫺ ∞ [8] Graneau P. Longitudinal forces in Ampère’s wire-arc exper-
…A13† iment. Phys Lett A 1989;137(3):87.
The theorem of residues cannot be used directly to calcu- [9] Graneau P. The cause of thunder. J Phys D: Appl Phys
1989;22:1083.
late the real part of the integral I in Eq. (A13) since Jordan’s
[10] Graneau P, Thompson DS, Morrill SL. The motionally
lemma is generally not satisfied. However, if we split the induced back-emf in railguns. Phys Lett A 1990;145(8–
denominator in the real part of I by the well-known identity 9):396.
2 2 [11] Graneau N. The finite size of the metallic current element.
ˆ 2 ⫹ F…K† …A14† Phys Lett A 1990;147(2–3):92.
K 2 ⫺ k02 K
[12] Graneau P. Comment on the motionally induced back-EMF
with the definition in railguns. Phys Lett A 1991;160:490.
  [13] Graneau P, Graneau N. The role of Ampère forces in nuclear
k 1 1
F…K† ˆ 02 ⫺ …A15† fusion. Phys Lett A 1992;165(1):1.
K K ⫺ k0 K ⫹ k0 [14] Graneau P, Graneau N. Newton versus Einstein, how matter
then the residue theorem can be applied to the first term I1 interacts with matter. New York: Carlton Press, 1993.
[15] Graneau P, Graneau N. Newtonian electrodynamics. Singa-
given by Eq. (A10), whereas the second term has the expres-
pore: World Scientific, 1996.
sion
[16] Moon P, Spencer DE. The Coulomb force and the Ampère
1 Z⫹ ∞ Z⫹ ∞ Z⫹ ∞ force. J Franklin Inst 1954;257:305.
I2 ˆ F…K†兩J…K†兩2 dK 3 …A16† [17] Moon P, Spencer DE. Interpretation of the Ampère exper-
…2p†2 ⫺ ∞ ⫺ ∞ ⫺ ∞
iments. J Franklin Inst 1954;257:203.
with the definition [18] Moon P, Spencer DE. A new electrodynamics. J Franklin Inst
Z Z cos…k R† ⫺ 1 1954;257(5):369.
J ⴱ …r†·J…r 0 † dr3 dr 0
0 3
I2 ˆ …A17† [19] Moon P, Spencer DE. Electromagnetism without magnetism:
R an historical sketch. Am J Phys 1954;22:120.
The operation Re(I) ˆ I1 ⫹ I2 corresponds exactly to the [20] Moon P, Spencer DE. Electromagnetism, old and new: a
one made in quantum field theory for the renormalization of reply. J Franklin Inst 1954;258(11):398.
energy in the Lamb-shift calculation [207]. The partition of [21] Moon P, Spencer DE. On electromagnetic induction. J
Franklin Inst 1955;260:213.
the real part of the integral also has a physical meaning,
[22] Moon P, Spencer DE. On the Ampère force. J Franklin Inst
since the integral I1 defines the stationary part of the
1955;260:295.
magnetic energy. An advantage of this model which was [23] Moon P, Spencer DE. Some electromagnetic paradoxes. J
first developed by Barut and Huele [208] and Boudet and Franklin Inst 1955;260:373.
coworker [209–212] is that no infinite quantities and no [24] Moon P, Spencer DE. A postulational approach to electro-
photons are to be considered, in contrast with quantum elec- magnetism. J Franklin Inst 1955;259(4):293.
trodynamics where the theory is plagued with infinite [25] Saumont R. Effets mécaniques du courant électrique dans les
numbers. Therefore, the integrals I1 and I2 converge and milieux conducteurs. Comptes Rendus de l’Académie des
the proper inductances calculated from I1 and I2 give finite Sciences, Série II 1991;313:389.
numbers. [26] Saumont R. Mechanical effects of an electrical current in
conductive media. Experimental investigation of the long-
itudinal Ampère force. Phys Lett A 1992;165:307.
[27] Saumont R. La force longitudinale d’Ampère. Fusion
References 1995;55(3–4):52.
