INSTITUTE OF PHYSICS PUBLISHING METROLOGIA Metrologia 41 (2004)S159-S170 P1:S0026-1394(04)80313-X Physical implications of Coulomb's Law G Spavieri,G T Gillies2 and M Rodriguez Centro de Astrofisica Teorica.Facultad de Ciencias,Universidad de Los Andes,Merida, 5101 Venezuela 2 Department of Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering,University of Virginia, PO Box 400746,Charlottesville,VA 22904.USA 3 Departamento de Fisica,FACYT,Universidad de Carabobo,Valencia,2001 Venezuela E-mail:spavieri@ula.ve and gtg@virginia.edu Received 3 March 2004 Published 16 September 2004 Online at stacks.iop.org/Met/41/S159 doi:10.1088/0026-1394/41/5/S06 Abstract We examine the theoretical and experimental foundations of Coulomb's Law and review the various roles it plays not only in electromagnetism and electrodynamics,but also in quantum mechanics,cosmology,and thermodynamics.The many implications of Coulomb's Law draw attention to its fundamental importance within virtually all branches of physics and make this elementary yet profound law one of the most useful of all scientific tools. 1.Introductory historical outlook philosopher who had broad scientific interests in physics, electricity,magnetism,and optics,in addition to chemistry.He Few investigations in physics have enjoyed as sustained an was a politically involved Unitarian preacher and a sympathizer interest as have tests of Coulomb's Law.As has been with the French Revolution,and these aspects of his life forced the case with most of the fundamental laws of physics,it him to move to America with his family in 1794.Priestley was discovered and elucidated through observations of basic is credited with the discovery of oxygen in 1774,which he phenomena.In his research,Coulomb was interested in the produced by focusing sunlight on mercuric oxide.During his mutual interactions between electric charges,a topic that had studies of this 'dephlogisticated air',he noticed that it made been studied previously by Priestley [1],and in fact even him light-headed and that it had a similar effect on animals. earlier,in 1755,during the experimental work of Franklin [2]. The background studies underpinning Coulomb's Law Franklin (1706-1790)was an American printer,writer. began when Franklin took a small sphere made of cork politician,diplomat,and scientist.He is credited with the and placed it inside a charged metallic cup (see figure 1) invention of such practical everyday items as bifocaleyeglasses and observed that it did not move,suggesting that there and a free-standing,wood-burning heater called the "Franklin was no interaction between it and the cup.After Franklin stove'.His principal connection to electrical experimentation communicated his finding to Priestley,the Englishman came via his investigations of the properties of Leyden Jars explained the phenomenon in 1767,providing a line of He is also commonly credited with giving the names'positive reasoning analogous to that used by Newton [3]to formulate and 'negative'to the two opposite species of electrical charge, and enunciate the law of universal gravitation. although his assignment convention was eventually reversed. Underlying Newtonian gravity was the observation that Also living in America at the time was Priestley the gravitational field inside a spherical shell of homogeneous (1733-1804),an English chemist and amateur natural material is null if the field is inversely proportional to the square of the distance r.i.e.if its intensity goes asr-2 4In1752.he flewakite attachedtoasilk string inathunderstorm,and showed By approximating Franklin's cup as a spherical shell,Priestley that a metal key tied to the thread would charge a Leyden jar.(Incidentally. deduced that the observed phenomenon should be physically the next two people who attempted the experiment were killed in the effort.) His experiments with Leyden jars showed that they discharged more easily if on Different Kinds of Airs(1774-1777)and in the three-volume Experiments near a pointed surface.He thus suggested the use of lightning rods. and Observations Relating to Various Branches of Natural Philosophie 5The objects of his chemical studies included'fixed air(carbon dioxide). (1779-1786).By dissolving fixed air in water,he invented carbonated 'nitrous air'(nitric oxide),'marine acid air'(hydrogen chloride),'alkaline air water.He also noticed that the explosion of inflammable air with common (ammonia),'vitriolic air'(sulfur dioxide),'phlogisticated nitrous air'(nitrous air produced dew.Lavoisier repeated this experiment and took credit for oxide,laughing gas).and 'dephlogisticated air'(oxygen).His chemical it.Priestley believed in the phlogiston theory,and was convinced that his writings were published in the three-volume Experiments and Observations discovery of oxygen proved it to be correct. 0026-1394/04/050159+12$30.00 2004 BIPM and IOP Publishing Ltd Printed in the UK S159
