arXiv:1802.02141v7 [physics.class-ph] 10 Sep 2021 ∗ I.Mteaia eiwo Classical of Review Mathematical III. lcrncades pfl[email protected] address: Electronic V opeigteSrs-nryTensor Stress-Energy the Completing IV. I itrclReview Historical II. .Introduction I. .PitCagsadQatmMcais5 Mechanics Quantum and Charges Point D. Electrodynamics .LatAto,Energy-Momentum Action, Least D. .Dvlpeto awl’ qain 2 Equations Maxwell’s of Development A. .Ntto 8 Notation A. .Itgaiiy14 Integrability A. .Ise ihSl-neato 4 Self-Interaction with Issues C. .LatAto rnil n Deriving and Principle Action Least C. .Picpeo es cinRvstd16 Revisited Action Least of Principle C. .Rdain efItrcin n Special and Self-Interaction, Radiation, B. .Dnmc faCagdOjc 9 Object Charged a of Dynamics B. .OePsil diint h Stress-Energy the to Addition Possible One B. .GaiyadEetoants 7 Electromagnetism and Gravity E. eaiiy3 Relativity awl’ qain 11 Equations Maxwell’s Tensor osrain n Diffeomorphism and Conservation, hne inudraprt rnfrain hs ol ei be could These transformation. parity forces. a short-range terms under coupled), independent sign (non-minimally such curvature-mediated changes two three and are stres tion There sufficient provides energy-momentum. tensor of field scala L electromagnetic Ricci the the in the of terms quadratic other of Including additions only Lagrangian. consider interaction consisting and Lagrangian, Lagrangian field a tromagnetic with start We h hredniywv sivreypootoa oterad 03.50.De,04.40.Nr,04.20.-q,03.50.Kk the numbers: sph to PACS Lagr charged, proportional the inversely alternatingly in is of wave constant wave density new an a charge a the by by mass set surrounded quantized is charge mass has of its center, and (sp error, solution’s spherical numeric the stable, single, at a find singularity we fields, independent as e oteudrtnigo hs facts. these rad of sel for understanding infinite account the from to to suffer methods led These perturbative and charges. require procedure, point is tion are Electrom addition date some literature. and to charge the found of in presence the bodies in such served of theory dynamical o h ipetpsil hoy ihol h ercadth and metric the only with theory, possible simplest the For esuytecascleetoyaiso xeddbodies. extended of electrodynamics classical the study We ete netgt osbesl-osset non-point- self-consistent, possible investigate then We Contents lsia lcrdnmc fEtne Bodies Extended of Electrodynamics Classical 1 ooaoSho fMns odn ooao USA Colorado, Golden, Mines, of School Colorado Dtd etme 4 2021) 14, September (Dated: ..Flammer P.D. 1 2 8 14 15 aoslcue,dsrbstestaina olw se[1] (see 28): follows as Ch. Vol.2 situation his the in describes Feynman, lectures, bodies. famous charged of dynamics the scribing I.Acknowledgments VII. I Summary VI. .Sltost qain fMotion of Equations to Solutions V. hr scretyn opeeysial hoyde- theory suitable completely no currently is There 1, hre lsia lcrdnmctheories. electrodynamic classical charge, gaga novn rtodrderivatives first-order involving agrangian ahmtclycnitn hoy tjust it is theory; mechanics consistent Classical mathematically a quantum- of the effects. failure of mechanical a because physics is classical there all that appreciate can You ∗ References .Spruia SaeLk)Cret 22 Currents (Space-Like) Superluminal A. .Cre pc-ieadMass/Charge and Space-Time Curved C. n0 ouin hc u oa integrable an to due which solution, in-0) .Sltosi ltSaeTm 22 Space-Time Flat in Solutions B. -nrytrst lo o conservation for allow to terms s-energy .Teol oehtsial addition suitable somewhat only The d. hnpitcagsadterassociated their and charges point than a coordinate. ial hr-ag neatos n fwhich of one interactions, short-range ain erve h itr hthas that history the review We iation. gei nrymmnu sntcon- not is energy-momentum agnetic hre t hrei mle than smaller is charge Its charge. d .Lgaga fE.7 with 70 Eq. of Lagrangian 2. uniain23 with 70 Eq. of Lagrangian 1. Quantization naine20 Invariance -nry eurn oerenormaliza- some requiring f-energy, rclsel,weeteapiueof amplitude the where shells, erical urnl,teei oself-consistent no is there Currently, trrtda non-electromagnetic, as nterpreted gaiy n h tnadelec- standard the and (gravity) r nin thsasal eta core central small, a has It angian. lcrmgei oeta 1-form potential electromagnetic e ietcretcretinterac- current-current direct a : needn 25 Independent needn 23 Independent .INTRODUCTION I. A j µ µ as as 29 28 28 22 2

doesn’t agree with experience. It is inter- workable within limited areas, can be given, esting, though, that the classical theory of the basic problem remains unsolved. electromagnetism is an unsatisfactory theory all by itself. There are difficulties associated As we will see in the next section, the root cause of with the ideas of Maxwell’s theory which are these problems is our ignorance of what keeps an electron not solved by and not directly associated with (or other compact charge) compact. As it turns out, it quantum mechanics. You may say, “Perhaps has been very difficult to even postulate a self-consistent there’s no use worrying about these difficul- theory of what could bind an electron (or other compact ties. Since the quantum mechanics is going charge) together; no such theory exists to date. to change the laws of electrodynamics, we In this paper, we attempt to address this fundamen- should wait to see what difficulties there are tal question. This cannot be addressed by treating point after the modification.” However, when elec- charges, as they are compact by construction. Also, this tromagnetism is joined to quantum mechan- cannot be done in a quantum mechanical framework, ics, the difficulties remain. So it will not be a because quantum mechanics presupposes point charges waste of our time now to look at what these (the idea of an extended object is foreign to the theory). difficulties are. Therefore, we investigate the classical electrodynamics of extended bodies. The difficulties come in two flavors: (1) if a charged ob- ject is extended, i.e. it has some non-zero size, it has not been possible to develop self-consistent equations of mo- II. HISTORICAL REVIEW tion for that object; and (2) if we take the point-charge limit (to resolve difficulty 1, or because we think physical We start by reviewing some of the history of the devel- charges are points), the energy of the charge becomes in- opment of the theory of electrodynamics. The main pur- finite. Feynman continues by discussing examples in the pose of this section is to explore the evolution of thought, literature of researchers trying to resolve the infinite en- evolving from Coulomb’s law to the theory of quantum ergy of point charges, finally concluding that all attempts electrodynamics, focusing on the issue of self-interaction, have failed[1]: the resulting self-inconsistency of electrodynamic theory, We do not know how to make a consistent and the necessary introduction of point charges along theory-including the quantum mechanics- with their pathologies. which does not produce an infinity for the self-energy of an electron, or any point charge. And at the same time, there is no satisfactory A. Development of Maxwell’s Equations theory that describes a non-point charge. It’s an unsolved problem. With the invention of the Leyden Jar (a rudimentary th The infinite “self-energy” of a point charge is due to capacitor) in the middle of the 18 century, experimen- self-interaction: its constituent parts repel against the talists were able to repeatably apply charge to various other parts; as one tries to pack charge into a ball, the objects, and determine how charged objects affect each smaller the ball, the harder this is, and more work must other. By 1785, Coulomb had established the mathemat- be done to make it more compact. The result is the en- ical form of this electrostatic force[3], the law being very similar to Newton’s law of gravitation. ergy required to form such a ball is inversely proportional th to the size of the ball; and point charges have infinite self- Near the turn of the 19 century, Alessandro Volta energy. This is in apparent contradiction to the physical invented the voltaic pile (battery). This enabled exper- fact that a very compact electron exists. imentalists to more reliably study electrical flow in cir- Another consequence of self-interaction is radiation: as cuits. In the summer of 1820, Oersted discovered the a charge is accelerated, its interaction with its own field amazing fact that magnetic needles were affected by elec- (in addition to adding to its rest energy) can cause the tric currents, linking what were before thought to be sep- charge to recoil, as momentum is carried away by the arate phenomena, electricity and magnetism[4]. Within fields in the form of radiation. Again, the classical reac- a few months, Biot and Savart successfully determined tion of a charge to radiation is intractable. J.D. Jackson the mathematical behavior of the force between a cur- summarizes this difficulty in his text as (See Sec. 16.1 of rent carrying wire and a magnetic pole[5–7]. By 1827, [2]): Ampere had also shown that solenoids of current carry- ing wire behaved similarly to bar magnets, and studied ...a completely satisfactory classical treat- the magnetic force between two circuits[8]. ment of the reactive effects of radiation does Also in the 1820s, Ohm successfully described that the not exist. The difficulties presented by this current in a conductor was proportional to the electromo- problem touch one of the most fundamen- tive force and the conductance of the material[9]. This tal aspects of physics, the nature of an ele- was the primary “force law” (now called Ohm’s law) used mentary particle. Although partial solutions, by physicists for electrodynamics until near the turn of 3 the 20th century. In 1831, Faraday discovered that mov- elastic medium, called the “luminiferous aether”. How- ing a magnet near a wire circuit induced a current in the ever, although Maxwell used this idea of an underlying circuit, discovering electromagnetic induction[10]. elastic medium to develop the theory, he gave up on hy- Various physicists worked to understand the interac- pothesizing its exact character or role: tion between magnets and currents for the next few decades[11, 12]. One theoretical achievement, which was I have on a former occasion, attempted to important to the development of electromagnetic theory, describe a particular kind of motion and a was the use of “potentials”. In 1857, Kirchhoff first wrote particular kind of strain, so arranged as to the electric force as a combination of the gradient of a account for the phenomena. In the present scalar potential (which had already been used for some paper, I avoid any hypothesis of this kind; time in electrostatic problems) and the time derivative of and in using words such as electric momen- a newly introduced vector potential[13]. Kirchhoff also tum and electric elasticity in reference to showed, in that particular formulation, that the vector the known phenomena of the induction of and scalar potential were related to one another (in mod- currents and the polarization of dielectrics, ern terminology, describing the particular gauge, which I wish merely to direct the mind of the he was using). reader to the mechanical phenomena which All of this work found some closure in the 1860s. In will assist him in understanding the electri- 1861 and 1862, Maxwell published “On physical lines of cal ones. All such phrases in the present pa- force”[14] (where he added the necessary displacement per are to be considered as illustrative, not as current1), and in 1865, he presented a complete frame- explanatory.[15] work of electromagnetism in “A Dynamical Theory of the Immediately after the previous statement, however, he Electromagnetic Field”[15]. This theory was extremely stresses the importance of the field: successful at describing all of the electrical phenomena known at the time; he also calculated that electromag- In speaking of the Energy of the field, how- netic waves propagate at a speed close to the speed of ever, I wish to be understood literally... On light (which had recently been measured), thus identify- the old theories it resides in the electrified ing light as an electromagnetic wave. bodies, conducting circuits, and magnets... A key piece of this new theory was that important On our theory it resides in the electromag- dynamics took place in the space between electrified ob- netic field, in the space surrounding the elec- jects. This was a major shift in thought: up to that trified and magnetic bodies, as well as in time, interactions were typically thought of as “actions those bodies...[15] at a distance”. In Maxwell’s words: The fact that the field could contain energy in its own These [old] theories assume, more or less ex- right allowed him to effectively describe how fields trans- plicitly, the existence of substances the par- port energy via radiation through a vacuum, and equate ticles of which have the property of acting light and heat with electromagnetic waves2. on one another at a distance by attraction or repulsion.[15] B. Radiation, Self-Interaction, and Special Maxwell differentiated his new theory in this way: Relativity

The theory I propose may therefore be called With the connection of electromagnetism and light, it a theory of the Electromagnetic Field, be- became clear that currents, which change in time, gener- cause it has to do with the space in the ate electromagnetic waves, i.e. radiation. The radiated neighborhood of the electric or magnetic energy due to a varying electrical current was calculated bodies.[15] by Fitzgerald in 1883[18], and a general vectorial law for the flow of electromagnetic energy and its conserva- This was the birth of physical field theories, where the tion was derived in 1884 by Poynting[19]. Experimental original concept of a “field” was that important dynamics occur (and propagate) throughout the space (or field) between interacting bodies. To motivate the fact that electromagnetic interactions 2 Later in the 1860s, Lorenz and Riemann alternatively described could propagate through “so-called vacuum”, Maxwell the interactions between currents and charged objects as re- used the idea of disturbances propagating through an tarded integrals of the charge and current rather than focusing on the dynamics of the field[16, 17]. This point of view had some advantages; in particular, it didn’t motivate the existence of the aether. However, in the late 19th and early 20th centuries, elec- tromagnetic theory predominantly grew out of Maxwell’s theory, 1 The displacement current is mathematically necessary to con- and the contributions of Lorenz and Riemann were somewhat serve charge. forgotten until later[4] 4 generation and measurement of electromagnetic radia- the low-velocity limit (or, if you like, in the proper frame tion at lower-than-optical frequencies was achieved by of the charged body), but by the early 1900s, Abraham Hertz in 1887 using oscillating electrical circuits[4, 20]. (and then Lorentz) had extended this theory to arbitrary Poincar´eimmediately noted that such radiation must velocities[26, 27]. Also, during this time, the hypothesis cause damping within the oscillator due to the energy that the electron mass was due entirely to the electromag- it carries away[21]. netic self-interaction gained some favor (Abraham explic- Also in 1887, the concept of the aether was discounted itly assumed it was the only contributor to the electron by the experiment of Michelson and Morley3. With the mass5). aether gone (or at least going), the “field” was no longer In 1905, Einstein published “On the Electrodynamics a description of “space in the neighborhood”. The elec- of moving bodies”, where he introduced his concept of tromagnetic field necessarily took on a life of its own; the special relativity[28]. In a paper later that year, he pro- field (or radiation, or the energy-momentum it carries, posed that the inertial mass of a body was directly pro- etc.) was its own substance. portional to its energy content[29]. With this, one could Up until the late 19th century, experimentally and the- calculate the mass due to the energy stored in the elec- oretically, continuous charge and current densities (in cir- tromagnetic field for a charged object. It’s interesting cuits) were the primary focus of study: Maxwell’s equa- to note that, although they preceded special relativity, tions were used to calculate the field, and Ohm’s law was the equations of Lorentz and Abraham exhibited many used to calculate how fields caused the current to evolve. special-relativistic effects (e.g. the fact that the speed of However, in the 1880s, many researchers turned their the charge can only asymptotically approach the speed attention to calculating the fields of discrete, compact of light). charges, including Heaviside[22], who is often credited with writing Maxwell’s equations in their more modern form. C. Issues with Self-Interaction In 1892, Lorentz published “Maxwell’s electromagnetic theory and its application to moving bodies”; in this pa- All of these developments gave some hope that a fully per, he wrote down the force from an external electro- successful model of the electron was within reach. How- magnetic field on a charged particle (point charge), now ever, there were serious issues with the model. In 1904, called the Lorentz force; he also formalized the gauge Abraham derived a power equation of motion for the rigid invariance of electromagnetism[23]. Lorentz also noted model of an electron. Unfortunately, the power equation that, in general, one must account for the electromag- was not consistent with the force equation derived ear- netic force of a discrete charge on itself. In his 1892 pa- lier: the scalar product of the velocity and the force does per, Lorentz evaluated this self-force and calculated the not equal the power. Also, in the context of relativity, equations of motion for a “relativistically rigid” spheri- the power and the force do not form a 4-vector. cal shell of charge (where the sphere maintains its shape There is an issue with the inertial mass as well, which in its proper frame)4. This was done in the limit of the one calculates from the Lorentz-Abraham equations: for sphere being small, so higher order terms in the size of the a spherical shell, it is 4/3 times the mass that one obtains sphere could be ignored. It was found that the self-force from the energy stored in the electrostatic fields (the self- contains a term, with magnitude inversely proportional energy). This was not noticed originally by Lorentz or to the size of the sphere, which can effectively be added Abraham as their theory preceded special relativity, but to its inertial mass. in the second edition of Abraham’s book, Abraham men- Additionally, a term appeared in the force equation, tions this discrepancy[24, 30]. which is independent of the size. This force came to The equations of motion also violate causality. If a be known as the “radiation reaction” or “field reaction”, force is instantaneously “turned on” and one excludes although it seems Lorentz initially did not connect this runaway solutions, pre-acceleration solutions exist (the reaction to radiation; Planck appears to be the first to charge accelerates before the force is turned on)[24]. do so in 1897[25]. Also in 1897, J.J. Thomson discovered In 1906, Poincar´epointed out the source of most of the existence of the electron, which fueled further study these problems: in order for a stable charged object to ex- of small, discrete charges. ist, there must be non-electromagnetic forces, which bind Lorentz initially calculated this self-field reaction in the electron together (keeping it from exploding due to its self-electric field): “Therefore it is indeed necessary to assume that in addition to electromagnetic forces, there