[28] Cornille P. On the difference between the Lorentz and
[1] Graneau P. Compatibility of the Ampère and Lorentz force Ampère force law in magnetostatics. J Phys A: Math Gen
laws with the virtual-work concept. Il Nuov Cimento B 1989;22:4075.
1983;78(2):213. [29] Cornille P. On the meaning of special relativity in the Earth
[2] Graneau P. Electromagnetic jet-propulsion in the direction of frame. Phys Essays 1992;5(2):262.
current flow. Nature 1982;295:311. [30] French AP. Special relativity. New York: WW Norton, 1968.
 P. Cornille / Progress in Energy and Combustion Science 25 (1999) 161–210
[31] Wesley JP. Weber electrodynamics extended to include
radiation. Spec in Science and Technology 1987;10(1):47.
[32] Wesley JP. Weber electrodynamics, part I. General theory,
steady currents effects. Found Phys Lett 1990;3(5):443.
[33] Cornille P. Derivation of the ether from anomalies in
Newton’s third law. In: Gill TL, editor. New frontiers in
physics, vol. I. Palm Harbor, FL: Hadronic Press, 1996:103.
[34] Cornille P. Newton’s third principle in physics, physics as a
science. Palm Harbor: Hadronics Press, 1998.
[35] Cornille P. Newton’s third principle in post-Newtonian
physics—part I: theory. Galilean Electrodyn (in press).
[36] Greiner W. Quantum mechanics. Berlin: Springer, 1989.
[37] Anderson JL. Principles of relativity physics. New York:
Academic Press, 1967.
[38] Newburgh R. Newton’s third law: a criterion for particle
behavior of extended bodies. Phys Essays 1995;8(3):330.
[39] Brillouin L. Relativity reexamined. New York: Academic
Press, 1970.
[40] Moussa A, Ponsonnet P. Mécanique relativiste et electro-
magnétisme. Lyon: A. Desvigne, 1973.
[41] Panofsky WKH, Phillips M. Classical electricity and
magnetism. Reading: Addison-Wesley, 1956.
[42] Phipps Jr TE. Heretical verities: mathematical themes in
physical description. Urbana: Classic Non-Fiction Library,
1986.
[43] Norton JD. General covariance and the foundations of
general relativity: eight decades of dispute. Rep Prog Phys
1993;56(7):791.
[44] Beckmann P. Einstein plus two. Boulder, CO: The Golem
Press, 1987.
[45] Jackson JD. Classical electrodynamics. Wiley, 1975.
[46] Cornille P. The twin paradox and the Hafele and Keating
experiment. Phys Lett A 1988;131(3):156.
[47] Cullwick EG. The riddle of relativity. Bull Inst Phys
1959;10(3):52.
[48] Frisch DH, Smith JH. Measurement of the relativistic time
dilation using m-mesons. Am J Phys 1963;31:342.
[49] Cavalleri G. Schrödinger’s equation as a consequence of
Zitterbewegung. Lett al Nuov Cimento 1985;43(6):285.
[50] Assis AKT, Peixoto FM. On the velocity in the Lorentz force
law. The Physics Teacher 1992;30(11):480.
[51] Galeczki G. What does, the Lorentz force have to do with
special relativity?. Galilean Electrodyn 1997;8(6):109.
[52] Keller JM. Newton’s third law and electrodynamics. Am J
Phys 1942;10:302.
[53] Page L, Adams Jr NI. Action and reaction between moving
charges. Am J Phys 1945;13:141.
[54] Breitenberger E. Magnetic interactions between charged
particles. Am J Phys 1968;36(6):505.
[55] Pearson JM, Kilabi A. Velocity dependent nuclear forces and
Weber’s electrodynamics. Am J Phys 1974;42(11):971.
[56] Builder G. Ether and relativity. Aust J Phys 1958;11:279.
[57] Cornille P. The Lorentz force and Newton’s third principle.
Can J Phys 1995;73(9–10):619.
[58] Assis AKT. Weber’s electrodynamics. Dordrecht: Kluwer,
1994.
[59] Janot C. L’effet Mössbauer et ses applications. Paris: Masson
and Cie, 1972.
[60] Kothari LS. Paradox concerning superposition of identical
infinite plane waves. Am J Phys 1970;38:268.
