English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Zendy Plus

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Zendy Tools

Zendy Open

Da Rocha and Rodigues (RR) claim (i) that in classical electrodynamics in  vector calculus  the distinction between polar and axial vectors and in  exterior calculus  between twisted and untwisted forms is inappropriate and superfluous, and (ii) that they can derive the Lorentz force equation from Maxwell's equations. As to (i), we point out that the distinction of polar/axial and twisted/untwisted derives from the property of the electric charge of being a pure scalar, that is, not carrying any screw sense. Therefore, the mentioned distinctions are necessary ingredients in any fundamental theory of electrodynamics. If one restricted the allowed coordinate transformations to those with positive Jacobian determinants (or prescribed an equivalent constraint), then the RR scheme could be accommodated; however, such a restriction is illegal since electrodynamics is, in fact, also covariant under transformations with negative Jacobians. As to (ii), the “derivation” of the Lorentz force from Maxwell's equations, we point out that RR forgot to give the symbol F (the field strength) in Maxwell's equations an operational meaning in the first place. Thus, their proof is empty. Summing up: the approach of RR does not bring in any new insight into the structure of electrodynamics.

An electric charge has no screw sense – a comment on the twistfree formulation of electrodynamics by da Rocha and Rodrigues