3 This showed that the speed of light was independent of direction; very unlikely if it is a disturbance of an underlying medium that the earth was likely moving through. 5 It appears this was done, at least in part, because at the time, 4 Lorentz called this model a deformable sphere, because he no- it was thought (before Einstein’s Special Relativity) that any ticed (before Einstein’s theory of relativity) in a moving frame, other mass would not transform between reference frames in the the electron would contract, but this model is now called rela- same way as electromagnetic mass; see [24] for a discussion of tivistically rigid[24]. this history. 5 are other forces or bonds”[24, 31]. He came to the conclu- commented on these developments in 1919: sion that while this other binding force integrated to zero over the object, the integrated power from the binding Great pains have been taken to elaborate a force was not zero, and exactly canceled the discrepancy theory which will account for the equilibrium between the force and power equations. However, this of the electricity constituting the electron. did not resolve the “4/3 problem”. In order to correct G. Mie, in particular, has devoted deep re- that, one must include some “bare mass” of the charge6, searches to this question. His theory, which which was set to zero by early authors. has found considerable support among theo- The problems associated with the radiation reaction, retical physicists, is based mainly on the in- the 4/3 problem, pre-acceleration, etc., continue to re- troduction into the energy-tensor of supple- ceive some attention in the literature. See the follow- mentary terms depending on the components ing references for examples from the 21st century[33–44]. of the electro-dynamic potential, in addition Ref. [45] has a concise historical overview of the problem. to the energy terms of the Maxwell-Lorentz A full history and detailed treatment of the spherical theory. These new terms, which in outside shell, with a description of the cause of these paradoxes space are unimportant, are nevertheless effec- may be found in a comprehensive monograph by Arthur tive in the interior of the electrons in main- Yaghjian[24]. In particular it’s worth noting, the pre- taining equilibrium against the electric forces acceleration issue can be traced to the fact that “turning of repulsion. In spite of the beauty of the on” a force creates a non-analytic point in the force as a formal structure of this theory, as erected by function of time, which invalidates the derivation of the Mie, Hilbert, and Weyl, its physical results equations of motion. If the force is analytic as a function have hitherto been unsatisfactory. On the of time, no pre-acceleration appears in the point-charge one hand the multiplicity of possibilities is limit[24]. The remainder of the problems are due to two discouraging, and on the other hand those ad- missing items in electromagnetic theory: the bare mass ditional terms have not as yet allowed them- of electromagnetic charge and a suitable binding force to selves to be framed in such a simple form that bind a compact charge together. the solution could be satisfactory[48]. It is an interesting fact of relativity and electrodynam- In the same paper, Einstein proposed gravity as a possi- ics, that one has less freedom in choosing the problems ble binding force for the electron by modifying his field one can treat than in general classical mechanics, such as equations; this admitted stable solutions, but could not instantaneously “turning on” a force (although concep- explain charge quantization, causing him to abandon that tually possible, it’s difficult to think a real relativistically line of thought[48]. valid force can turn on instantly). Most strikingly, one None of these studies came to result in any suitable cannot consistently consider the dynamics of a charged theory, and eventually support for this direction waned. object without appropriately balancing the forces on its To quote Weyl from the early 1920s, constituent parts and knowing its internal mass density. The idea of considering a blob of charge, without con- Meanwhile I have quite abandoned these sidering what it is made of and what binds it together, hopes, raised by Mie’s theory; I do not believe yields inconsistent equations of motion. that the problem of matter is to be solved by One may attempt to model a certain structure, like the a mere field theory[47]. rigid sphere, and after the fact, add in what the binding force must have been, and state what it’s bare mass must have been. However, this inherently violates causality, D. Point Charges and Quantum Mechanics since the binding force is required to react across the entire object instantaneously. Without knowing the bare mass density and binding Thus, in order to really create a self-consistent dy- force for a charged object, one cannot solve for what sta- namical theory for extended charged bodies, one must ble objects should exist. But as mentioned in the last know two things a priori: the local binding force den- section, one can assume a structure, and add in what the sity that creates stability, and the bare mass density of binding force and bare mass should have been after the the charge. There was some effort in the early 20th cen- fact, unfortunately violating causality since the force is tury to this end. In the 1910s, an idea originated by Mie required to react instantaneously across the object (to generated some hope, albeit short-lived[46, 47]. Einstein maintain the pre-ordained shape). But if the object is a point, no time is required for signals to cross the object and causality is restored7. Also, this removes all internal

6 The bare mass of a charge is what its mass would be if it had no electromagnetic field. One cannot set this to zero for arbitrary geometries of charge. If one sets the geometry, the bare mass must take a specific value in order to be consistent with the self- 7 The external force still must be analytic as a function of time, or energy[24, 32] you will still have the pre-acceleration issues discussed earlier[24]. 6 degrees of freedom, so conservation of total momentum any self-interaction/radiation reaction), are taken, and determines the motion completely. “quantized” (dynamic variables become operators on a One cannot directly calculate the energy or mass of an wave function, which describes the state of the system) object, because we do not know the bare mass. What to develop equations such as the Schrodinger equation, we can calculate, from the electromagnetic energy of the which was published in 1926[52]. At the same time, a charge, diverges in the point-charge limit[22]. But the different formulation, “matrix mechanics” was developed mass of the electron is a measurable quantity; rather by Heisenberg, Born, and Jordan[53], which was shown than calculate it, one may simply use its measured value. to be equivalent to the wave mechanics approach. This process of replacing an infinite calculated value with Initially, all of this was done for low, non-relativistic a measured value is often called “renormalization”. In velocities. However, in 1930, Dirac developed the rel- the context of classical dynamics of an electron, Dirac ativistic generalization of Schrodinger’s equation for is credited with writing down the “renormalized” classi- electrons[54]. With the success of the Dirac equation cal equations of motion of a charged particle in 1938[49], in predicting energy levels in simple atoms (including where he developed these equations in a manifestly co- the interaction with the electron spin), attention turned variant method8. These renormalized equations of mo- to describing self-interaction/radiative corrections in the tion are often called the Lorentz-Abraham-Dirac equa- framework of quantum mechanics. This was done by tions of motion. starting with a non-interacting solution, and “perturb- In any case, in the early 1900s, atomic structure was ing” it by adding in successive interaction terms (these forcing physicists to rethink their perception of reality. days, “Feynman diagrams” are used to do bookkeeping With the discovery of the atomic nucleus around 1910, on what terms are needed)[55]. However, any attempt the idea that electrons orbit the nucleus (in the same to add in certain self-interaction terms resulted in in- way as planets orbit the sun) took root. However, any finity (similar to the classical case). In 1945, Feynman simple classical model of the electron (such as Lorentz’s and Wheeler published “Interaction with the absorber as sphere of charge) cannot produce stable orbits around the mechanism of radiation”, where they proposed that an atomic nucleus, precisely due to the damping effect electrons do not interact with themselves at all[56], il- of the radiation reaction: an electron in orbital motion lustrating some of the frustration of the time. (see [1] will radiate energy away and its orbit will decay. If one Vol. 2, Ch. 28 for more discussion and other examples of ignores the radiation reaction, then classically one finds efforts to remove this infinity). But by 1949, Schwinger a continuum of possible orbits, which is also not what is and Tomonaga developed methods that circumvent the measured: discrete, stable energy levels are observed for issue of infinite self-interaction, while accurately predict- atomic orbits. ing the Lamb shift and the anomalous magnetic moment of the electron. Infinite self-interaction terms are ab- Due to these difficulties, in the 1910s and 1920s, a new sorbed into quantities, such as mass and charge, and the way of thinking about these physical systems emerged, experimentally measured values are used in place of the which were more successful at describing atomic phe- infinite calculated ones[55, 57]. As mentioned above, this nomena: quantum mechanics. In the “old quantum me- process of dealing with infinite calculated values is called chanics” (sometimes called the Bohr model, or Bohr- renormalization9. The perturbative process of adding in Sommerfeld model), there was not much departure from appropriate interaction terms, in conjunction with renor- classical thought. The electron was assumed to exist as malization is what is now called quantum electrodynam- a point (or at least very small) charge; classical orbits ics. were then solved for the electron, and integrals of gen- The “standard model”, built on these principles, is eralized momenta along the orbits were required to be extremely successful at predicting quantities outside of integer multiples of the Planck constant, which yielded those which require renormalization. While the renor- the correct energy levels (see Sommerfeld’s 1921 book on malization program allows physicists to do useful cal- the subject[51]). Note however, the classical equations of culations, the lack of ability to calculate the masses of motion, which were used, ignored the radiation reaction, particles is less than ideal. In 1979, Dirac, speaking of and the topic of the stability or self-interaction of par- renormalization, said ticles was avoided altogether. This was very successful at predicting energy levels for simple systems, such as It’s just a stop-gap procedure. There must be Hydrogen. some fundamental change in our ideas, prob- In the last half of the 1920s, the more modern quan- ably a change just as fundamental as the pas- tum mechanics took shape. A new “wave mechanics” sage from Bohr’s orbit theory to quantum me- approach was developed where classical equations of mo- chanics. When you get a number turning out tion, such as the classical Hamiltonian (again without

9 Often in practice, one assumes a bare mass or bare charge that 8 Note Von Laue had already written down the covariant radiation are also infinity in just the way needed to cancel the infinite reaction much earlier[50]. self-interaction and result in the measured value. 7

to be infinite which ought to be finite, you space-time (see [62] for a review). However, more discus- should admit that there is something wrong sion of this type of unification of gravity with electromag- with your equations, and not hope that you netism does not contribute to our purpose here. For the can get a good theory just by doctoring up entirety of this paper we take a conventional “dualistic that number.[58] view”, where matter is treated separate from geometry; it is the source of geometry’s curvature. Feynman, who shared a Nobel prize, in part for devel- Concerning the presence of electromagnetic charge in oping the renormalization program, also was skeptical in conventional general relativity: the metric for the space his later years. In his 1986 book, he wrote outside of a charged spherical object was published in 1916 and 1918 by Reissner[63] and Nordstrom[64]. Study The shell game that we play to find n [bare of the interior of charged objects was not attempted until mass] and j [bare charge] is technically called more recently than other history outlined here, starting “renormalization.” But no matter how clever mainly in the latter half of the 20th century. For exam- the word, it is what I would call a dippy ple, charged polytropic stars have been studied[65], as process! Having to resort to such hocus- well as charged situations with various other equations pocus has prevented us from proving that of state and space-times[66–68]. For a fairly comprehen- the theory of quantum electrodynamics is sive discussion and characterization scheme of spherically mathematically self-consistent. It’s surpris- charged solutions in general relativity, see Ref. [61]. ing that the theory still hasn’t been proved Because the electromagnetic stress-energy tensor has a self-consistent one way or the other by now; non-zero divergence in the presence of charge, one can- I suspect that renormalization is not mathe- 10 not use it as the sole source in Einstein’s field equations: matically legitimate.[59] Einstein’s tensor has a zero divergence due to the Bianchi identity, and cannot be equated to a tensor with non-zero In addition to failing to predict quantities such as mass divergence. Therefore, treating situations with electro- and charge of particles, renormalization is somewhat at magnetic charge in general relativity is even more dif- odds with general relativity: general relativity is non- ficult than in special relativity: without some addition renormalizable (one cannot play the same game and get to the electromagnetic stress-energy tensor, one cannot any useful predictions from calculations). This troubling start to solve the simplest problem. fact is a motivator in the study of string theory, where particles are stretched into strings: different excitations Also, one cannot introduce point particles to supple- of strings are the different particles of nature, with finite ment the stress-energy tensor: their infinite energy den- self-energies. Unfortunately, to this date, despite signifi- sity creates singularities in space-time. Therefore, in the cant effort, string theory has yet to demonstrate itself as literature where electric charge is studied in general rel- a suitable theory that can predict experimental results. ativity, the electromagnetic stress-energy tensor is aug- mented typically using a fluid, where the density of the fluid is proportional to the density of its constituent par- ticles, i.e. a continuum approximation. The addition of E. Gravity and Electromagnetism the fluid results in 6 dynamic degrees of freedom at each point in space-time (3 in the fluid and 3 in the electro- Speaking of general relativity, we skipped over some magnetic current). This makes the field equations un- details on historical attempts to integrate the theory of derdetermined (there are only 3 dynamical equations of gravitation and electromagnetism. Einstein introduced motion at each point in space-time), and the charge dis- his theory of gravitation, general relativity, in 1915[60]. tribution must be set as a model parameter, rather than However, since gravity is most important at astronomi- solved for by the dynamics[61]. Interestingly, this makes cal scales, for planets, stars, black holes, etc., which are finding many solutions easier, since one has free param- 11 not likely to carry significant excess charge, the vast ma- eters to tune . jority of theoretical and computational studies in general Recently, some attempts at modeling a “charged fluid” relativity consider uncharged situations[61]. appear in the literature, where the electromagnetic There have been various efforts throughout the 20th charge is stuck on the fluid (to remove the extra degrees century to “unify” gravity and electromagnetism, where of freedom): the energy density of the fluid is tied in an researchers have attempted to describe electromagnetism ad-hoc way to the density of the charge. For instance, in the context of a generalized theory of the geometry of this has been done (in a spherically static case) by adding a perfect fluid stress-energy tensor to the electromagnetic

10 It is interesting that some, who were so integral to developing quantum electrodynamics into its current state, had such opin- 11 As Ivanov writes, “The presence of charge serves as a safety ions; it may be the only time someone has described a good valve, which absorbs much of the fine tuning, necessary in the portion of their Nobel Prize winning topic as “dippy”. uncharged case.”[61] 8

stress-energy tensor and setting the energy density of the where ǫαβγδ has components 1, 0. We may also write αβγδ 1 αβγδ αβγδ± fluid to be proportional to the charge density squared[69]. η = ǫ , where ǫ = ǫαβγδ (more gen- √ g | | − To obtain stable solutions, negative pressure is required αβγδ ne (since the charge self-repels), and the equation of state erally, ǫ = ( 1) ǫαβγδ, where ne is the number of negative eigenvalues− of g ). (the relationship between the energy density, ǫ, and pres- µν sure, P , of the fluid) is set to P = ǫ[70–78]. This equa- Concerning operators, ∂µ or ∂i is the partial deriva- tive with respect to the coordinate of the subscript, tion of state has been called the “false− vacuum,” “degen- erate vacuum” and “vacuum fluid” among other names. and µ is the covariant derivative using the Levi-Civita connection[79].∇ In flat space-time, is the spatial gradi- All of these attempts center around special cases (e.g. ∇ static situations with spherical symmetry), rather than ent operator. The exterior derivative[79, 80], which oper- ates on differential forms is denoted as d (taking n-forms treating the general problem, which again is unsolved. to (n+1)-forms). The Hodge star operator[79, 80], which in a p dimensional space, takes an n-form to a (p n)- form, is denoted ∗. The codifferential operator[79,− 80], III. MATHEMATICAL REVIEW OF δ ∗d∗ 13 CLASSICAL ELECTRODYNAMICS , takes n-forms to (n 1)-forms . ≡The covariant representations− of kinematic variables are: Having reviewed some of the history of the develop- rµ = (t, ri) ment of electrodynamics, let us now review the current µ i (1) state of the associated mathematics. The electromag- v = (γ,γv ) netic field generated by a charge distribution is calculated where r = ri is the position of a point (i.e. the center of via Maxwell’s equations, and is without pathology. We mass of an object) at time t, both with units of length; refer the reader to [2] for review. However, as mentioned v = vi is the unitless fraction of the velocity of a point in the history, due to our lack of knowledge of the bare to the speed of light, c (or equivalently, c = 1); γ is mass and binding force for fundamental charged objects, the Lorentz factor, γ = 1/√1 v2. We use p for an a full treatment of the dynamics of a charged object, in- object’s center-of-mass momentum,− and π to denote a cluding self-interaction, is intractable. We now lay down field’s momentum density. the mathematics of why this is so. The antisymmetric part of a tensor may be writ- ten using square brackets in the indices as A B [µ ν] ≡ 1 (A B B A ); likewise, parentheses in indices rep- A. Notation 2 µ ν ν µ resent the− symmetric part of a tensor. Square brackets around two operators signifies the commutator, for in- For the remainder of the paper, the following nota- stance, [ µ, ν ] µ ν ν µ. Square brackets or tion will be used (unless otherwise noted). Relativistic parentheses∇ elsewhere∇ ≡ ∇ have∇ − no ∇ special∇ meaning. 12 (geometrized) units are used throughout . Capital itali- The covariant representations of the electromagnetic cized variables with Greek superscripts or subscripts, e.g. variables are: F or F µν , are tensors defined in 4-dimensional space- µν Aµ = (φ, Ai) time; covariant tensors have subscripts and contravariant F 2 A (or F dA) tensors have superscripts; Greek indices vary from 0 to µν [µ ν] ≡ ∇ 0 E1 E≡2 E3 3, with the 0th element being the time component, and E1 0 B3 B2 (2) 1-3 being space components. Lowercase italicized vari- F µν =   −E2 B3 0 −B1 ables with Greek superscripts are tensor densities (a ten-  − 3 − 2 1  µ µ E B B 0 sor multiplied by g , e.g. j = g J ). Bold italic µ  −i µν−  | | | | J = (ρ,J ) ν F , variables, e.g. F , arep differential formsp (totally antisym- ≡ ∇ metric covariant tensors). Bold non-italic variables, e.g. where Aµ is the electromagnetic potential (made of the B, are spatial vectors; these may also be represented us- scalar and vector potentials, φ and A = Ai), which are ing Latin indices, e.g. Bi; Latin indices vary from 1 to unitless; F µν is the electromagnetic field tensor (made up 3. Repeated indices in a product are implicitly summed of the electromagnetic fields, E = Ei and B = Bi), with over. units of 1/distance; J µ is the electromagnetic current We assume a space-time characterized by local co- density (made up of charge and current density, ρ and µ i i 2 ordinates x = (t, x ), with a metric, gµν with signa- J = J ), with units of 1/distance . ture (-+++). The determinant of the metric is writ- The notation = is short-hand for ten as g (with no indices). The totally antisymmetric R 4 4 (Levi-Civita) tensor is written as ηαβγδ = g ǫαβγδ, b = c bd x = cd x, (3) | | R → p R R