[61] Asgharian A, Asgharian L. Comments on superposition and
207
energy conservation for small amplitude mechanical waves.
Am J Phys 1988;56(2):183.
[62] Kundu P. Amplitude and frequency of de Broglie wave with
Bohr hydrogen atomic model. Ann de la Fond L De Broglie
1993;18(2):165.
[63] Kundu P. De Broglie’s hypothesis and splitting of energy
level for a relativistic material particle. Ann de la Fond L
De Broglie 1991;16(4):485.
[64] Brillouin L. L’énigme E ˆ Mc 2: énergie potentielle et renor-
malisation de la masse. Le Journal de Physique
1963;25(10):883.
[65] Brillouin L. The actual mass of potential energy, a correction
to classical relativity. Proceedings of the National Academy
of Sciences 1965;53(3):475.
[66] Brillouin L. The actual mass of potential energy. Proceedings
of the National Academy of Sciences 1965;53:1280.
[67] Chen F-C. Linearity of electromagnetic field energy and
momentum. Am J Phys 1968;36(5):390.
[68] Carson JR. A generalization of the reciprocal theorem. Bell
Syst Techn Journ 1924;3:393.
[69] Carson JR. Reciprocal theorems in radio communication.
Proc Inst Rad Eng 1929;17:952.
[70] Rumsey VH. Reaction concept in electromagnetic theory.
Phys Rev 1954;94(6):1483.
[71] WelcÉ WJ. Reciprocity theorems for electromagnetic fields
whose time dependence is arbitrary. IRE Transactions on
Antennas and Propagation 1960;8:68.
[72] Jiménez JL, Campos I. The balance equations of energy and
momentum in classical electrodynamics. In: Grimes TWB,
Grimes DM, editors. Advanced electromagnetism. Singa-
pore: World Scientific, 1995:464.
[73] Cray M, Shih M-L, Milonni W. Stimulated emission, absorp-
tion and interference. Am J Phys 1982;50(11):1016.
[74] Kabbary FM, Hately MC, Stewart BG. Maxwell’s equations
and the crossed-field antenna. Electronic and Wireless World
1989;3:216.
[75] Graham GM, Lahoz DG. Observation of static electromag-
netic angular momentum in vacuo. Nature 1980;285:154.
[76] Ginzburg VL. Physique théorique et astrophysique. Moscow:
Mir, 1978.
[77] Cohen-Tannoudji C, Dupont-Roc J, Grynberg G. Photons et
atomes, introduction à l’électrodynamique quantique. Paris:
InterEditions/Editions du CNRS, 1987.
[78] Landau L, Lifchitz E. Théorie des champs. Moscow: Mir,
1970.
[79] Plonsey R, Collin RE. Principles and applications of electro-
magnetic fields. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1961.
[80] Becker R. Electromagnetic fields and interactions. New
York: Dover, 1964.
[81] Aharonov Y, Bohm D. Significance of electromagnetic
potentials in the quantum theory. Phys Rev 1959;115(3):
485.
[82] Aharonov Y, Bohm D. Further considerations on electro-
magnetic potentials in the quantum theory. Phys Rev
1961;123(4):1511.
[83] Chambers RG. Shift of an electron interference pattern by
enclosed magnetic flux. Phys Rev Lett 1960;5(1):3.
[84] Woodilla J, Schwarz H. Experiments verifying the
Aharonov–Bohm effect. Am J Phys 1971;39(1):111.
[85] Matteucci G, Pozzi G. Two further experiments on electron
interference. Am J Phys 1978;46(6):619.
208 P. Cornille / Progress in Energy and Combustion Science 25 (1999) 161–210
[86] Tonomura A, Matsuda T, Suzuki R, Fukuhara A, Osakabe N.
Observation of Aharonov–Bohm effect by electron hol-
ography. Phys Rev Lett 1982;48(21):1443.
[87] Tonomura A, Umezaki H, Matsuda T, Osakabe N, Endo J,
Sugita Y. Is magnetic flux quantized in a toroidal ferromag-
net? Phys Rev Lett 1983;51(5):331.
[88] Tonomura A, Osakabe N, Matsuda T, Kawasaki T, Endo J.
