Electromagnetic Theory (vol. 2)

Description

In this stimulating work, a leading European scientist takes a critical look at theories and ideas at the heart of orthodox electromagnetics. Characterized by its author as an "essay in constructive criticism," the book has as its chief purpose an examination, through careful analysis of standard texts and treatises, of accepted theory and the presentation of guidelines for a reconstruction in the field. Unfettered by dogma, authority, or consensus, this is a work in the great searching tradition of scientific advance.

Professor O'Rahilly points out inadequacies and inconsistencies in various "established" concepts, such as the notion of displacement current in Maxwell's equations and Lorentz's "local time," and in theories of Heaviside, Kelvin, Einstein, Minkowski, J. J. Thomson, Hertz, Poynting, Weyl, etc. Extensive reference to primary sources (plus much directly quoted material) is made in these analyses. And there are closely reasoned" arguments in support of ideas which, the author believes, have not had adequate hearing: the proposals of Lorenz and Riemann (in lieu of Maxwell's displacement current), and contributions of Ritz, Gauss, Weber, Duhem, and others. The author also rejects the priority of the concepts of electric and magnetic fields and makes a strong case instead for the Lienard-Schwarzschild force-formula. Other discussions include an exposition of the meaning of the symbols of physics and an interesting chapter on units and "dimensions."

In the course of its critical restructuring of electromagnetic theory, the book provides an extremely valuable, understandable history of the subject, with thorough documentation and reference to the electromagnetics literature of the last century. All in all, this volume is a basic source of information and insight that every serious student in the field should read.

Some comments from distinguished reviewers: "Contains an enormous amount of critical material of the highest value. . . . On every page there is evidence of the author's acute mind and vast learning," E. T. Whittaker, The Tablet. "The book is well worth studying even if merely for the sake of awakening consciousness of the many doubtful and unsettled places still remaining in the structure of electrodynamics," P. W. Bridgman, Amer. Chem. Soc. Jnl. "Prof. O'Rahilly deserves our cordial thanks and admiration for the energy, skill and courage with which he has undertaken this formidable task," C. V. Drysdale, Nature.

I just came back from my science library, and I checked out this 2 volume Dover edition of O'Rahilly (published in 1965). It certainly exceeds my expectations! I like how he frequently quotes the original sources and how, as the back cover's description said, it is an "extended essay in constructive criticism." Whittaker—who wrote the History of the Theories of Aether & Electricity, which Jackson said is a good history of E&M—gave O'Rahilly's book a glowing review on the back cover. O'Rahilly even criticizes Maxwell's ad hoc introduction of the displacement current.

Also, I never knew Duhem didn't like relativity because it was invented in order to agree with Maxwell's theory. I certainly did know Duhem criticized Maxwell's theory.

Richard Feynman read O'Rahilly's Electromagnetic Theory , too, calling it "a stimulating and instructive if not always objective account of early researches on field theory and action at a distance" (p. 426fn9) in Wheeler, John Archibald, and Richard Phillips Feynman. “Classical Electrodynamics in Terms of Direct Interparticle Action.” Reviews of Modern Physics 21, no. 3 (July 1, 1949): 425–33. doi:10.1103/RevModPhys.21.425.

See this excellent video biography on O'Rahilly.

Here's the view of Assis 2014 p. 310 regarding Riemannian geometry applied to physics, which follows Fr. O'Rahilly's:

We agree with O’Rahilly as regards the several problems and confusions which Einstein’s theories brought to physics. [O’R65, Volume 2, Chapter XIII, Section 5, pp. 662-71 [PDF/DjVu pp. 221-230].]
In our view, several theoretic concepts of modern physics have the same role as the epicycles in the old ptolemaic theory: Length contraction, time dilation, Lorentz’s invariance, Lorentz’s transformations, covariant laws, invariant laws, Minkowski’s metric, Minkowski’s spacetime, four-dimensional space-time, energy-momentum tensor, Riemannian geometry applied to physics, virtual photon, Schwarzschild’s line element, tensorial algebras in four-dimensional spaces, quadrivectors, metric tensor g μν , Christoffel’s symbols, string theory, super strings, curvature of space, dark matter, dark energy, wormholes, etc. The relational mechanics presented in this book is totally against Einstein’s theories and eliminates all these epicycles.

pp. 523-535 (DjVu pp. 82-94), § 4. From Weber to Ritz, refute the action at a distance (actio in distans) objections to relational force laws like Ampère's and Weber's—objections saying these relational force laws involve ∞ propagation speeds.

"4. The 'Field.'," pp. 645-61 (DjVu pp. 204-20), esp. p. 653 (DjVu p. 212):

The assertion [of the "field"], taken by itself apart from the quantitative force-law, is scientifically otiose. It is merely the physically irrelevant statement of a metaphysical conviction. 'A physical theory,' say Mason and Reaver (p. 73), 'has no concern with "conditions" at an empty point in space, and for the precise reason that the point is empty.' It is certainly difficult to believe that this idea of 'field' is anything but a useless metaphor when it is rejected as scientifically irrelevant even in elementary text-books