12 Using factors of the speed of light, c, and the gravitational con- 13 For more background on differential forms and exterior calculus, stant G, all units are converted to units of distance.[79] see Refs.[79, 80] 9

where d4x = dx0dx1dx2dx3, and b and c are scalar den- density. It is also possible there is some matter that does sities; the integral is over all space-time, and b and c are not directly interact with the electromagnetic field in our assumed to tend toward zero fast enough near infinity, object, but is bound to our bare matter in some way; we’ll such that integration by parts may be used to remove label this “other” momentum density, πother, its associ- total divergences. ated stress tensor, Ts,other, and the binding force density from the other matter on the bare matter as fb,bare. For completeness, allow for some non-electromagnetic, B. Dynamics of a Charged Object external force density fext,bare, which acts from outside objects directly on the bare matter. Then, conservation In this section, we develop the center-of-mass dynamics of momentum density for the bare matter is of a discrete charged object in an electromagnetic field. ∂πbare First, we will write down local momentum conservation ρE + J B + fb,bare + fext,bare = + Ts,bare. (5) in a general form, and integrate it to arrive at the center- × ∂t ∇ · of-mass equations of motion. For simplicity, in this sec- Integrating over a volume that fully contains the tion flat space-time will be assumed, but everything is charge, such that the integral of the stress tensor over special-relativistically invariant (although this may not the surface of the volume is zero, gives initially be obvious). We make no assumptions on the internal mass model of our charge, only that momentum dpbare (ρE + J B + fb,bare + fext,bare)dV = , (6) density is a conserved vector quantity. We also make no Z × dt assumption on the nature of non-electromagnetic forces; “force density” in this section merely means the local in- where dV is the spatial volume element, and pbare = crease in momentum density due to that force density (a πbaredV is the integrated (total) bare momentum of source term in the continuity equation for momentum). Rthe charge (again, not including the contribution from Consider a stable distribution of charge, which is its field). bounded in the sense that a surface can be drawn around Conservation of momentum density for the other mat- the distribution, which completely contains the charge. ter, including an external force, fext,other, that acts di- Internally, the distribution has local charge density ρ and rectly on the other matter, is current density J (which can vary with time and posi- ∂πother tion within the object; we make no constraints on those fb,other + fext,other = + Ts,other, (7) ∂t ∇ · at present). This electromagnetic current, J µ = (ρ, J), could inherently carry some “bare” momentum density where fb,other is the binding force on the other matter. The integral of Eq. 7 over the object, assuming the other in its own right. Call this πbare; this is the momentum density of matter that directly interacts with the electro- matter is also bounded by our surfaced, is magnetic field, but note this does not contain the momen- dpother tum in the electromagnetic field itself; this would be the (fb,other + fext,other)dV = , (8) momentum of the charge density if it were stripped of its Z dt electromagnetic field (in the literature the mass associ- where p = π dV . ated with this momentum is called the “bare mass”[24]). other other Now separate the electromagnetic field into a self-field There is also an associated stress tensor14, T [2, 81]; R s,bare (E and B ) due to the object itself, and an external if there is no loss/gain of bare momentum density, it self self field (E and B ) due to other charges outside the obeys the continuity equation: ext ext object. Assuming the distribution is sufficiently small ∂ compared to the variation of the external electromagnetic (π )+ T =0. (4) ∂t bare ∇ · s,bare field, we can immediately integrate terms with the exter- nal field, and total momentum conservation (the sum of We know the electromagnetic field delivers en- Eq. 6 and Eq. 8) becomes: ergy/momentum to charged objects: from Maxwell’s equations, in the presence of charge, the electromagnetic qEext + qv Bext + (ρEself + J Bself ) dV + Fother × d × field loses momentum density at a rate given by the neg- = dtR(pbare + pother), 15 ative of the Lorentz force density, fem ρE+J B . By (9) definition, this must be absorbed by the≡ bare momentum× 1 where q = ρdV and v = q JdV ; if the charge is suf- ficiently stableR (i.e. rigid), thenR v represents the center- of-mass motion of our compact object.

14 This is the spatial part of the stress-energy tensor, which will be Fother = (fext,bare + fext,other + fb,bare + fb,other) dV discussed more later R (10) 15 This makes no assumption on the structure of the charge; this ex- pression of the local loss of momentum from the electromagnetic is the total non-electromagnetic force acting on the ob- field can be derived directly from Maxwell’s equations assuming ject: the net momentum added to or removed from the µ µν J is defined as ∇ν F [2]. object by non-electromagnetic forces. 10

The integral of the self-field over the distribution re- the laboratory). Assuming that mbare and mother appro- sults in the “field reaction”, i.e. the rate of change of priately cancels the infinite mfield of a point charge, to the momentum of the self-electromagnetic field due to give the measured m, constitutes “renormalization”. the distribution’s motion[24]. The field reaction nat- Eq. 13 is the equations of motion for the center-of-mass urally splits into two pieces: a term that will look dynamics of a sufficiently stable charge, and is the force like d (γm v), associated with fields bound to the law found in text books for a charged particle, or in pa- − dt field charge, and thus contributing to its inertial mass (mfield pers discussing radiation reaction. We tried to keep this is that contribution)[24]; and a term that is associ- as general as possible: we didn’t assume much about the ated with the field that eventually escapes the object structure of the charge, only that it is small compared to as radiation, and is hence called the “radiation reac- variations of the external field and stable enough that v tion”16[24, 82–84]. is well-defined (the different momenta are proportional to While one can obtain mfield by extracting it from the it). If one ignores the radiation reaction, these equations self-field integral of Eq. 9, it is easier to use mass-energy of motion are readily solvable, and effectively describe equivalence from special relativity. The field energy (and many experiments18. hence mfield) is given by[2] However, including the radiation reaction is much more difficult. The radiation reaction term depends heavily 1 2 1 2 on how charge is distributed in the object. Therefore, in mfield = Eself,rest + Bself,rest dV, (11) Z 2 2  order to solve dynamical problems for the center-of-mass motion of a discrete charged body including the radiation where the fields are evaluated when the charge is isolated reaction, one must use a process summarized as follows and at rest, and the integral is over all space. This in- (this is the process used in all examples in the literature tegral is linearly inversely proportional to the size of the of which the author is aware): object (this is easy to show, for example, for a sphere of charge)[2, 24, 85]. Therefore, this self-energy, and its associated inertial mass, approaches infinity as one 1. Assume an internal distribution of charge for all takes the point charge limit, leading to the “infinite self- involved charged bodies (such as rigid spheres, or energy” problem[1]. point charges). This enables solving for the radia- v The radiation reaction (the recoil felt by the object tion reaction as a function of and its time deriva- due to momentum carried away by radiation) again, is tives. It also implicitly sets the binding force/stress what is left of the self-field integral after subtracting off tensor divergences everywhere in the bodies. the inertial contribution from m : field 2. Assume the mass of each charged body (a measured (radiation reaction) value if you’re treating a real charge), m; this is (12) = (ρE + J B ) dV d (γm v). necessary because of the lack of knowledge of how − self × self − dt field R to calculate mbare and mother. Note that the radiation reaction stays finite as the size of the charge approaches zero: the part of the self-field 3. With the radiation reaction known as a function integral which approaches infinity can all be rolled into of v and its derivatives, Eq. 13 provides a well- the mass. With the assumption that the integrated mo- determined system of equations for the center-of- menta are proportional to γv (an assumption of sufficient mass dynamics of each body: given initial condi- rigidity), we may also now define masses for the different tions, Eq. 13 may be solved. 17 momenta as pbare = γmbarev and pother = γmotherv . Replacing the momenta, extracting the contribution to As stated in Sec. II C, this process necessarily violates the inertial mass from the self-field integrals, and rear- causality on the time scale of light crossing the object. ranging Eq. 9, we obtain Also, if individual bodies are too close to each other, our assumption that Eext, Bext are constant over the qEext + qv Bext + Fother charge fails. Also, you will not be able to effectively d × (13) = dt (γmv) + (radiation reaction), solve for the radiation reaction before solving the dy- namics: if the radiation fields significantly overlap, the where m = m + m + m is the total inertial bare field other associated radiated momentum/power does not obey su- mass (what one would measure as the inertial mass in perposition (the fields add, but their momentum/power do not). Therefore, this methodology is only effective for bodies that do not interact too closely.

16 Many authors include the contribution to the inertial mass in what they call the “radiation reaction”[24] 17 Any required assumption of rigidity will necessarily be violated over short time-scales as changes in external forces propagate 18 The radiation reaction is negligible for many situations and may across the object; however, this assumption of rigidity is required be ignored without too much effect. See [2], Ch. 16 for a discus- to produce well-determined equations of motion, as will be dis- sion of when radiation reaction becomes important for various cussed in more detail later. experiments. 11

While this process may be used to solve for the center- field), of-mass dynamics of extended, charged bodies under cer- tain circumstances (while unfortunately violating causal- µν µα νβ 1 µν αβ TEM = gαβF F g Fαβ F , (15) ity on short time scales), solving for the internal dy- − 4 namics of a charge distribution (which is equivalent to has divergence[79] solving systems where charged objects interact closely) is completely intractable without a priori knowledge of T µν = J F µν = ( J E, ρE J B), (16) ∇µ EM µ − · − − × πbare, Ts,bare, πother, Ts,other, fb,bare, fb,other, fext,bare, and 19 fext,other . which is manifestly non-zero in the presence of electro- µν Without this knowledge, mathematically, the only way magnetic charge. Without some addition to T , energy- to produce well-posed equations of motion, which do not momentum cannot be conserved. This is the source of all manifestly violate causality, is to take the point charge the problems/paradoxes associated with developing clas- (particle) limit, where the only motion is the center-of- sical electrodynamics of extended bodies[2, 24, 45, 86]. mass motion. Then, for particles, which do not interact Some other contribution to the total stress-energy tensor too closely, Eq. 13 becomes the Lorentz-Abraham-Dirac is necessary to allow the total divergence to be zero, but equations of motion[24]. Even in the case of closely inter- no reasonable addition has been found, outside of includ- acting particles (where the radiated energy/momentum ing point charges, with their associated infinite masses[2]. cannot be predetermined), in principle, if one is care- If a reasonable non-particle addition were to be included, ful enough, one could track all the electromagnetic mo- all of the paradoxes and problems with electromagnetism would be resolved. We need the stress-energy tensor mentum/power emitted or absorbed through a small sur- µν face surrounding each interacting particle, and use that for the bare matter, Tbare, which can soak up this loss of energy-momentum from the electromagnetic field. If to calculate the change in momentum of each particle µν there is other matter, then we also need Tother (for other from one time to a slightly later time (assuming you µν µν know/measure each particle’s mass). Therefore, in the bound matter), Tb,bare and Tb,other (for the binding inter- action between the bare and other matter); if there is an point charge limit, one can create a well-posed, causally µν µν correct problem, which can be solved. external force, then we require Text,bare and Text,other to describe the energy-momentum transfer for those inter- Without a priori knowledge of the form of the inter- actions, and so on. nal momentum, stress tensors, and force densities, tak- These would yield the necessary expressions of this ing the point-charge limit appears to be the only way 0i ij 0i section: πbare = Tbare, Ts,bare = Tbare, πother = Tother, of solving electromagnetic problems in a self-consistent, ij causally correct way. The cost, mathematically, of taking and Ts,other = Tother. For the interactions, fb,bare = µi µi the point-charge limit, is that mfield is infinite, creating µTb,bare, fb,other = µTb,other and fext,bare = −∇ µi −∇ µi the need for renormalization (set mbare = so m is T , f = T , similar to how −∞ µ ext,bare ext,other µ ext,other the measured finite value). −∇ µi −∇ µTEM = fEM = ρE J B. If we had this knowl- All of these difficulties with developing equations of ∇edge, we could− solve− the− local× equations of motion Eq. 5 motion for charged objects may be summarized concisely and Eq. 7 for all of the internal dynamics of an object. and covariantly as follows. Conservation of momentum (and energy) density can be written by setting the diver- gence of a stress-energy tensor (call it T µν ) to zero[79]: C. Least Action Principle and Deriving Maxwell’s Equations µν µT =0. (14) ∇ The principle of least action has a long history, and has been used extensively to develop fundamental The electromagnetic stress-energy tensor (the contribu- theories[81]. To use the principle of least action to de- tion to the stress-energy tensor from the electromagnetic velop a field theory, one defines a scalar “action integral”, S, which is the integral over our entire space-time mani- fold of a scalar density, the Lagrangian density , which µ1,µ2... L can depend on various tensor fields, Ti 1 2 , and 19 With enough assumptions, one can make some progress in de- ν ,ν ... veloping internal dynamics without full knowledge of these vari- their derivatives (i here labels the different fields, not a ables. For instance, one may develop equations of motion by as- coordinate), as suming a spherical charge is comprised of spherical shells, which are tied together by some linear restoring force. This gives µ1,µ2... µ1,µ2... 4 S = (Ti 1 2 , ∂αTi 1 2 , ...)d x. (17) enough information about the internal binding force, that with Z L ν ,ν ... ν ,ν ... some other assumptions on the motion, one can solve for the center-of-mass motion and the induced dipole moment of such a where d4x = dx0dx1dx2dx3. We’ve used partial deriva- structure; this has been done in [32]. However, this still violates causality due to requiring that the spherical shell components tives here rather than covariant derivatives to allow ten- remain spherical; any predetermination of the form of the charge sor quantities, such as the curvature tensor, which cannot density of an extended object necessarily violates causality. be written as a covariant derivative of its field, but are 12