Evidence for Aharonov–Bohm effect with magnetic field
completely shielded from electron wave. Phys Rev Lett
1986;56(8):792.
[89] Boyer TH. Classical electromagnetic interaction of a charged
particle with a constant-current solenoid. Phys Rev D
1973;8(6):1667.
[90] O’Raifeartaigh L, Straumann N, Wipf A. Comments on
Nuclear Particle Physics 1991;20:15.
[91] Namiot VA. On the problem concerning the Aharonov–
Bohm effect. Phys Lett A 1987;124(12):9.
[92] Zhu X, Henneberger WC. Some observations on the
dynamics of the Aharonov–Bohm effect. J Phys A: Math
Gen 1990;23:3983.
[93] Spavieri G, Cavalleri G. Interpretation of the Aharonov–
Bohm and the Aharonov–Casher effects in terms of classical
electromagnetic fields. Euro Lett 1992;18(4):301.
[94] Herman RM. Classical origins of the Aharonov–Bohm
effect. Found Phys 1992;22(5):713.
[95] O’Raifeartaigh L, Straumann N, Wipf A. Aharonov–Bohm
effect in the presence of superconductors. Found Phys
1993;23(5):703.
[96] Silverman M. More than one mystery: exploration in quan-
tum interference. Berlin: Springer, 1995.
[97] De Broglie L. Ondes électromagnétiques et photons. Paris:
Gauthier-Villars, 1968.
[98] Levich BG. Theoretical physics, statistical physics, electro-
magnetic processes in matter, vol. 2. Amsterdam: North-
Holland, 1971.
[99] Crawford F. What happens to the energy?. The Physics
Teacher 1976;14(3):182.
[100] Hoh Y-S. On the electromagnetic wave omnidirectional
interference phenomena. Am J Phys 1987;55(6):570.
[101] Levine RC. False paradoxes of superposition in electric and
acoustic waves. Am J Phys 1980;48(1):28.
[102] Collin RE, Zucker FJ. Antenna theory. New York: McGraw-
Hill, 1969.
[103] Houzé RC. Les antennes du fil rayonnant à la parabole. Paris:
Emap. Alpha, Eyrolles, 1996.
[104] Aspden H. EM wave interference. Am J Phys
1988;56(2):103.
[105] Mathews Jr WN. Superposition and energy conservation for
small amplitude mechanical waves. Am J Phys
1986;54(3):233.
[106] Newburgh RG. Radiation and the classical electron. Am J
Phys 1968;36(5):399.
[107] Griffiths DJ, Szeto EW. Dumbbell model for the classical
radiation reaction. Am J Phys 1978;46(3):244.
[108] Teitelboim C. Splitting of the Maxwell tensor: radiation
reaction without advanced fields. Phys Rev D
1970;1(4):1572.
[109] Teitelboim C. Erratum: splitting of the Maxwell tensor:
radiation reaction without advanced fields. Phys Rev D
1970;2(8):1763.
[110] Cornille P. Does the ether exist?. Hadronics J
1996;19(3):215.
[111] Stedman GE. Ring-laser tests of fundamental physics and
geophysics. Rep Prog Phys 1997;60(6):615.
[112] Allais M. Les expériences de Dayton C. Miller 1925–1926 et
la théorie de la relativité. La Jaune et La Rouge 1966;517:29.
[113] Allais M. Discussion des expériences de Miller. La Jaune et
La Rouge 1997;524:77.
[114] Allais M. Les expériences de D. C. Miller, 1925–1926 et la
théorie de la relativité. La Jaune et La Rouge 1997;526:43.
[115] Allais M. Les expériences de D. C. Miller, 1925–1926 et la
théorie de la relativité. La Jaune et la Rouge 1997;527:69.
[116] Allais M. L’anisotropie de l’espace, la nécessaire révision de
certains postulats des théories contemporaines; les données
de l’expérience. Paris: Clément Juglar, 1997.
[117] Miller DC. The ether drift experiment and the determination
of the absolute motion of the Earth. Rev Mod Phys
1933;5(3):203.
[118] Kantor W. Direct first-order experiment on the propagation
of light from a moving source. J Opt Soc Am
1962;52(9):978.
[119] Marinov S. Coupled mirrors experiment to measure the
difference in the one way velocity of light in opposite direc-
tions in the closed lab to get the absolute velocity of the solar
system. General Relativity Gravitation 1980;12:57.
[120] Marinov S. Tooth wheels experiment to measure difference
in the one way velocity of light in opposite directions to get
absolute velocity of closed lab and the solar system. Spec in
Science and Tecnology 1980;3:57.
[121] Marinov S. The interrupted rotating disc experiment. J Phys
A: Math Gen 1983;16:1885.
[122] Silvertooth EW. Nature 1986;322:590.
[123] Silvertooth EW. Spec in Science and Tecnology 1987;10:3.
[124] Silvertooth EW. Motion through the ether. Electronics and
Wireless World 1989;95(5):437.
[125] Whitney CK. A new interpretation of the Silvertooth exper-
iment. Phys Essays 1990;3(2):161.
[126] Pappas T, Obolensky AG. Thirty six nanoseconds faster than
light. Electronics and Wireless World 1988;94(12):1162.
[127] Wesley J. Classical quantum theory. Blumberg, Germany:
Benjamin Wesley, 1996.
[128] Bartocci U, Capria MM. Symmetries and asymmetries in
classical and relativistic electrodynamics. Found Phys
1991;21:787.
[129] Jefimenko OD. Force exerted on a stationary charge by a
moving current loop. Galilean Electrodyn 1993;4(6):115.
[130] Hayden HC. Stellar aberration. Galilean Electrodyn
1993;4(5):89.
[131] Hayden H. Author’s response. Galilean Electrodyn
1994;5(2):34.
[132] Whitney CK. Special relativity theory aberrated. Galilean
Electrodyn 1994;5(5):98.
[133] Born M. Einstein’s theory of relativity. Dover, 1962.
[134] Post EJ. Sagnac effect. Rev Mod Phys 1967;39(2):475.
[135] Anderson R, Bilge HR, Stedman GE. Sagnac effect: a
century of Earth-rotated interferometers. Am J Phys
1994;62(11):975.
[136] Hayden HC. Is the velocity of light isotropic in the frame of
the rotating Earth?. Phys Essays 1991;4(3):361.
[137] Winterberg F. Substratum interpretation of the Sagnac and
 P. Cornille / Progress in Energy and Combustion Science 25 (1999) 161–210 209

the Aharonov–Bohm effect. Z Naturforsch Teil A: [164] Valone T. Electrogravitics systems. Washington, DC: Integ-
1989;44:1145. rity Research Institute, 1994.
[138] Allan DW, Weiss MA, Ashby N. Around-the-world rela- [165] Cravens DJ. Electric propulsion study, AD-A227 121,
tivistic Sagnac experiment. Science 1985;228:69. AFSC, Edwards AFB, CA, August, 1990.
[139] Penzias AA, Wilson RW. Measurement of excess antenna [166] Robinson M. A history of the electric wind. Am J Phys
temperature. Astrophysical Journal 1965;142:419. 1962;30:366.
[140] Fox JG. Evidence against emission theories. Am J Phys [167] Pohl HA. Nonuniform electric fields. Sci Am 1960;12:107.
1965;33(1):1. [168] Deavenport L. Experiments of Townsend Brown and some
[141] Smoot GF, Gorenstein MV, Muller RA. Detection of ani- successful replications. Extraordinary Science 1996;8(3–
sotropy in the cosmic blackbody radiation. Phys Rev Lett 4):28.
1977;39(14):898. [169] Deyo S. The vindicator scrolls, 1. West Australian Texas
[142] Ternan JG. Equivalence of the Lorentz and Ampère force Trading, Kalamunda, Perth, W.A., 1989.
laws in magnetostatics. J Appl Phys 1985;57(5):1743. [170] Saxl EJ. An electrically charged torque pendulum. Nature
[143] Christodoulides C. Equivalence of the Ampère and Biot– 1964;203:136.
Savart force laws in magnetostatics. J Phys A: Math Gen [171] Saxl EJ, Allen M. 1970 solar eclipse as seen by a torsion
1987;20:2037. pendulum. Phys Rev D 1971;3:823.