α still tensorial. Note the Lagrangian density must still be Since J is assumed independent of Aα, a scalar density, = g L, where L is a Lorentz scalar, L | | ∂ int α L = g J i.e. it is the same inp all coordinate systems, so almost ∂Aα ∂ | | αβ α (23) always derivatives should be covariant. The derivatives L = p g βF + J =0, 20 ∂Aα | | −∇ are often, but not always limited to first order . One p
then requires variations of this action to be zero against the last equation being the inhomogeneous Maxwell smooth, arbitrary, infinitesimal variations of the different equations with J α as the electromagnetic current. One 21 α fields (signified by an operator δ) , can’t just vary J independent of Aα, since its variation would lead to Aα = 0, which means there would be no ∂ µ1,µ2... 4 δS = µ1,µ2L... δTi ν1,ν2...d x =0, (18) field. As before, we unfortunately need to make some Z ∂Ti ν1,ν2... assumption about the structure of what is carrying the with the understanding that integration by parts is used current. To the author’s knowledge, the only option in µ1,µ2... the literature that yields reasonable equations of motion to convert variations of ∂αTi ν1,ν2... to variations of µ1,µ2... is the “particle hypothesis”[88] Ti ν1,ν2... and a total divergence, which can be con- verted to a surface integral and assumed zero (as varia- J α (ρ, J) q δ3(x r ) (1, v ) , (24) tions are assumed to be zero on the bounds of integra- ≡ ≡ i − i i ∂ Xi tion). Therefore, when we write µ1,µ2L... , what we ∂Ti ν1,ν2... µ1,µ2... where J α is comprised of a flow of particles: q , r , and mean is what multiplies δTi ν1,ν2... after integration i i th by parts. Since each field can vary independently, and vi are the charge, position, and velocity of the i point the variations are allowed to deform in any way in space- charge (here i is summed over discrete charges, not di- time, the following must be true for each of the fields at mensions), and δ3 is the 3-dimensional Dirac delta func- every point in space-time: tion, not an arbitrary variation. Using this particle hypothesis, and adding the particle ∂ Lagrangian density[81] to the action, we have the total µ1,µ2L... =0, (19) ∂Ti ν1,ν2... action: where again, the partial derivative with respect to S = ( + + ) d4x µ1,µ2... EM int particle T is understood to include dependencies on L Lmi 3 L (25) i ν1,ν2... particle = R g δ (x ri), its derivatives via integration by parts. This produces L − | | i γi − p P the same number of equations as there are degrees of th where mi is the mass of the i particle and γi is its freedom in all the fields (e.g. 6 equations at each point 2 1 Lorentz factor, ( 1 v )− . In the second two terms of in space-time for an antisymmetric 2-tensor). − i the action, we canp immediately integrate over the spatial To develop electromagnetism from a Lagrangian den- coordinates using the Dirac delta functions, sity, one starts with (in our units, using the sign conven- tion of Jackson)[2] S = d4x LEM mi (26) 1 R+ g qiφ + qivi A dt, = g F F αβ. (20) i | | − · − γi EM 4 αβ P R p   L − p| | where in the second integral, all fields are implicitly eval- If the “field” is considered to be Aα, then uated at ri; ri is now varied to arrive at the equations ∂ EM of motion for each particle. Dealing with point charges L = g F αβ, (21) ∂A β in curved-space time, using general relativity, is problem- α −p| |∇ αβ atic due to the fact that point charges produce space-time and the equations of motion for the field are βF = 0, singularities, so we will proceed in flat space-time, as is which means there is no electromagnetic charge;∇ Eq. 20 typical. The first integral does not depend on ri, and is the “free-space Lagrangian”. To allow for charge, an the variation of the second with respect to r (with the extra term is necessary. To do this, consider an indepen- i α flat-space gµν ) yields the Lorentz force equation for each dent vector field J (not yet identified as electromagnetic particle[2, 81]: current). Adding the typical “interaction Lagrangian”[2], int, makes the total Lagrangian d (γ m v ) = qE + qv B. (27) L dt i i i i × = + L LEM Lint (22) However, these are not the correct equations of motion: = g J αA . Lint | | α they are missing the radiation reaction. It isn’t surprising p that the radiation reaction is left out. It is well known that the principle of least action depends on the system being conservative. In 1900, when Joseph Larmor used 20 See [87] for some discussion. 21 Note the variation must obey any inherent symmetries of the the principle of least action to obtain both Maxwell’s underlying field. For example, the variation of the metric must equations and the Lorentz force[89], at the beginning of be symmetric since the metric is symmetric by definition. his treatment, he states 13

If the individual molecules are to be perma- field from Aµ in Eq. 22 (they vary separately when vary- nent, the system...must be conservative; so ing the Lagrangian). While as far as the author can tell, that the Principle of Least Action supplies a int is the only addition that will assign an independent foundation certainly wide enough... fieldL as the source in the inhomogeneous Maxwell’s equa- tions, that’s an assumption we don’t have to make. If we With the understanding that charged particles inherently don’t assume that an independent field, such as a flow of can lose a significant amount of energy due to radia- point charges, is the source of electromagnetism, we can tion, this argument doesn’t hold for a charged particle still reproduce all of Maxwell’s equations. in general, and calls into question the ability to use the With the definition (written as a tensor equation or in principle of least action for electromagnetism with point the language of differential forms) charges22. F 2 A This lack of self-interaction/radiation in particle the- µν [µ ν] (28) F ≡ dA∇ , ories, which are developed using the principle of least ≡ action, is apparent in both classical and quantum me- the homogeneous Maxwell’s equations chanics. In quantum electrodynamics, radiative/self- interaction effects are absent until they are added in (af- F + F + F =0 α βγ β γα γ αβ (29) ter the fact) via perturbation theory, using the construct ∇ dF∇= ddA =0∇ of virtual particles and virtual photons23. All of this is to dd say that the principle of least action does not appear to are identically true (since of any form is zero). This is be able to help us develop equations of motion for point simply an identity and not the result of any Lagrangian charges in a non-perturbative way. variation[79]; the inhomogeneous Maxwell’s equations are However, for non-point charges, the situation is less what Lint was meant to produce, since without it, we get F µν = 0, which means there is no charge. Some grim. In fact, self-interaction for extended charged ob- ∇ν jects, where the charge/current density is bounded, does addition that is non-zero inside of a charged object is not need to be accounted for at all at the fundamental necessary. But the author points out that any suitable level. If the current density, J µ, is bounded, then in a addition to the Lagrangian that is non-zero inside of a charged object, but zero outside, may function just as small region with volume dV , the magnitude of the self- µ field is proportional to dV , and the charge enclosed is well as int, as long as its variation with respect to A can cancelL F µν , where charge is present. Concerning proportional to dV , so the self-force is proportional to ∇ν dV 2. Whereas the force from a finite external field (the what would be measured as the electromagnetic current field generated by charge/current outside of dV ) is pro- in a laboratory, the current defined as portional to dV . Therefore, in the limit of dV 0, the ν → Jµ Fµν self-interaction is negligible compared to the interaction J ≡∗ ∇d ∗ F (30) with the external field. ≡ That is why with bounded J µ, conservation of momen- is guaranteed to be conserved identically, from the anti- tum locally is given by Eq. 5, without any explicit rep- symmetry of Fµν [79]: resentation of the self-interaction. The local equations J µ = F µν =0 of motion are conservative; it is not until an integral is µ µ ν (31) −∗∇d ∗ J = ∇ ∗∇dd ∗ F =0. performed over a finite charge that the radiation reaction − appears, as in Eq. 13. So for extended objects, we could No matter what the internal dynamics of a charged “par- use the principle of least action in a non-perturbative µ µν ticle” is, the integral of J ν F over a sufficiently way. small particle will result in a≡ conserved ∇ 4-current that is What can we do other than Eq. 22? It is commonly un- indistinguishable from the point-charge current of Eq. 24, derstood that the Lagrangian of Eq. 22 is required to re- and is the source of the particle’s electromagnetic field. produce the inhomogeneous Maxwell’s equations[2]. But This is all that has been measured experimentally, so µ there is some subtlety here. Recall J is an independent from an experimental standpoint, the inhomogeneous Maxwell’s equations will be unchanged by any choice of internal Lagrangian for a charged object: we have com- plete freedom to explore our options. 22 There have been efforts to contrive a Lagrangian for charged ob- To summarize, without making any assumptions or jects, which directly includes radiation reaction. For instance, µ researchers have developed Lagrangians for such dissipative sys- constraints on A , and using the two definitions Eqs. 28, tems by adding in time-reversed copies, doubling the phase space, 30, we have all of Maxwell’s equations; we obtain the in- but producing something where energy is conserved[90]. In any homogeneous Maxwell’s equations by simply defining it case, one does not obtain anything like the Lagrangians used to be true (as long as we don’t define J µ in any other in the standard model, and such Lagrangians are dependent on way, or contradict it, we’re free to define it as in Eq. 30). the geometry of the charge, so we’d be back to pre-defining the µ geometry and, for extended objects, violating causality. Or if one likes, we never introduce J at all; in any case, µν 23 it’s just short-hand for F . Of course, this isn’t any- The interaction with virtual particles is indistinguishable from ∇ν self-interaction. See Sec. 3 from [55]. thing new. In almost any introductory electromagnetism 14

text[2], or general relativity text for that matter[79], elec- A. Integrability tromagnetic current is defined by Eq. 30, but from the perspective of developing electromagnetism from a La- Since we only have 3 degrees of freedom per point in grangian, the literature appears to incorrectly imply Lint space-time in the electromagnetic field, we need to ensure is required to reproduce the inhomogeneous Maxwell’s that the energy-momentum conservation equations also equations; this is only the case to identify a field that is only result in 3 independent equations of motion, so as independent of Aµ as electromagnetic current. not to overdetermine its evolution. This hopefully will For the remainder of the paper, we will remove int and allow us to formulate a dynamic system of equations that, from the Lagrangian and their associatedL stress- given initial conditions, can be solved. Lparticle energy tensor. We use as a starting point only EM and If our resulting conservation of energy-momentum sat- µν L its associated stress-energy tensor, TEM. isfies a scalar identity, leaving us with only 3 independent equations of motion, which with conservation of charge, uniquely evolves the electromagnetic current, that would suffice. The electromagnetic field energy-momentum pro- vides us with just such an identity. As mentioned before, IV. COMPLETING THE STRESS-ENERGY µν µT is: TENSOR ∇ EM T µν = J F µν . (32) ∇µ EM µ We’ll return to the principle of least action later. Since the non-zero divergence of the electromagnetic stress- While this divergence is non-zero, it has the property energy tensor is central to the inconsistencies plaguing that it is identically orthogonal to Jν : electromagnetic theory of extended bodies, let us take J T µν = J J F µν =0, (33) some time to investigate possible ways to “complete” the ν ∇µ EM ν µ electromagnetic stress-energy tensor directly, by finding since J J is symmetric and F µν is anti-symmetric. This additions that can produce energy-momentum conserva- ν µ can be interpreted physically in the following way: in a tion equations that are self-consistent and solvable. To local frame where J = 0, the power delivered from/to summarize our problem from an energetic standpoint, the electromagnetic field ( T µ0 ) is identically 0. This electrodynamic theory suffers from the fact that the elec- µ EM ∇ µ0 J E tromagnetic stress-energy tensor, Eq. 15, in the presence is obvious from the expression JµF = . This is analogous to a similar condition− for· particles. of electric charge, has manifestly non-zero divergence; µ from a purely mathematical perspective, one obtains un- For a particle with 4-momentum, p , the rate of change of pµ in the direction of a time-like vector, tν , that is solvable problems without an appropriate addition. The ν µ parallel to the particle’s path, is t ν p . This rate of only suitable addition that has been found is that of µ ∇ charged point particles. This point-charge assumption change and p are identically perpendicular, if the mass produces solvable equations in flat space-time, but at a of the particle is constant, cost of infinite self-energies. In flat space-time, these may ν µ 1 ν µ 1 ν 2 be dealt with via a renormalization procedure, but un- pµt ν p = t ν (p pµ)= t ν m =0. (34) ∇ 2 ∇ 2 ∇ − fortunately preclude integrating with general relativity.
This method also requires perturbative methods to in- This can be seen as being from the fact that in a frame clude remaining non-infinite self-interaction terms (ra- where pi = 0 (the instantaneous center-of-mass frame), diative corrections). the energy is a minimum compared to frames boosted In this section, we ask the question: is there a purely out of the center-of-mass frame (a non-moving particle electromagnetic solution? More explicitly, there are 3 has less energy than a moving one). For an accelerated degrees of freedom per point in space-time in the elec- particle as it passes through its center-of-mass frame, the tromagnetic field: 4 in Aα minus 1 since you have one power delivered must be zero due to this minimum. degree of gauge freedom (or if you like, 4 in J α mi- Whatever 4-force is applied to particles must have the nus 1 since it is identically conserved). There are 4 same property to produce consistent energy and momen- energy-momentum conservation equations, but often en- tum evolution equations: it must be identically perpen- µ ergy conservation can be related to momentum conserva- dicular to p (this is equivalent to requiring that the power delivered by a force, F, on a particle is F v, tion, which would yield 3 equations of motion per point · in space-time. Without adding any more degrees of free- where v is the velocity of the particle). For the case of µ dom per point in space-time, what can we add to T µν to charged particles, the electromagnetic current, J , and EM µ produce self-consistent equations of motion24? the momentum, p , coincide up to a constant, and the two identities, Eqs. 33 and 34, are consistent. In our search for some non-particle matter to absorb the energy-momentum lost by the electromagnetic field in µ 24 In the language of Sec. III B, this amounts to setting T µν = the presence of J , let us use this same identity, and see µν µν µνother Tb = Text = 0, and finding possible expressions for Tbare. if there are any appropriate additions that can identically 15

satisfy Eq. 33. Qualitatively, this means the energy den- where kJ is a constant with units of distance squared. µν µν sity contained in our addition must be at an extremum The form of TJ is similar to TEM. The components in frames where J = 0, such that power density delivered explicitly in flat space-time are in that frame will be 0. 00 kJ 2 2 Mathematically, if we write the complete stress-energy TJ = 2 ρ + J µν µν 0k k µν TJ = kJ ρJ
(42) tensor T , comprised of TEM and some addition, Tadd, T ik = k J iJ k + kJ gik(ρ2 J 2), J J 2 − T µν T µν + T µν , (35) ≡ EM add where gik in flat space-time is the Kronecker delta func- we seek additions such that: tion. The 00 component looks like what one might guess for the energy stored in a charge density (it has some- µν 2 Jν µT =0. (36) thing that looks like a rest term, ρ , and a kinetic term, add 2 ∇ J ; with kJ > 0, the energy density is a minimum in the This will ensure energy density conservation is automat- frame where J = 0). The 0k components also look like ically conserved if momentum density is conserved (just what one might guess for the momentum carried by a as for particles the power is determined by the force as current. F v), leaving us with 3 independent equations to deter- Taking the divergence of T µν yields the equations of mine· our 3 degrees of freedom25. motion: µ µ µ Tµν = TEM,µν + TJ,µν ∇ ∇µ ∇ (43) = J Fµν +2kJ ∂[µJν] =0. B. One Possible Addition to the Stress-Energy
Tensor Note that we have replaced some covariant derivatives with partial derivatives, since (in the absence of torsion), Using the guidance from the last section, we will re- the antisymmetric derivatives coincide. µν µ Let’s explore them in flat space-time, since it will re- quire the divergence of Tadd to be orthogonal to J identi- cally, and the most obvious choices are terms that explic- veal some interesting properties of our new stress-energy itly include J µ. There are only two quadratic, symmetric tensor. Taking into account charge conservation, they 2-tensors, which involve the current: are: µν µ ν µν α µT =0= J J , g JαJ , (37) ∇ ∂J J E + kJ J + J ρ − · J· ∂t · ∇ .  (ρE + J B)+ k ρ ∂ + ρ ρ J
( J)  which suggests the following addition, − × J ∂t ∇ − × ∇×
(44) µν µν α µ ν The time component (power equation) is redundant by T = ag JαJ + bJ J . (38) add Eq. 36 as long a ρ is non-zero (dot the momentum equa- where a and b are constants. Taking the divergence of tion with J and divide that by ρ), which is guaranteed µν for time-like currents26. Thus, for time-like currents all Tadd yields the information contained in Eq. 44 may be written as µν µν α µ ν µTadd = ag µ(JαJ )+ b µ(J J ) ∇ µν∇ α ∇ µ ν µ ν ∂J = 2ag Jα µJ + b( µJ J + J µJ ) ρE + J B = kJ ρ + ρ ρ J ( J) . (45) = 2aJ ν J∇µ + bJ µ∇J ν , ∇ ×  ∂t ∇ − × ∇×  µ∇ µ∇ (39) This is a well-defined, local force law on the current den- and taking a = 1 b, we have sity, which given initial conditions, can be evolved. Had − 2 we chosen any other relationship between a and b, we µν µ ν ν µ µT = bJµ ( J J ) , (40) would have found inconsistent momentum and energy ∇ add ∇ − ∇ equations. which is perpendicular to Jν , and Eq. 40 satisfies Eq. 36 µν Eq. 45 is reminiscent of the equations of motion of a (the energy density of T is an extremum in a frame 1 2 add fluid. Using the identity J ( J)= 2 (J ) (J )J, where J=0). Therefore, one possible addition to the elec- and with some algebra, the× force∇× law becomes∇ − ·∇ tromagnetic stress-energy tensor is ∂J k k ρ +k (J )J = J ρ2 J 2 +ρE+J B. J ∂t J ·∇ −∇  2 −  × 1
T µν k J µJ ν gµν J J α , (41) (46) J ≡ J  − 2 α 

26 For space-like currents where ρ is zero but J is not, the power 25 For space-like currents, this identity can make one of the momen- equation provides one equation, and the momentum equation is tum equations redundant rather than the energy equation as we guaranteed to be perpendicular to J leaving only two indepen- will see shortly. In any case, there are 3 independent equations. dent equations there. 16

This is a Navier-Stokes-like equation, where the left hand instance, to search for stable solutions). The connection side represents the total change in momentum of the to a relativistic perfect fluid should also make available fluid. The right hand side has a pressure-like term, with various existing methods for solving these equations in kJ 2 2 pressure P = 2 (ρ J ), and a body force from the the context of general relativity. electromagnetic field.− While it may be self-consistent, it may not be rep- Eq. 46 can be made to look exactly like the Navier- resentative of the physical world. We will inspect the Stokes equation by making the replacement J = ρu properties and solutions of this theory later. For now, (again, if ρ is non-zero): let us see how we can arrive at this theory using varia- tional methods, which will be informative on how other 2 ∂u kJ ρ ∂t + (u )u extended body theories may be developed. 2· ∇ (47) = P + kJ ρ ( u
)u + ρE + J B. −∇ ∇ · × This is now the Navier-Stokes equation[91] with no vis- C. Principle of Least Action Revisited 2 cosity for a fluid of mass density kJ ρ , velocity u, pres- sure P = kJ (ρ2 J 2), and a body force, ρ2( u)u + 2 − ∇ · Having found a self-consistent stress-energy tensor. We ρE + J B27. × turn our attention to whether a suitable Lagrangian ex- Covariantly, a perfect (non-viscous) fluid has a stress- ists that will generate the stress-energy tensor of Eq. 41. energy tensor given by In general relativity, one can associate a Lagrangian with µν µ ν µν its contribution to the stress-energy tensor as[93] Tpf = (ǫ + P )u u + Pg , (48) ∂ 1 µν L = g T . (50) where ǫ is the energy density, P is the pressure, and ∂gµν 2 | | uµ is the fluid 4-velocity, which satisfies u uµ = 1[2, p µ The connection of our addition to a perfect fluid makes 92]. Writing the electromagnetic 4-current as J−µ = this possible, in the case of time-like currents. In [94], α µ 2 2 µ √ JαJ u = ρ J u (assuming time-like cur- − µν − the Lagrangian density is derived for a barotropic fluid rents), TJ takesp on the form of the stress-energy tensor (a fluid whose pressure/energy are only functions of the of a perfect fluid with the following equation of state, rest mass density). They show that given a conservation µ law (conservation of matter in [94]) µ(ρmu ) = 0, where kJ kJ ǫ = P = J J µ = ρ2 J 2 . (49) uµ is the time-like 4-velocity of the∇ fluid and ρ is the − 2 µ 2 − m
rest mass density, one can relate the variation of ρm to To review, we’ve established conservation of momen- the variation of the metric as[94, 95] tum equations that can, for the first time in a self- 1 µν consistent way to the author’s knowledge, describe the δρm = (gµν + uµuν )δg . (51) evolution of an extended charged object. In this theory, 2 kJ has the role of a fundamental physical constant, like As in Sec. IVB, we cast the electromagnetic current as µ α µ the gravitational constant, G, or the speed of light, c. J = √ JαJ u , and conservation of charge takes the − µ α Given general relativity and electromagnetism, we could form µ(ρmu ) = 0 with ρm = √ JαJ . Our pressure always reduce variables to some unit of distance (using ∇ 1 −2 and energy are then P = ǫ = 2 kJ ρm. In [94], they show appropriate factors of G and c), like in the geometric that if the pressure can be written purely as a function units we use in this paper. In quantum mechanics, we can of ρ , the Lagrangian density that produces the perfect ~ m do away with all units using (or equivalently the Planck fluid stress-energy tensor is g ǫ, and the energy den- − | | length) to set a fundamental length scale. Similarly, in sity must obey p the equations of motion, Eq. 43, kJ sets the length scale ρm for any dynamical problem. One could rewrite all the P (ρm′ ) ǫ = Cρm + ρm 2 dρm′ , (52) equations in completely dimensionless form by modify- Z0 ρm′ ing the operator to be unitless using k , and adding ∇µ J appropriate powers of kJ to all variables to also make where C is an arbitrary integration constant. In our case, them unitless. P and ǫ are pure functions of ρm, andif we set C = 0, our µν energy is indeed given by Eq. 52. Since we satisfy all the Because TJ results in equations of motion so similar to the Navier-Stokes equation, this may allow use of well requirements of [94], we can say, for time-like currents µν established methods to solve the equations of motion (for the Lagrangian density, which produces TJ , is k J LJ (53) 1 g J J α. LJ ≡ 2 | | α 27 Note the “mass” conservation law for this fluid is slightly different p than for a typical fluid. Using conservation of charge, one finds However, note there is an implicit assumption here of 2 ∂(ρ ) 2 u u 2 what is held constant during the metric variation to ar- ∂t + 2ρ ∇· + ·∇(ρ ) = 0; the factor of 2 on the second term is not found in the typical conservation of mass equation rive at the result of [94]; charge conservation was explic- associated with the Navier-Stokes equation. itly maintained during metric variation. How can we do 17

that more directly in terms of electromagnetic variables? most importantly, what does this do to the electromag- The simplest way is to to hold the current density, netic stress-energy tensor? If that has changed form, our original goal of trying find an addition that is consistent jµ g J µ, (54) with it is moot. ≡ p| | To address this question, it’s useful to introduce the constant during metric variation. This is because charge electromagnetic field tensor density, conservation, f µν g F µν , (58) µ 1 µ ≡ | | µJ = ∂µ g J =0, (55) p ∇ g  | |  and using the relation jµ = ∂ f µν (even in curved space- | | p ν p time), the variation of f µν and jµ are simply related by µ can be written as ∂µj = 0, completely independent of the metric (even in curved space-time). If jµ is held con- B δjµ = B δf µν , (59) stant during metric variation, then charge is guaranteed µ R ∇[µ ν] to be conserved independent of the metric28. It is simple to write as a function of jµ and the for any one-form Bµ (see Sec. III A for the definition of LJ metric: =).R Eq. 59 does not involve the metric at all (treating f µν 1 µ α µ J = gµαj j . (56) or j as independent results in the same Einstein’s equa- L 2 g | | tions with the same stress-energy tensor). Now let us p µ 29 address the electromagnetic field Lagrangian: Varying gµν holding j constant gives 1 αβ EM = g FαβF ∂ J 1 µ ν 1 µν α 4 kJ L = g kJ J J g JαJ L − 1 | | µν αβ (60) ∂gµν 2 2 = p gµαgνβf f . jµ=const | | − 4√ g   p µν − = 1 g T ,
| | 2 | | J p (57) The conventional variation, considering Aµ as the inde- which is the correct relationship between a Lagrangian pendent EM field, is[2] and its stress-energy tensor. Therefore, using charge con- µ servation as an argument to hold j constant, we obtain δ = 1 g T µν δg jµδA . (61) the same result as [94] (but without any time-like current LEM R 2 | | EM µν − µ p assumption): our Lagrangian density is given by Eq. 53 Calculating the variation using f µν as independent re- (or Eq. 56), which produces the correct stress-energy ten- sults in sor. This Lagrangian has been studied before[96–99] in δ = 1 g T µν δg 1 F δf µν . (62) LEM − 2 | | EM µν − 2 µν what has come to be called “Bopp-Podolsky” electrody- p namics. However, in all the cases the author is aware From this, it’s clear that using jµ as independent results of, these studies maintain int and particle in the La- in grangian, and are interestedL in howL these terms mod- ify the point-charge theory. We have done something δ = 1 g T µν δg A δjµ. (63) LEM R − 2 | | EM µν − µ different; we have removed point charges from the the- p µ ory altogether, to obtain a point-charge-free theory that Whether we use j or Aµ as independent, we still get potentially could yield small, stable, charged (but non- the same, standard electromagnetic stress-energy tensor point-charge) solutions. from EM, although with opposite sign. The sign is of It’s also worth noting that holding jµ constant is a little importance,L however, since we can change its sign departure from what is typically done in developing elec- in the total Lagrangian, or other signs, such as of kJ , tromagnetism from a Lagrangian, as in Sec. IIIC or to compensate as necessary (the overall sign of the La- Bopp-Podolsky electrodynamics, where Aµ is held con- grangian does not effect the equations of motion). stant during metric variation, and then independently Varying J gives varied in its own right to obtain Maxwell’s inhomoge- L µ neous equations. What are the consequences of using j 1 µν µ kJ δ J = g TJ δgµν + kJ Jµδj (64) rather than Aµ as independent from the metric? Possibly 2 L p| | 1 = g T µν δg + k J δf µν (65) R 2 J µν J [µ ν] p| | ∇ 28 Note electromagnetic charge is guaranteed to be conserved in- or treating Aµ as independent, dependent of the metric by its definition; this is to say if Jµ jµ were not identically conserved, holding constant during met- 1 µν [µ ν] ric variation would guarantee its conservation. kJ δ J =R 2 g TJ,Aδgµν +2 g kJ ν J δAµ 29 1 µν L | | | | ∇ ∇ δp|g| = 2 p|g|g δgµν , see [79] p p (66) 18

µν µν αβ µν T T + kJ [αJβ]F g It’s also clear, in flat space-time, that any solution to J,A ≡ J ∇ (67) 2 [µJ α]F νβg 2 [ν J α]F µβg . Eq. 73 is a solution to Eq. 71. More generally, for any − ∇ αβ − ∇ αβ
two-form Bµν , The stress-energy tensor of Eq 67 can be found in µν Ref. [98] where it was studied in the context of Bopp- Bµν δf Podolsky electrodynamics. It is more complicated than = g 1 B F αβgµν 2B[µα]F νβg δg (74) µν R | | 2 αβ − αβ µν TJ , but its divergence is fairly simple, p+2 g Bµν δA ,
| |∇ν µ µν µν α p ν T =2kJ F [ν Jα], (68) and for any one form B , ∇ J,A ∇ ∇ µ µ which does not satisfy our original guiding condition of Bµδj µν Jµ ν Tadd = 0. However, the divergence of the complete 1 αβ µν [µ α] νβ ∇ =R g 2 [αBβ]F g 2 B F gαβ δgµν stress-energy tensor is | | ∇ [µ ν] − ∇ p+2 g ν B δAµ.
| |∇ ∇ (75) µν µν µν α p
ν TEM + TJ,A = F Jν +2kJ [ν Jα] , So the electromagnetic field equations, treating A as ∇   − ∇ ∇ µ
(69) independent, can be written as which is identically perpendicular to the conserved cur- ν rent in parentheses, and hence also has the correct num- 2 [µBν] =0 ∇ ∇ ∂ matter (76) µ µ ber of independent equations to specify A (or J ). Bµ = L∂jµ . At this point, it’s useful to define a total “matter” Thus, for any Lagrangian, in flat space-time, any solution Lagrangian density (everything except the Lagrangian to the field equations using jµ as independent is also a density for gravity, which we’ll add later). The matter solution to the field equations using A as independent. Lagrangian with our current terms is µ However, the stress-energy tensors differ, and gµν (grav- ity) will differ. = g 1 k F F µν + 1 k J J µ . (70) Lmatter | | 4 EM µν 2 J µ Typically space-time curvature is ignored in the study p
Note k is +1 if we’re holding jµ constant during vari- of fundamental particles, due to difficulties in integrat- EM ing with quantum mechanics, on the grounds that they ation, and 1 if we’re holding Aµ constant during varia- − µν are light or general relativity may not hold at all for tion to obtain the conventional sign of TEM when varying the metric. such length scales, or possibly for simplicity. Neverthe- The field equations for A are less, since the sizes of fundamental particles are smaller µ than can currently be detected, it’s possible space-time

1 ∂ matter µ [µ α] curvature can be important to their intradynamics, or L = kEMJ +2kJ α J =0. √ g ∂Aµ (71) even close enough interactions (as one approaches a small | | ∇ ∇ enough particle, curvature eventually must be important One thing worth noting is that, for any Lagrangian, con- under the theory of general relativity). servation of energy-momentum is guaranteed trivially if With this in mind, consider what other scalars can the field equations resulting from varying all the fields be added to the Lagrangian. Outside of EM and J , outside of the metric are satisfied, as we’ll discuss more in there are three other, independent quadraticL scalars thatL the next section. This is obvious from our current exam- depend on F µν and its first derivatives, two of which ple: if Eq. 71 is satisfied, then Eq. 69 is trivially satisfied. are linear in ηαβµν , and thus change sign under a parity Thus, from the standpoint of the principle of least action, transformation (their inclusion would lead to a “parity the field equations fully determine the dynamics, without violating” theory)30: any help from conservation of energy-momentum. 1 αβ µν With this understanding, consider how the field equa- F 4 g ηαβµν F F µ L∗ ≡ 1 | | α µν tions differ if we use j versus Aµ as independent. The dF 4 p g αFµν F (77) µ L ≡ 1 | |∇ ∇ µν α σρ field equations, with j independent, are d F p g ηµνσρ αF F . L ∗ ≡ 4 | | ∇ ∇ p ∂ matter Using dd(δA) = 0 (the homogeneous Maxwell’s equa- L = k A + k J =0, (72) ∂jµ EM µ J µ tions, where δ here is a variation, not the codifferential), the variation of F can be rewritten as[97] or plugging in the definition for J µ, L∗ µναβ (78) δ F =R 2 g ν η Aµ ∂[αδAβ] , k A +2k ν A =0. (73) L∗ − | |∇ EM µ J ∇ ∇[µ ν] p

Eq. 73 and Eq.71 areof the exact same form, one in terms µ µ of A , and the other in terms of J . Both field equations 30 There are a few other permutations of indices for first derivative µ αν reduce to the Proca equation in flat space-time (as long terms, such as ∇αFµν ∇ F , but using Maxwell’s equations, as one uses the Lorenz gauge for Aµ). these reduce to combinations of the terms listed here. 19

which is a total divergence, and won’t contribute to any the latter being zero as it reduces to terms involving variational theory. That’s in line with nature, since such dF = ddA = 0 (the homogeneous Maxwell’s equations) a term would certainly be long-range, and there is no and total divergences. Thus, we can rewrite dF and 32 L long-range parity violation in nature (the weak interac- d F as tion, which is the only known force to violate parity[100], L ∗ is quite short in range). = g 1 J J µ 1 W F αβF µν LdF R | | 2 µ − 4 αβµν It does not appear to be possible to write dF or d F p1 µν αβ
µ L L ∗ d F =R g Xαβµν F F . (85) as a function of gµν and j , but it is possible to write L ∗ − 4 | | µν 1 p σρ σρ them as a function of gµν and f , and using Eq. 74, con- Xαβµν 2 ηαβσρWµν + ηµνσρWαβ . ≡   vert that to equations of motion using Aµ as independent. First note that, ignoring total divergences, both dF and The Lagrangian densities of Eq. 85 are examples of “non- 31 L d F can be written as minimally coupled” Lagrangians studied in Ref. [101] and L ∗ subsequent publications in recent years. In those publi- cations, they study different products of curvature and = 1 g F µν αF LdF R − 4 | | ∇α∇ µν (79) F µν , choosing which terms to include and their relative 1 p µνσρ α d F =R g η Fµν α Fσρ. strengths in an ad hoc or phenomenological manner[101]; L ∗ − 4 | | ∇ ∇ p here we have arrived at relatively few options by includ- In flat space-time, dF reduces to J [99], and d F re- ing all quadratic products of first-order derivatives of L L L ∗ duces to zero (as we will show shortly). But in the pres- F µν . The variation of these Lagrangian densities may ence of curvature, this is not the case. To show this, it’s be written as33, useful to introduce a Laplacian operator (which differs from α) that operates on differential forms (antisym- 1 µ α δ dF =R δ g JµJ metric∇ tensors),∇ ∆; This is sometimes called the “Hodge L 2 | |  p 1  ∂ Wαβµν Laplacian”, “de Rham wave operator”, or “Laplace-de 1  √|g|  αβ µν  f f  δgσρ Rham operator”[79, 80], − 4 ∂gσρ