[144] Graneau P. Comments on equivalence of the Lorentz and [172] Maccabee B. Illegitime science? A personal story. Journal of
Ampère force laws in magnetostatics. J Appl Phys Scientific Exploration 1996;10(2):269.
1985;58(9):3638. [173] Woodward JF. An experimental reexamination of Faraday
[145] Phipps TE, Phipps Jr TE. Observation of Ampère forces in and electrogravitational induction. General Relativity and
mercury. Phys Lett A 1990;146(1–2):6. Gravitation 1980;12(12):1055.
[146] Phipps Jr TE. New evidence for Ampère longitudinal forces. [174] Woodward JF. Electrogravitational induction and rotation.
Phys Essays 1990;3(2):198. Found Phys 1982;12(5):467.
[147] Phipps Jr TE. A do-it-yourself refutation of modern physics. [175] Charman WN. Ball lightning. Phys Rep 1979;54(4):261.
Galilean Electrodyn 1995;6(5):92. [176] Zheng X-H. Quantitative analysis for ball lightning. Phys
[148] Pappas T. The original Ampère force and Biot–Savart and Lett A 1990;148(8–9):463.
Lorentz forces. Il Nuov Cimento B 1983;76(2):189. [177] Dijkhuis GC. A model for ball lightning. Nature
[149] Graneau P, Graneau N. The electromagnetic impulse pendu- 1980;284(3):150.
lum and momentum conservation. Il Nuov Cimento D [178] Ohtsuki YH, Ofuruton H. Plasma fireballs formed by micro-
1986;7(1):31. wave interference in air. Nature 1991;350(3):139.
[150] Hatzikonstantinou, Moyssides G. On the radiation of the [179] Benford J. Rotation during the implosion of a theta pinch.
electromagnetic impulse pendulum. Il Nuovo Cimento D The Physics of Fluids 1972;15(3):435.
1991;13(9):1093. [180] Witalis EA. Magnetically induced plasma rotation and
[151] Whittaker ET. A history of the theories of aether and elec- nuclear fusion. Z Naturforsch Teil A: 1983;38:625.
tricity: classical theories, vol. 1. London: Thomas Nelson, [181] Witalis EA. Hall magnetohydrodynamics and its applications
1951. to laboratory and cosmic plasma. IEEE Trans Plasma Sci
[152] Whittaker ET. A history of the theories of aether and elec- 1986;14(6):842.
tricity: the modern theories, vol. 2. London: Thomas Nelson, [182] Cornille P. Why Newton’s third principle is the most
1953. important principle in physics. In: Bartocci U, editor. Inter-
[153] Warburton FW. Reciprocal electric force. Phys Rev national Conference: Descartes and Scientific Thought
1946;69:40. 1596–1996, Perugia, 1996.
[154] Munier A. Interaction forces and symmetry groups. In: [183] Cornille P. Newton’s third principle in post-Newtonian
Conférence en l’Honneur de M. Feix, June 23–25, 1997. physics—part II: experiment, Galilean Electrodyn (in
Springer, 1998. press).
[155] Aspden H. Physics without Einstein. Southampton: Sabber- [184] Tolman RC, Stewart TD. The electromotive force produced
ton Publications, 1969. by the acceleration of metals. Phys Rev 1916;8(2):97.
[156] Aspden H. Physics unified. Southampton: Sabberton Publi- [185] Barnett SJ. A new electron-inertia effect and the determina-
cations, 1980. tion of m/e for the free electron in copper. Philos Mag
[157] Phipps Jr TE. Inertial modulation of electrodynamic force. 1931;12:349.
Phys Essays 1997;10(4):615. [186] Talley RL. Twenty first century propulsion concept. PL-TR-
[158] Ougarov V. Théorie de la relativité restreinte. Moscow: Mir, 91-3009, Veritay Technology, Inc., May, 1991.
1974. [187] Moore AD. Electrostatics. New York: Doubleday, 1968.
[159] Pagés MJJ. Le défi de l’antigravitation. Paris: Chiron, 1974. [188] Rambaut M. The simultnaneaous existence of EM Grass-
[160] Mascart ME. Traité d’électricité statique, vol. 1. Paris: G. mann–Lorentz forces (acting on charged particles) and
Masson, 1876. Ampère forces (acting on charged conducting elements).