2 1  αβ µν  (86) ∆ (d + δ) = (dδ + δd) 2 Wαβµν F δf ≡ (80) − 1 = d ∗ d ∗ + ∗ d ∗ d. ∂ Xαβµν 1  √|g|  αβ µν δ d F =R 4  ∂g f f  δgσρ α L ∗ − σρ As it turns out, in flat space-time ∆ = α , but not so in curved space-time. In curved space-time,−∇ ∇ extra 1  αβ µν  2 Xαβµν F δf . terms appear proportional to the curvature (these extra − terms were first derived by Weitzenbock[80]). Operating From this and Eq. 74, B on any two-form, , the relation is[80] ∂ dF [µ ν] αβµν L = g 2 ν J ν W Fαβ ∂Aµ | | ∇ ∇ − ∇ (87) α αβ ∂ d∗F p αβµν (∆B) + B = W B L = g ν X Fαβ .
 µν ∇α∇ µν µν αβ (81) ∂Aµ − | |∇ Wαβµν R g R g Rαβµν . p
≡ α[µ ν]β − β[µ ν]α − We now have all the pieces to treat the most general Also, the current 1-form, J ∗d ∗ F = δF , so matter Lagrangian that includes only the degrees of free- ≡ dom in F µν , including all quadratic terms involving F µν ∆F = dJ. (82) and its first derivatives:34 = Using these relationships, we find Lmatter kEM EM + kJ J + kdF ( dF J )+ kd F d F − L L L − L ∗ L ∗ = 1 k g F F µν 1 µν F αβ 4 EM µν dF =R g F (∆ )µν W Fαβ 1 | | µν α 4 µν + kJp g ν F Fµα L 1 | | µν dJ − αβ 2 | |∇ ∇ = 4 p g F ( )µν W µν Fαβ  1 µν α µν α | | − + 4 kdFp g ( αF Fµν 2 ν F Fµα) 1 p µνσρ F αβ 1 | | ∇ ∇ µν α− σρ∇ ∇ d F =R g η Fµν (∆ )σρ W σρFαβ + kd Fp g ηµνσρ αF F , L ∗ 4 | | − 4 ∗ | | ∇ ∇ = 1 p g ηµνσρF (dJ) W αβ F . p (88) 4 | | µν σρ − σρ αβ p   (83) One also finds

32 g F µν (dJ) = 2 g J J µ We write Xαβµν in this fashion to guarantee it is symmetric | | µν R | | µ (84) under interchange of the first pair and second pair of indices, pµνσρ dJ p since it is only that portion that contributes here. Note that g η Fµν ( )σρ =R 0, | | Wαβµν has this property inherently. p 33 The variations of Wαβµν and Xαβµν with respect to the metric are more complicated, and don’t contribute much to the current discussion, so these will be left for a later publication. 31 34 µ Note that ηµναβ is constant in the sense that its covariant deriva- To emphasize we’ve made no assumption on J , we’ve replaced µ µν tive is zero[79]. it with its definition here, J ≡∇ν F . 20

where we’ve subtracted J from dF to isolate the cur- gauge invariant theory compatible with general relativ- L L 37 vature dependent portion of dF ; the contribution of ity . This theory, introduces an internal force (from to the total LagrangianL is proportional to cur- the current-current interaction, J J µ), and two new very LdF − LJ µ vature by Eq. 85. It’s not apparent how to write matter short range forces mediated by space-time curvature, one in terms of jµ, which precludes varying it with respectL to which will result in a parity violating theory. µ j , but varying Aµ, the electromagnetic field equations We’ve taken a somewhat round-about method of get- are ting to the theory of Eq. 91 and Eq. 88. We started

1 ∂ matter with trying to find ways to self-consistently finding stress- L = √ g ∂Aµ (89) energy tensors, requiring there only be 3 independent | | µ µ µ µ kEMJ + kJ J + kdF J + kd F J =0, equations of motion, which led us to the matter La- dJ dF ∗ d F ∗ grangian of Eq. 70, using jµ as independent rather than µ where each term is comprised of a conserved current, Aµ. While this theory is self-consistent, treating j as independent does not appear to allow for the new µ [µ α] JdJ 2 α J curvature-mediated, short-range forces (and hence can- µ ≡ ∇ ∇ αβµν JdF ν W Fαβ (90) not violate parity). µ ≡ −∇ αβµν J ν X Fαβ
, d F ≡ −∇ An interesting fact that came from this is we obtained ∗
µ µ µ enough equations of motion directly from conservation with µJdJ = µJdF = µJd F = 0 being identically ∇ ∇ ∇ ∗ of energy-momentum, and we could solve those to obtain true by virtue of being a divergence of an anti-symmetric solutions, rather than using the field equations from the 2-tensor[79]. In fact, varying any Lagrangian term, that µν principle of least action. In the next section, we find that can be written in terms of f and gµν , with respect to by modifying the principle of least action, we can develop A , will result in such a conserved current by Eq. 74. µ variational theories where energy-momentum conserva- This means given initial conditions on a space-like sur- tion are the fundamental field equations. face, one of the four field equations will be determined by the other three; this will preserve the gauge freedom in Aµ in solutions. To include gravity, add the Einstein-Hilbert La- grangian, , to give the total Lagrangian[79] LEH D. Least Action, Energy-Momentum Conservation, and Diffeomorphism Invariance = + Ltotal LEH Lmatter (91) 1 g R, LEH ≡ 16π | | p Conventionally, conservation of energy-momentum where R is the scalar curvature. The variation of this equations are found by using principle of least ac- Lagrangian is35 tion, Eq. 18, including gravity (the Einstein-Hilbert La- grangian), which results in Einstein’s equations with the 1 µν 1 µν 1 µν µν δ total = g 16π (R 2 Rg )+ 2 T δgµν stress-energy tensor, T , the divergence of which must L ∂| |matter− − p+ L  δAµ  be zero, since it equals the Einstein tensor, which has ∂Aµ 38 µν 2 ∂ matter zero divergence by the Bianchi identities[79] . T = L , √ g ∂gµν | | (92) Using a variational method, is there a way to make µν µν 1 µν energy-momentum conservation fundamental, where where R is the Ricci curvature tensor (or R 2 Rg is the divergence-free Einstein tensor). Setting what− mul- those are the equations that fully determine the fields? To do this, rather than allow independent fields to vary tiplies δgµν to zero gives Einstein’s equations, with our new stress-energy tensor36: arbitrarily, we will restrict their variations somewhat. For each independent tensor in the Lagrangian, Rµν 1 Rgµν =8πT µν . (93) T µ1,µ2... , let ξµ be a smooth vector field with com- − 2 i ν1,ν2... i pact support, and let φλ be the one parameter family To summarize, removing the point-charge assumption, of diffeomorphisms, which is the global flow (or the one µ and including all possible quadratic Lagrangians in terms parameter group action) associated with ξi , where λ is of F µν and its first derivatives, we find a self-consistent, a real number[103]. The change of a tensor induced by

35 A derivation of the variation of the scalar curvature can be found 37 Self-consistent in the sense that energy-momentum can actually in [102]. be conserved in a self-consistent way, without requiring Jµ = 0 36 Performing the variation of the new terms with respect to gµν (which is what is required with just LEM). to calculate the form of T µν is left for a future publication, as 38 Or alternatively, one finds the canonical stress-energy tensor, and it is somewhat complicated. In the next section, however, we’ll then manipulates it to agree with the symmetric T µν found from µν calculate ∇µT varying gµν .[2]. 21 this flow, which we will denote as δλ, is where =R is defined by Eq. 3. We’ve already established ∂ µ1,µ2... that any L will be a conserved current density if can ∂Aµ δλTi ν1,ν2... µν L µ1,µ2... µ µ1,µ2... µ be written as a function of F and its derivatives. If φλ Ti ν1,ν2...(x′ ) Ti ν1,ν2...(x ) µ ∂ µ ≡ ∗ µ − this is the case, and g B = L , the first term on the x′ = φλ(x )  | | ∂Aµ (94) right hand side in Eq.p 101 will be zero. where φλ is the pullback of Ti by φλ, using the conven- As a simple example, consider if we use Eq. 70 as our tion of Carroll[93].∗ In the limit of λ 0, to first order matter Lagrangian, which using the principle of least ac- → in λ,[93], tion results in the fields equations (varying Aµ) of Eq. 71. Using those field equations as Bµ in Eq. 101, one obtains µ1,µ2... µ1,µ2... δλTi ν1,ν2... δTi ν1,ν2... µ1,µ2... ≈ µ1,µ2... (95) µ δTi ν1,ν2... λ£ξi Ti ν1,ν2... ∂ ν [ν α] L δAµ =R g kEMJ +2kJ α J Fµν λξ =0R . ≡ ∂Aµ | | ∇ ∇ A where £ is the Lie derivative. If we replace p
(102) ξi µ µ1,µ2... µ1,µ2... Requiring this to be zero for arbitrary ξ leads exactly δTi ν1,ν2... with δTi ν1,ν2... in the principle of A to the conservation of energy-momentum from the stress- least action, Eq. 18, becomes ∂ energy tensor derived from L ! We arrived at energy- ∂gµν ∂ µ1,µ2... 4 δS = µ1,µ2L... δTi ν1,ν2...d x =0 momentum conservation without varying the metric to ∂Ti ν1,ν2... R ∂ µ1,µ2... 4 find T µν and taking its divergence; we never varied the = µ1,µ2...L λ£ξi Ti ν1,ν2...d x =0, ∂Ti ν1,ν2... metric at all. R (96) µ This redundancy between energy-momentum conser- where each ξi is associated with an independent field, 1 2 µ vation arising from the δg variation, and the δA vari- T µ ,µ ... . Each ξ is independent from the others, µν µ i ν1,ν2... i ation, is no coincidence. The variation of any scalar den- and each is allowed to vary arbitrarily on the manifold. sity (such as a Lagrangian density) due to an arbitrary This may be viewed as allowing each independent field infinitesimal diffeomorphism is a total divergence, zero to vary due to an arbitrary, infinitesimal active coordi- for our purposes: nate transformation, with each independent field being allowed to transform independently from the others. This δ( g L) = g 1 Lgµν δg + δL produces the following equations of motion for each ten- | | | | 2 µν p = p g (Lgµν λ ξ + λξ
µ L) (103) sor field: | | ∇µ ν ∇µ = pλ g (Lξµ) . | |∇µ ∂ µ1,µ2... (97) p ∂T µ1,µ2...L £ξi Ti ν1,ν2... =0R . i ν1,ν2... If a Lagrangian is comprised of two independent fields, µ1,µ2... µ then their δ variations will always be exactly the same £ξi Ti ν1,ν2... will have terms that involve ξi and its µ with opposite sign. In the case of the metric and one first derivatives. Any derivative of ξi can be removed by integration by parts (where the compact support of other field, in this example Aµ, the field equation from µ µ the variation due to the other field is guaranteed to be the ξi will remove any boundary terms). Then, since ξi is arbitrary, whatever multiplies it must be zero. This same as energy-momentum conservation obtained from T µν = 0. If more fields are added to the theory, provides 4 equations of motion per point in space-time. ∇µ The variation of the metric due to the diffeomorphism for each non-metric field in the theory, a separate con- of Eq. 94 is[93] servation of energy-momentum equation is generated for that field, and by Eq. 103, the sum of all the individ-

δgµν = λ£ξg gµν =2λ (µξg,ν), (98) ual conservation of energy-momentum equations add to ∇ µν 39 µT =0 . Note this means a theory generated using µ µ ∇ where ξg is the ξi associated with gµν . This makes the the diffeomorphism approach of Eq. 96 with a single field field equations for the metric (i.e. gravity with no matter, or electromagnetism with no gravity) is trivially zero. It takes at least two indepen- ∂ ∂ L δg = 2 L λ ξ =0. (99) dent fields (or in the context of general relativity, gravity ∂gµν µν ∂gµν (µ g,ν) R ∇ plus at least one matter field) to generate a nontrivial Integrating by parts to move the derivative from theory. µ ∂ ξ to L gives conservation of total energy- g ∂gµν Using this methodology, sometimes we can find the momentum directly from the principle of diffeomorphism conservation of energy-momentum equations much more invariance[93]. easily than finding T µν and taking its divergence. A good What of other fields? The Lie derivative of Aµ is[93] example is the theory including all first-derivative terms £ A = ξν A + A ξν , (100) ξA µ A∇ν µ ν ∇µ A and, for any vector Bµ, one finds 39 Eq. 103 provides a useful consistency check for calculating vari- ations. If the sum of all of the variations are not zero, some g BµδA = g ( A Bν + Bν F ) λξµ , (101) mistake was made. | | µ R | | − µ∇ν µν A p p 22 of F µν , Eq. 88. From Eq. 101, energy-momentum con- to address that the fundamental particles of nature ap- servation is always just F µν contracted with the field pear to have the property that they spin faster than the ∂ equations from the principle of least action (if L is a speed of light. If they are, in fact, extended objects, ∂Aµ conserved current): this would amount to space-like electromagnetic current being present in solutions. If a theory is to be able to µ µ µ µ Fµν [kEMJ + kJ J + kdF J + kd F J ]=0, describe such particles, it must have this ability. dJ dF ∗ d F ∗ (104) The energy of a particle (or any compact object) cer- and energy-momentum conservation for this theory tainly diverges as its center-of-mass velocity approaches amounts to the electromagnetic field delivering energy the speed of light (see Eq. 13 for example). Most fluids to all the conserved currents in Eq. 89; this energy- also share this property: the stress-energy tensor diverges momentum into and out of these currents must balance. as uµ approaches being light-like[104]. This divergence This gives only 3 equations of motion by virtue of the prevents fluids’ bulk velocity from achieving or exceeding equations of motion being perpendicular to the total cur- the speed of light (becoming space-like). However, with rent in brackets. a little inspection, any theory that is written purely in What one does not obtain from this variational princi- terms of positive powers of F µν and its derivatives does ple is Einstein’s equations. To obtain a theory that fully not preclude light-like or space-like currents, since none specifies the metric as well as any additional vector fields, of the quantities in or T µν diverge as J µ goes from we could use the above methodology for non-metric fields, time-like to light-likeL to space-like. but to obtain Einstein’s equations one would need to vary Although the current may be well behaved as its bulk gµν arbitrarily as in the conventional principle of least ac- velocity approaches c, one may ask whether the energy tion. Or one could simply add Einstein’s equations to the in its field diverges. Point charges (or any discrete body theory. Both options seem less than satisfactory; perhaps of charge), for instance, have a strict speed limit of the there is another way to argue that Einstein’s equations speed of light, because the electromagnetic field (and the arise directly from the principle of diffeomorphism invari- energy and momentum of the field) diverges as the speed ance. In any case, if we add Einstein’s equations, as long approaches c[2]. However, this is not true for currents in as all the non-metric fields are vector fields (with at most general. There is nothing in the electromagnetic fields of 4 degrees of freedom), one can use this method to find a continuous current J µ preventing it from being space- solutions, where the fundamental equations of motion for like, or changing from time-like to light-like to space-like. the non-metric fields are energy-momentum conservation This can easily be seen by taking the fields of an infinite equations. wire with continuous charge density ρ, which is constant It’s worth noting that for a given Lagrangian, any so- in time. Now say J increases linearly with time from 0. lution to the least action principle field equations (the The electric and magnetic field simply change linearly in typical Euler-Lagrange field equations) will also be a time, while at some point J equals ρ, and at later times solution to the conservation of energy-momentum field is greater than ρ. | | equations found from diffeomorphism invariance; this is Note this in no way violates causality. The equa- obvious from the fact that the least action equations are tions are fully covariant. For our perfect fluid example, true for arbitrary field variations, and all we’ve done is the speed at which perturbations in the fluid travel, the restricted the variation. However, there may be solutions speed of sound in the fluid, is in fact the speed of light to Eq. 96, which aren’t solutions to the associated least 2 (vs = dP/dǫ = 1[105]; c = 1 in our units). Of course, if action theory (we’ll show one in the next section). bound charge distributions exist, they will have the fa- miliar center-of-mass equations of motion, Eq. 13, where the velocity of the resulting charged object is limited by V. SOLUTIONS TO EQUATIONS OF MOTION the speed of light.

To the author’s knowledge, for the first time, we have classical electromagnetic theories from which we can, in a self-consistent way, attempt to find stable, non-point- B. Solutions in Flat Space-Time charge solutions. If stable solutions exist, then we can calculate the mass and charge of such a fundamental ob- ject. In this section, we turn our attention to such pos- In flat space-time, the Lagrangian of Eq. 88 reduces to sible stable solutions. Eq. 70. We’ve already mentioned that in flat space-time, the equations of motion associated with the Lagrangian, Eq. 70, are the Proca equation (if we treat jµ as inde- pendent, this is in terms of Aµ; if we treat Aµ as inde- A. Superluminal (Space-Like) Currents pendent, it is in terms of J µ). The solutions of the Proca equation are well studied, and we won’t delve into them We’ll restrict ourselves to static, spherically symmet- more deeply here, except to say: it’s impossible in flat ric solutions in this paper, but we would be remiss not space-time to find a stable solution to these equations 23

that will quantize mass and charge40. This is because The energy and pressure of that solution is the field equations are linear in Aµ and its derivatives, 1 1 and thus any multiple of a solution will be a solution. ǫ = P = , (105) Even from the standpoint of energy-momentum conser- 16π r2 vation, the equations are purely quadratic in Aµ and its derivatives, and any multiple of a solution will still be a which makes the charge density solution. Some mixed non-linearity would be necessary 1 1 to produce any hope of quantization. General relativity ρ = . (106) is a very nonlinear theory, and as we’ll see, curved space- √8πkJ r time provides exactly that kind of nonlinearity necessary The metric for this distribution (again ignoring the elec- to produce quantized solutions. tric field) corresponds to the line element[92]

r 2 ds2 = dt2 +2dr2 + r2dθ2 + r2 sin2 θdφ2, (107) C. Curved Space-Time and Mass/Charge − r1  Quantization where r1 is an arbitrary constant. The charge and energy densities near the origin are singular, but with a finite Due to the nonlinearity of Einstein’s equations, finding volume integral out to a finite r. However, the integrals solutions is no simple task. Because of this, to start, we of the energy and charge out to r = are not finite, and will use the simplest theory, the Lagrangian of Eq. 70, the metric never approaches an asymptotically∞ flat form. treating jµ as independent, yielding T µν as our addition J This metric also cannot smoothly connect to an external to the stress-energy tensor. Its relationship to a perfect metric (such as the Schwarzschild metric[106]) since the fluid yields methods for finding solutions that are read- pressure never reaches zero. ily available. Then, we will address the Lagrangian of It’s interesting to note that using A as independent Eq. 70 treating A as independent. Finally, we’ll study µ µ with = produces the same solution: plugging the strengths of the terms in the Lagrangian of Eq. 88 matter J this solutionL intoL T µν , one finds T µν = T µν , so in this treating A as independent. Solutions to Eq. 88 would J,A J,A J µ case, there is no difference between treating jµ or A as be more interesting, since it has parity violation for in- µ independent. stance, but due to their complexity, are left for future We can now use the solution Eq. 106 and Eq. 107 to study (partially because it appears no static, spherical describe the small-r behavior (as a boundary condition solutions exist). at small r) where the electric field is negligible. To do this, we assume Eq. 106 and Eq. 107 are the solutions 6 for 0 r 10− √k . Then we numerically integrate ≤ ≤ J µ Einstein’s equations (using Mathematica) including the 1. Lagrangian of Eq. 70 with j as Independent 6 electric field from r = 10− √kJ until the numerical solver can no longer continue41. The calculated electric field, We’ll restrict ourselves to spherically symmetric, time- charge density, and pressure are shown in Fig. 1(a), and independent situations, using coordinates, (t,r,θ,φ). In the time and radial component of the resulting metric this case, J is zero. Also, near the center of any spherical are shown in Fig. 1(b). Since √kJ sets the length scale charge distribution with finite charge, the radial compo- of the problem, we define a unitless measure of distance nent of the electric field limits to one power of r greater r = r/√kJ . than the lowest power of r in ρ (see Gauss’ law). There- Due to the electric field, the pressure deviates from fore, for a small enough distribution (or close enough to Eq. 105 and passes through zero at r = 1.273. The de- its center), the contribution to the stress-energy tensor viation of √8πk rρ and 16πr2P from 1 gives an idea of µν J from the TEM is negligible compared to the contribution the length scales at which the electric field becomes im- µν from TJ . Thus near the origin, for a spherically sym- portant, and can no longer be neglected as r increases. metric static charged object, the stress-energy tensor may The time component of the metric is arbitrary up to a be approximated as that of a perfect fluid with the rela- multiplicative constant, which would be set by asymp- tionship between the energy density, ǫ, and pressure, P , totic conditions as r , in connecting to an external as ǫ = P kJ ρ2 (its equation of state). → ∞ ≈ 2 metric at some finite r, or is just an arbitrary scaling fac- The “Tolman V” solution with n = 1 and R [92] is tor if our solution describes all space-time. The metric the spherically symmetric solution for the case→ of ∞ǫ = P . components diverge as r approaches about 1.364.

40 One might find classical solutions and then quantize the solutions 41 While Tolman et al. assume a perfect fluid, they introduce equa- after the fact, as in string theory, but this is beyond the scope of tions in terms of the more general stress-energy tensor compo- this paper. nents, which we used here. 24

The scalar curvature (Ricci scalar) never approaches the metric components shown in Fig. 2. 0 before that point, so the coordinates are not asymp- totically flat. One may attempt to connect the internal 1.5 (a) metric to an external metric at some r< 1.364[92]; in this case, matching to the Reissner-Nordstrom metric[63, 64] 2 would be appropriate. However, ρ never approaches zero 16π r P before the metric diverges, and any connection to a free- 1.0 space metric (where ρ is set to zero) would necessarily make the pressure discontinuous at the boundary, which violates conservation of the stress-energy tensor. There- 0.5 8 π kJ Er fore, no asymptotically flat, spherically symmetric, static solutions appear to exist. 8 π kJ r ρ 0.0 1.5 (a) 8 π k r ρ 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 J 2.5 (b) 1.0 2.0

g 0.5 8 π kJ Er 1.5 11

2 16π r P 1.0 0.0 -g00

0.5

-0.5 -kJR 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 0.0 (b) 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 6 r

0 FIG. 2: For kEM = 1: (a) the charge density (ρ = p g00 J , 4 − | | 01 solid blue curve), radial electric field (Er = p g00 g11F , 1 | | g11 dashed orange curve), and pressure (P = T1 , dotted green curve) as a function of r; (b) the time ( g00, solid blue curve) 2 − -g and radial (g11, dashed orange curve) metric components. 00 The variables have been scaled such that all curves are in- dependent of kJ , and ρ and P are shown scaled to the value 0 they would have with no electric field. g00 is arbitrary to a 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 multiplicative constant, but all other curves do not depend on this constant. We also show k R, the scalar curvature to r J demonstrate that the solutions are singular near the origin. 0 FIG. 1: (a) The charge density (ρ = p g00 J , solid blue | |01 curve), radial electric field (Er = p g00 g11F , dashed or- ρ approaches zero at about r = 2.262, and at that 1 | | ange curve), and pressure (P = T1 , dotted green curve) as point, the metric is well approximated by the Reissner- a function of r; (b) the time ( g00, solid blue curve) and Nordstrom metric (but with the sign on the electromag- − radial (g11, dashed orange curve) metric components. Note netic term flipped due to the change of sign of kEM), r = r/√kJ to make it unitless; The variables have been scaled 2 2 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 such that all curves are independent of kJ , and ρ and P are ds = fRNdt + fRN dr + r dθ + r sin θdφ − 2 shown scaled to the value they would have with no electric 2m q fRN 1 r 8πr2 , field. g00 is arbitrary to a multiplicative constant, but all ≡ − − other curves do not depend on this constant. (108) where q 4πr2F 01, as measured in the far-field, is the experimentally≡ measured charge. This fit is shown in With a slight change to the theory, though, we can find Fig. 3, with m = 0.1206√kJ , and q = 3.564√kJ . The an asymptotically flat, stable solution: by changing the conversion of these− numbers to SI units is, sign of kEM, which makes the gravitational mass of the 2 c electromagnetic field negative. With kEM = 1 (again mSI = G m µ µν − 2 ǫ0 (109) treating j as independent resulting in TJ as the addi- qSI = c G q, tion to the stress-energy tensor), using the same method p of numerical integration produces solutions for ρ, E and yielding m = 1.62 1026 kg k and q = 1.17 r − × m j SI × p 25

This solution and the theory it comes from are of lim- 3 ited utility, since they don’t include some of the more in- g RN, 11 teresting terms (it doesn’t violate parity)42 and to find a 2 solution we had to make electromagnetic energy negative. g11 It’s just the simplest toy model we can construct that self- 1 consistently deals with extended charged objects. While -g00 it predicts a charge to mass ratio that is far from any- 0 thing resembling any of the fundamental particles, the fact that we get numbers at all is an exciting prospect. -1 This theory predicted a single mass and charge for a sta-

-gRN, 00 ble object; the predicted mass and charge are quantized. -2 The singularity at the origin prevented us from setting 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 anything about the central density of the charge (which r is what is done in non-singular models such as this in general relativity[104]); there is only one solution, with a FIG. 3: (a) For kEM = 1: the time ( g00, solid blue curve) set mass and charge. To the author’s knowledge, this is − − and radial (g11, dashed orange curve) metric components; and the only time classically that this has been demonstrated the Reissner-Nordstrom metric components ( gRN,00 in dot- − by any theory. ted green and gRN,11 in dotted red with the apparent singu- It’s also worth noting that static, spinning perfect fluid larity at r 0.9). r has been set appropriately to make the 1 solutions (in general relativity) have been found in sit- 00 components≈ match at the maximum r. uations of very high central energy density, where the pressure approaches proportionality to the energy den- sity, and these solutions demonstrate this same behav- 17 kg √ 10 m kJ . We obtain the fundamental charge if we set ior, since the coordinates approach spherical symmetry 36 √kJ =1.37 10− m, which is quite a compact charge, near the object’s center[107]. This singular behavior is × but with a mass of about 20 orders of magnitude too high, quite interesting, because it removes one degree of free- if we’re talking about an electron, not to mention that dom from the solution space. If another such condition the gravitational mass is negative. In fact, a negative exists on the angular momentum of the solutions, spin gravitational mass for a charged particle in this theory would be quantized as well. The author assumes the with kEM = 1 is what one would want. We’ve made the parity violating term could play a role in that respect. gravitational− electromagnetic energy negative. If that’s the case, then for positive charges to accelerate in the di- rection of the electric field, and negative charges against 2. Lagrangian of Eq. 70 with A as Independent it, the gravitational mass of the charged particle must µ have the same sign as the electromagnetic field. If one inspects the long-range behavior of the metric, this neg- Now let us turn our attention to static, spherical solu- ative mass is apparent, as shown in Fig. 4; note how g00 tions to the next simplest theory, that of the Lagrangian µ and g11 cross through 1. of Eq. 70, but varying Aµ rather than j . For our static, spherical situation, we can simplify the stress- µν 2.0 energy tensor, TJ,A significantly. By our spherically sym- metric, static assumption, the only components of F µν are F 01 = F 10, which only depend on r. Under these g 1.5 11 conditions,− the field equations, Eq. 71, can be integrated to obtain the following relationship,

1.0 [µJ ν] = kEM F µν + 1 Cµν 2kJ kJ ∇ 01 − 10 1 (110) C = C = 2 C0, − √ g00g11 r -g00 | | 0.5 µν where C is a container for the integration constant C0 (all components of Cµν are zero outside of C10 and C01). 0.0 0 2 4 6 8 10 r 42 Also, note that the solution here is only a solution of Einstein’s equations and the energy-momentum equations, not the field FIG. 4: For kEM = 1: the time ( g00, solid blue curve) and − − equations, Eq. 72, since the field equations require Aµ = 0 where radial (g11, solid orange curve) metric components; the fact Jµ = 0. This is an example where the solution to the diffeomor- that g11 < 1, g00 > 1 for large r is a demonstration of the − phism invariant theory is not a solution to the associated least negative mass contained in this distribution. action theory. 26

µν 1.5 Using this relationship, we can rewrite TJ,A for our situ- (a) ation as 1.0 8 π kJ r ρ µν µν µν αβ µν α(µ ν)β TJ,A = TJ +2kEMTEM + C Fαβg +4C F gαβ. (111) 0.5 The total stress energy tensor for our situation is

T µν = T µν k T µν , (112) 0.0 J,A − EM EM

where kEM = 1 to give the conventional sign for elec- -0.5 − µν 16 π k E tromagnetic energy-momentum. The extra terms in TJ,A J r µν in addition to T (the perfect fluid stress-energy ten- -1.0 J 0 5 10 15 20 sor) is minus twice TEM and, in effect, flip its sign! If 1.5 (b) we set C0 = 0, we obtain the same stress-energy ten- sor as in Sec. VC1, where we used negative electromag- 16 2 netic energy to find a solution. Here, we can use positive 1.0 π r P µν electromagnetic energy, but the additional terms in TJ,A negate it, and will provide the necessary binding to pro- 0.5 duce static solutions. It’s worth noting that the solution of the last sec- 0.0 tion from 0 < r < , where we connected to the ∞ Reissner-Nordstrom metric, is not a solution to the field -0.5 equations or energy-momentum conservation equations if 2 0 -16π r T0 we’re treating Aµ as independent for all r. The disconti- -1.0 nuity in the derivative of ρ at the edge of the distribution 0 5 10 15 20 creates an infinite value in the conservation of energy- 2.5 momentum equation in our current situation, due to the (c) higher order derivative of J µ that appears in our current 2.0

stress-energy tensor. -g00 The solution up to where ρ went to zero in Fig. 2, how- 1.5

ever, is a solution to the energy-momentum conservation g11 equations; we also plugged this solution into the field 1.0 equations, Eq. 71, and within numeric error, these were 2 also satisfied, validating our approach. We can extend 0.5 -r R this solution beyond where ρ goes to zero. Numerically

integrating Einstein’s equations out to r = 20, we obtain 0.0 the fields and metric in Fig. 5 (the solution beyond where ρ first goes to zero still, within numeric error, satisfies the 0 5 10 15 20 field Equations, Eq. 71, for all calculated r). Now, around r the compact, central sphere of charge are spherical shells 0 of alternating charge. While ρ trends like an oscillating FIG. 5: (a) The charge density (ρ = p g00 J , solid blue | |01 function times 1/r, the volume in each half-cycle of the curve), radial electric field (Er = p g00 g11F , dashed or- 2 1 | | 0 oscillation trends as r . This means the charge enclosed ange curve); the pressure (P = T1 , solid blue curve) and T0 in each half-cycle increases linearly as a function of r. (dashed orange curve); and (c) the time ( g00, solid orange curve) and radial (g , dashed green curve)− metric compo- Er still tends to zero, but also trends as an oscillating 11 function times 1/r. This is interesting considering the nents, and the scalar curvature (R, dotted red curve). All are √ dual particle-wave nature of the fundamental particles of shown as a function of r (r/ kJ ). All curves outside of the metric have added powers of r to make them approach 1 at nature. It raises the question of whether the dynamics of the origin. g00 is arbitrary to a multiplicative constant, but such a particle-wave as in Fig. 5 can reproduce the dy- all other curves do not depend on this constant. namics that have been observed in fundamental particles, consistent with quantum mechanics43. We’ve already described the short-range behavior of this solution in the previous section. The long-range be-

43 Recall that no local equations of motion have existed before now in the literature, so treating such extended charged objects has not been possible. 27