[161] Jefimenko OD. Electrostatic motors. Star City, WV: Electret Phys Lett A 1989;142(8–9):447.
Scientific Company, 1973. [189] Rambaut M. Ampère forces considered as collective non-
[162] Sigma R. Ether technology: a rational approach to gravity- relativistic limit of the sum of all Lorentz interactions acting
control. Clayton, GA: Cadake Industries, 1977. on individual current elements: possible consequences for
[163] LaViolette A. Subquantum kinetics the alchemy of creation. electromagnetic discharge stability and tokamak behaviour.
Schenectady, NY, 1994. Phys Lett A 1990;148(5):229.
210 P. Cornille / Progress in Energy and Combustion Science 25 (1999) 161–210
[190] Rambaut M. Macroscopic non-relativistic Ampère EM
intreractions between current elements reflect the conducting
electron accelerations by the ion’s electric fields. Phys Lett A
1991;154(5–6):210.
[191] Rambaut M. Capillary fusion through Coulomb barrier
sceening in turbulent processes generated by high intensity
current pulses. Phys Lett A 1992;163:335.
[192] Rambaut M. Double screened Coulomb barrier accounts for
neutrons production in cluster and other fusion experiments.
Phys Lett A 1992;164:155.
[193] Rambaut M. Frontiers of cold fusion. In: ICCF3, Nagoya.
Universal Academic Press, 1993:601.
[194] Rambaut M. In: ICC4. EPRI, 1994:24.
[195] Rambaut M. Transaction of Fusion Technology
1994;26(4T):486.
[196] Rambaut M. In: ICCF5, Monte Carlo, Monaco. 1995:623.
[197] Trouton FT, Noble HR. The forces acting on a charged
condenser moving through space. Proceedings of the Royal
Society 1903;72:132.
[198] Janssen M. Comparison between Lorentz’s ether theory and
special relativity in the light of the experiments of Trouton
and Noble. Thesis presented on April 10, 1995, at Pittsburgh
University.
[199] Chase CT. A repetition of the Trouton–Noble ether drift
experiment. Phys Rev 1926;28:378.
[200] Hayden HC. High sensitivity Trouton–Noble experiment.
Review Scientific Instruments 1994;65(4):788.
[201] Page L, Adams Jr NI. Action and reaction between moving
charges. Am J Phys 1945;13:141.
[202] Singal AK. On the ‘‘explanation’’ of the null results of Trou-
ton–Noble experiment. Am J Phys 1993;61(5):428.
[203] Hayden HC. Analysis of Trouton–Noble experiment. Gali-
lean Electrodyn 1994;5(4):83.
[204] Cornille P. Making a Trouton–Noble experiment succeed.
Galilean Electrodyn 1998;9(2):33.
[205] Szames AD. Histoire secrète de la plus grande découverte
scientifique du XXe siècle. In: Szames A, editor, Coll.
Histoire secrète de l’antigravité (vol. 1). 47–51 rue
d’Aguessean, 92100 Boulogne, France, 1998.
[206] Power EA. On L1L2 ⭓ M. Am J Phys 1969;37(1):23.
[207] Cornille P. Quantization as a wave effect. In: Barrett TW,
Grimes DM, editors. Advanced electromagnetism: founda-
tions, theory and application. Singapore: World Scientific,
1995:148.
[208] Barut AO, Huele JFV. Quantum electrodynamics based on
self-energy: Lamb shift and spontaneous emission without
field quantization. Phys Rev A 1985;32(6):3187.
[209] Boudet R. La théorie classique du champ et le décalage
de Lamb. Ann de la Fond L De Broglie 1989;14(2):
119.
[210] Blaive B, Boudet R. Le décalage de Lamb en électro-
dynamique quantique finie, théorie semi-classique. Ann de
la Fond L De Broglie 1989;14(2):147.
[211] Boudet R. The role of Planck’s constant in Dirac and
Maxwell theories. Annales de Physique, Colloque No 1
1989;14(Suppl 6):27.
[212] Boudet R. The Lamb shift in finite electrodynamics. Found
Phys Lett 1990;3(4):311.