44 2.0 havior for the metric fits well to the following functions , (a) e 1.5 b 1 g00 = 2 (0.817+0.375 ln(r)) − r0 f g = 1 1.0 11 1 2ma(r)/r c − 0.0350 (113) ma(r) = 0.104 + r 0.5 0.0591 + 0.0354 + r cos(2.01r +3.74). 0.0
The charge enclosed as a function of radius is related to d -0.5 the radial electric field as h -1.0 qenc Er = √g22g33 dθdφ r r (114) 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 =R 4πk R J rEr, 0.006 (b)

which fits well to 0.004 a RMS Error qenc = a + b sin (cr + d)+ e sin (fr + h) 0.002 kJ r r r (115) 0.000 where a represents what would likely be measured as the net charge of the distribution. Extracting this net charge -0.002 is somewhat of a challenge. While we can find a fit that -0.004 is quite good, the electric field at larger r is dominated by the oscillations in ρ, and the net charge is either small or -0.006 perhaps zero; rEr closely oscillates symmetrically around 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 0. This is demonstrated by trying to fit this curve; some r start of the constants, including a depend heavily on the range of the fit, as shown in Fig. 6. While the RMS error stays FIG. 6: (a) b, c, d, e, f, and h fit constants used in fitting to roughly constant, and the parameters that are associated the charge enclosed, Eq. 115; (b) fit constant a shown with with the larger portions of the fit are quite stable, a in RMS error. Both are fits over 4 periods in r (a range of particular varies quite a lot, changing sign depending on ∆r = 25.07), and the horizontal axis is the starting r for the the range of the fit chosen. The value of a does tend to range of the fits. be more positive than negative as the range is varied, but its contribution is small compared to the error in the fit. The mass of this object is also difficult to determine. 0.015 -k ℒ While the coordinates are asymptotically flat in the sense J J -kJ(ℒdF-ℒJ) that the curvature tends to zero as r , the metric → ∞ does not approach a Schwarzschild-like metric as r 0.010 ℒEM → (due to the logarithmic growth of g00), so we cannot ∞extract the mass from the m parameter from such an asymptotic fit. It is interesting to note that if particles 0.005 are of this nature, their gravitational effect out to is different than a typical Schwarzschild-like mass, and∞ this could have cosmological consequences. In any case, this solution exhibits the same quantized 0.000 behavior as the solution of Fig. 2. There are no degrees of 0 2 4 6 8 10 freedom in the solution that would lead to a continuum r of mass/charge. Whatever it is, it is set. These simple theories don’t include the two curvature- FIG. 7: For the solution of Fig. 5, the magnitudes of the mediated Lagrangians. To demonstrate the relative different Lagrangian densities to give an idea of their relative magnitudes and ranges. Note for spherical symmetry, d∗F = strengths and ranges of the different Lagrangian com- L ponents, we plot the values of the different Lagrangian 0. densities for the solution of Fig. 5 as functions of r in Fig. 7 (evaluated at θ = π/2). For these spherically symmetric coordinates, d F = 0 identically, which isn’t kind of parity violation. dF has a term that’s pro- L ∗ L surprising since spherical symmetry doesn’t support any portional to J , so we subtract that off, dF J = 1 αβL µν L − L 4 Wαβµν F F . This term, due to its dependence on −the curvature which approaches singularity at the ori- gin has the same functional dependence near the origin 44 as ; it could have an effect on modifying the singular For g11, we fit 10 < r < 50. For g00, one must go out further LJ out to isolate the logarithmic growth, so we fit 50 < r < 100. behavior of the solution. The strength of the electromag- 28 netic interaction, represented by EM, is small compared gies associated with electromagnetic point charges. L µν to the other two terms near the origin, and will have neg- These are due the fact that µTEM is non-zero in the ligible effect, as already demonstrated. is stronger presence of charge, but without∇ point charges, it’s been LJ than EM for small r, but as the gravitational effects die unclear how to complete the stress-energy tensor. Point out forL larger r, it approaches the same strength, giving charges bring their own problems in the form of infinite rise to the wave-like structure around the central charge self-energies, requiring renormalization and perturbative (for a truly compact structure, it would be zero outside methods to deal with self-interaction; they also are, to- the charge distribution due to its direct dependence on date, incompatible with general relativity. µ J ). The curvature dependent dF J decays much more rapidly as r increases, andL is thus− L quite short in We then developed self-consistent extended body the- range. EM of course has its long range behavior (this ories. Initially this was using the fact that in order would beL true even for solutions where J µ is zero outside for a theory to be self-consistent, we need some addi- of some boundary), as long as there were some excess tion to TEM that maintains only 3 independent energy- charge. momentum conservation equations (to match to the de- It could also be interesting to look at how differ- grees of freedom in the electromagnetic field). Next, we ent terms from Eq. 104 could play a role in energy- used variational methods. If we remove point charges momentum conservation. This is shown in Fig. 8. The from the theory, and include in the Lagrangian all quadratic terms involving F µν and its first derivatives, 0.02 Eq. 88, we find terms which, when applying the princi- 2 μ1 kEMr F Jμ ple of least action, Eq. 18, result in self-consistent field µν equations, the solutions of which will satisfy µT = 0. 0.01 One of the terms represents direct current-current∇ inter- actions, and is stronger than the electromagnetic force at short ranges. For spherical solutions we demonstrated it 0.00 contributes negative energy and can negate the electro- magnetic energy. This provides a mechanism for negative 0.01 bare mass, which is required for renormalization of very - 2 μ1 4r F JdF,μ compact charges. The two other additional terms in the 2 μ1 Lagrangian of Eq. 88 represent short-range forces, which kJr F JdJ,μ -0.02 will be negligible outside of areas of strong curvature (far 0 2 4 6 8 10 from the center of a dense, compact object). One of these r terms changes sign under a parity transformation, violat- ing parity, as the weak interaction does. FIG. 8: For the solution of Fig. 5, energy-momentum con- servation terms that appear from the more general theory of We found static, spherically symmetric solutions using Eq. 88, to gauge their relative strength and range. the simplest possible theories, which exclude the short- range, curvature mediated terms. An integrable singu- two terms that are actually present in the theory that we larity at the center of the object results in no available µ1 µ1 solved are F JdJ,µ and F Jµ, and they are equal and degrees of freedom to set the mass or charge: there is opposite demonstrating energy-momentum conservation. exactly one solution with quantized mass and charge. µ The term involving the curvature-dependent current JdF Non-spherical, spinning solutions with quantized mass, has an even weaker functional form near the origin than charge, and angular momentum may exist. Development the other terms, and demonstrates its short-range behav- of the appropriate computational methods to solve Ein- ior for large r as well. stein’s equations with the more complicated stress-energy For the first time, we have a theory that can be solved tensor and field equations will be necessary to explore for stable, charged objects. The results are quite promis- this. ing. Charge and mass quantization have been demon- strated; for a given theory it appears at most one static, spherically symmetric solution will exist. Two new short range forces are present, where one changes sign under a parity transformation. For non-spherical (i.e. spinning) solutions, the parity violating term could require angular momentum quantization in addition to the mass/charge VII. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS quantization we’ve already found in spherical symmetry. VI. SUMMARY The author gratefully acknowledges fruitful conversa- We reviewed the history and problems associated with tions with Dr. Travis Kopp concerning the mathematics extended-body electromagnetic theory, and the patholo- contained in this paper. 29

[1] R. P. Feynman, R. B. Leighton, and M. L. Sands, The [36] H. Essen and J. C. E. Sten, Eur. J. Phys. 36, 055029 Feynman lectures on physics (Addison-Wesley Pub. Co., (2015). Reading, Mass, 1963). [37] M. R. Ferris and J. Gratus, J. Math. Phys. 52, 092902 [2] J. D. Jackson, Classical Electrodynamics 3rd Ed. (John (2011). Wiley and Sons, Inc, New York, 1998). [38] J. A. Heras, Phys. Lett. A 314, 272 (2003). [3] C. A. Coulomb, Histoire de l’Acad´emie Royale des Sci- [39] F. Rohrlich, Am. J. Phys. 68, 1109 (2000). ences pp. 569–577 (1785). [40] F. Rohrlich, Phys. Rev. D 63, 127701 (2001). [4] J. D. Jackson and L. B. Okun, Rev. Mod. Phys. 73, 663 [41] A. M. Steane, Am. J. Phys. 83, 256 (2015). (2001). [42] A. M. Steane, Phys. Rev. D 91, 065008 (2015). [5] J. B. Biot and F. Savart, Journal de Phys., de Chimie [43] A. M. Steane, Am. J. Phys. 83, 703 (2015). 91, 151 (1820). [44] D. Villarroel, Phys. Rev. E 66, 046624 (2002). [6] J. B. Biot and F. Savart, Ann. de Chimie et de Phys, [45] F. Rohrlich, Am. J. Phys. 65, 1051 (1997). ser. 2 15, 222 (1820). [46] G. Mie, Ann. d. Phys. 37, 511 (1912). [7] J. B. Biot, Precis ¸El¸ementaire de Physique Experimen- [47] H. Weyl, Sitzungsberichte der Preussischen Akad. d. tale, vol. 2 (Deterville, Paris, 1824), 3rd ed. WissenSchaften 37, 511 (1918), translated in The Prin- [8] A. M. Ampere, M¸emoires de l’Academie Royale des ciple of Relativity, Dover Publications, 1952. Some foot- Sciences de l’Institut de France, ser. 2 6, 175 (1827). notes were added later by Weyl. [9] G. S. Ohm, Die galvanische Kette: Mathematisch bear- [48] A. Einstein, Preuss. Akad. Wiss. Berlin (Math. Phys.) beitet (T.H. Riemann, Berlin, 1827). pp. 349–356 (1919). [10] M. Faraday, Experimental Researches in Electricity, [49] P. Dirac, Proc. R. Soc. London Ser. A 167, 148 (1938). vol. 1 (Richard and John Edward Taylor, London, [50] M. V. Laue, Ann. Phys. 28, 436 (1909). 1839). [51] A. Sommerfeld, Atombau und Spektrallinien (F. Vieweg [11] F. E. Neumann, Abhandlungen der K´ıoniglichen und Sohn, 1921). Akademie der Wissenschaften zu Berlin, aus dem Jahre [52] E. Schr¨odinger, Ann. Phys. 384, 361 (1926), ISSN pp. 1–87 (1847). 00033804. [12] H. Grassmann, Ann. der Phys. und Chem. 64, 1 (1845). [53] P. J. M. Born, W. Heisenberg, Z. Phys. 35, 642 (1925). [13] G. Kirchhoff, Annalen der Physik und Chemie 102, 529 [54] P. Dirac, The Principles of Quantum Mechanics (Ox- (1857). ford University Press, Oxford, 1930). [14] J. Maxwell, Philosophical Magazine 90, 11 (1861), [55] R. P. Feynman, Phys. Rev. 76, 769 (1949). http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/14786431003659180. [56] J. A. Wheeler and R. P. Feynman, Rev. Mod. Phys. 17, [15] J. C. Maxwell, Philosophical Transactions of the Royal 157 (1945). Society of London 155, 459 (1865). [57] J. Schwinger, Phys. Rev. 74, 1439 (1948). [16] L. Lorenz, Philos. Mag., Ser. 4. 34, 287 (1867). [58] B. P. and P. F.D, A Question of Physics (University of [17] B. Riemann, Philos. Mag., Ser. 4. 34, 368 (1867). Toronto Press, Toronto, 1979). [18] G. F. Fitzgerald, Brit. Assoc. Rep. 175, 343 (1883). [59] R. P. Feynman, QED: The Strange Theory of Light and [19] J. H. Poynting, Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Matter (Princeton University Press, Princeton, 1986). Society of London 175, 343 (1884). [60] A. Einstein, Proc. Prussian Acad. Sciences 2, 844 [20] H. Hertz, Untersuchungen ueber die Ausbreitung der (1915). elektrischen Kraf (J. A. Barth, Leipzig, 1892). [61] B. V. Ivanov, Phys. Rev. D 65, 104001 (2002). [21] H. Poincar´e, Compte Rendus Acad. Sci. 113, 515 [62] H. F. M. Goenner, Living Reviews in Relativity 7, 2 (1891). (2004), ISSN 1433-8351. [22] O. Heaviside, Philos. Mag. 27, 324 (1889). [63] H. Reissner, Annalen der Physik 50, 106 (1916). [23] H. Lorentz, Arch. Neerl. Sci. Exactes Nat. 25, 363 [64] G. Nordstrom, Afdel. Natuurk. 26, 395 (1916). (1892). [65] S. Ray, M. Malheiro, J. A. P. S. Lemos, and V. T. [24] A. D. Yaghjian, Relativistic Dynamics of a Charged Zanchin, Braz. J. Phys. 34, 310 (2004). Sphere: Updating the Lorentz-Abraham Model [66] S. Ray, Int. J. Mod. Phys. D 15, 917 (2006), gr- (Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 1992). qc/0511010. [25] M. Planck, Ann. d. Phys. 60, 577 (1897). [67] F. Rahaman, S. Ray, A. K. Jafry, and K. Chakraborty, [26] M. Abraham, Ann. Phys. 10, 105 (1903). Phys. Rev. D 82, 104055 (2010). [27] H. Lorentz, Proc. Acad. Sci. Amst. 6, 809 (1904). [68] S. Maurya, Y. Gupta, S. Ray, and S. Chowdhury, Eur. [28] A. Einstein, Annalen der Physik 17, 891 (1905). Phys. J. C 75, 389 (2015). [29] A. Einstein, Annalen der Physik 18, 639 (1905). [69] R. N. Tiwari, J. R. Rao, and R. R. Kanakamedala, Phys. [30] M. Abraham, Theorie der Elektrizitat, Vol. II (Teubner, Rev. D 30, 489 (1984). Leipzig, 1905). [70] J. Cohen and M. Cohen, Il Nuovo Cimento B Series 10 [31] H. Poincare, Rendiconti del Circolo Matematico di 60, 241 (1969). Pulermo 21, 129 (1906). [71] F. I. Cooperstock and V. de La Cruz, Gen. Relat. [32] P. D. Flammer, Phys. Rev. E 93, 042114 (2016). Gravit. 9, 835 (1978). [33] R. Medina, J. Phys. A 39, 3801 (2006). [72] C. A. L´opez, Phys. Rev. D 30, 313 (1984). [34] F. Rohrlich, Phys. Rev. E 77, 046609 (2008). [73] O. Grøn, Phys. Rev. D 31, 2129 (1985). [35] J. M. Aguirregabiria, J. Llosa, and A. Molina, Phys. [74] R. Gautreau, Phys. Rev. D 31, 1860 (1985). Rev. D 73, 125015 (2006). [75] J. Ponce de Le´on, J. Math. Phys. 28, 410 (1987). 30

[76] R. Tiwari, J. Rao, and S. Ray, Astrophys. Space Sci. [91] C. Navier, Mem. Acad. Sci. Inst. France 6, 389 (1822). 178, 119 (1991). [92] R. C. Tolman, Phys. Rev. 55, 364 (1939). [77] S. Ray and B. Das, Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc. 349, 1331 [93] S. M. Carroll, ArXiv General Relativity and Quantum (2004), astro-ph/0401005. Cosmology e-prints (1997), gr-qc/9712019. [78] S. Ray, A. Usmani, F. Rahaman, M. Kalam, and [94] O. Minazzoli and T. Harko, Phys. Rev. D 86, 087502 K. Chakraborty, Ind. J. Phys. 82, 1191 (2008). (2012). [79] C. W. Misner, K. S. Thorne, and J. A. Wheeler, Grav- [95] T. Harko, Phys. Rev. D 81, 044021 (2010). itation (W.H. Freeman and Co, New York, 1973). [96] F. Bopp, Annalen der Physik 430, 345 (1940). [80] G. de Rham, Vari´et´e Differentiable, Hermann, Paris. [97] B. Podolsky, Phys. Rev. 62, 68 (1942). English translation by F.R. Smith: Differentiable man- [98] A. E. Zayats, Annals of Physics 342, 11 (2014), ISSN ifolds. Forms, Currents, Harmonic Forms. (Springer- 0003-4916. Verlag, Berlin, 1955). [99] J. Gratus, V. Perlick, and R. Tucker, Journal of Physics [81] H. Goldstein, Classical Mechanics, Addison Wesley A: Mathematical and Theoretical 48 (2015), ISSN 1751- physics Book (Addison-Wesley Press, 1965). 8113, date of Acceptance: 23/07/2015 30 pages, 6 fig- [82] C. R. Galley, A. K. Leibovich, and I. Z. Rothstein, Phys. ures; minor reformulations, some figures changed, addi- Rev. Lett. 105, 094802 (2010). tional explanations added. [83] P. Forg´acs, T. Herpay, and P. Kov´acs, Phys. Rev. Lett. [100] C. S. Wu, E. Ambler, R. W. Hayward, D. D. Hoppes, 109, 029501 (2012). and R. P. Hudson, Phys. Rev. 105, 1413 (1957). [84] C. R. Galley, A. K. Leibovich, and I. Z. Rothstein, Phys. [101] A. B. Balakin and J. P. S. Lemos, Classical Rev. Lett. 109, 029502 (2012). and Quantum Gravity 22, 1867 (2005), URL [85] D. J. Griffiths, Introduction to Electrodynamics 3rd Ed. https://doi.org/10.1088/0264-9381/22/9/024. (Prentice Hall, New Jersey, 1999). [102] P. Dirac, General Theory of Relativity (John Wiley and [86] F. R. Tangherlini, Am. J. Phys. 31, 285 (1963). Sons, 1975). [87] J. Z. Simon, Phys. Rev. D 41, 3720 (1990). [103] J. Lee, Introduction to Smooth Manifolds (Springer- [88] K. A. Milton, Electromagnetic Radiation Variational Verlag, Berlin, 2012). Methods, Waveguides and Accelerators, Particle acceler- [104] S. Bonazzola, E. Gourgoulhon, M. Salgado, and J. A. ation and detection Electromagnetic radiation (Berlin, Marck, Astron. Astrophys. 278, 421 (1993). Heidelberg, 2006), ISBN 3-540-29306-X. [105] R. F. Tooper, Astrophys. J. 140, 434 (1964). [89] J. Larmor, Aether and Matter (University Press, Cam- [106] K. Schwarzschild, Proc. Prussian Acad. Sciences 1, 424 bridge, 1900). (1916). [90] P. Barone and A. Mendes, Physics Letters A 364, 438 [107] P. D. Flammer, General Relativity and Gravitation 50, (2007), ISSN 0375-9601. 51 (2018), ISSN 1572-9532.