INSTITUTE OF PHYSICS PUBLISHING METROLOGIA Metrologia 41 (2004) S159–S170 PII: S0026-1394(04)80313-X Physical implications of Coulomb’s Law G Spavieri1, G T Gillies2 and M Rodriguez3 1 Centro de Astrof´ısica Teorica, Facultad de Ciencias, Universidad de Los Andes, M ´ erida, ´ 5101 Venezuela 2 Department of Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering, University of Virginia, PO Box 400746, Charlottesville, VA 22904, USA 3 Departamento de F´ısica, FACYT, Universidad de Carabobo, Valencia, 2001 Venezuela E-mail: spavieri@ula.ve and gtg@virginia.edu Received 3 March 2004 Published 16 September 2004 Online at stacks.iop.org/Met/41/S159 doi:10.1088/0026-1394/41/5/S06 Abstract We examine the theoretical and experimental foundations of Coulomb’s Law and review the various roles it plays not only in electromagnetism and electrodynamics, but also in quantum mechanics, cosmology, and thermodynamics. The many implications of Coulomb’s Law draw attention to its fundamental importance within virtually all branches of physics and make this elementary yet profound law one of the most useful of all scientific tools. 1. Introductory historical outlook Few investigations in physics have enjoyed as sustained an interest as have tests of Coulomb’s Law. As has been the case with most of the fundamental laws of physics, it was discovered and elucidated through observations of basic phenomena. In his research, Coulomb was interested in the mutual interactions between electric charges, a topic that had been studied previously by Priestley [1], and in fact even earlier, in 1755, during the experimental work of Franklin [2]. Franklin (1706–1790) was an American printer, writer, politician, diplomat, and scientist. He is credited with the invention of such practical everyday items as bifocal eyeglasses and a free-standing, wood-burning heater called the ‘Franklin stove’. His principal connection to electrical experimentation came via his investigations of the properties of Leyden Jars4. He is also commonly credited with giving the names ‘positive’ and ‘negative’ to the two opposite species of electrical charge, although his assignment convention was eventually reversed. Also living in America at the time was Priestley (1733–1804)5, an English chemist and amateur natural 4 In 1752, he flew a kite attached to a silk string in a thunderstorm, and showed that a metal key tied to the thread would charge a Leyden jar. (Incidentally, the next two people who attempted the experiment were killed in the effort.) His experiments with Leyden jars showed that they discharged more easily if near a pointed surface. He thus suggested the use of lightning rods. 5 The objects of his chemical studies included ‘fixed air’ (carbon dioxide), ‘nitrous air’ (nitric oxide), ‘marine acid air’ (hydrogen chloride), ‘alkaline air’ (ammonia), ‘vitriolic air’ (sulfur dioxide), ‘phlogisticated nitrous air’ (nitrous oxide, laughing gas), and ‘dephlogisticated air’ (oxygen). His chemical writings were published in the three-volume Experiments and Observations philosopher who had broad scientific interests in physics, electricity, magnetism, and optics, in addition to chemistry. He was a politically involved Unitarian preacher and a sympathizer with the French Revolution, and these aspects of his life forced him to move to America with his family in 1794. Priestley is credited with the discovery of oxygen in 1774, which he produced by focusing sunlight on mercuric oxide. During his studies of this ‘dephlogisticated air’, he noticed that it made him light-headed and that it had a similar effect on animals. The background studies underpinning Coulomb’s Law began when Franklin took a small sphere made of cork and placed it inside a charged metallic cup (see figure 1) and observed that it did not move, suggesting that there was no interaction between it and the cup. After Franklin communicated his finding to Priestley, the Englishman explained the phenomenon in 1767, providing a line of reasoning analogous to that used by Newton [3] to formulate and enunciate the law of universal gravitation. Underlying Newtonian gravity was the observation that the gravitational field inside a spherical shell of homogeneous material is null if the field is inversely proportional to the square of the distance r, i.e. if its intensity goes as r−2. By approximating Franklin’s cup as a spherical shell, Priestley deduced that the observed phenomenon should be physically on Different Kinds of Airs (1774–1777) and in the three-volume Experiments and Observations Relating to Various Branches of Natural Philosophie (1779–1786). By dissolving fixed air in water, he invented carbonated water. He also noticed that the explosion of inflammable air with common air produced dew. Lavoisier repeated this experiment and took credit for it. Priestley believed in the phlogiston theory, and was convinced that his discovery of oxygen proved it to be correct. 0026-1394/04/050159+12$30.00 © 2004 BIPM and IOP Publishing Ltd Printed in the UK S159
G Spavieri et al by the force of gravity acting on them.By knowing their weight,and by repeating the measurements at different distances,it was possible to calculate the size of the electrical force,evaluate its dependence on distance,and thus verify the metallic cup exactness of the hypothesized 1/r2 law. From his observations.Robison deduced that the law must have the functional form F x- (1) Cork where g represents a measure of the precision to which the 1/r2 behaviour is verified.He found an upper limit of 0.06 for s and thus could state that for masses in electrical repulsion to each other,the force went asr-206.However. Figure 1.Franklin placed a small sphere made of cork inside a for electrical attraction his limit was weaker,stated asr metallic cup,and when this was charged he observed that the sphere where c<2,but still essentially confirming the expected did not move,suggesting that there was no interaction between it r-2 dependence.Unfortunately,Robison did not publish and the cup.Priestley explained the phenomenon in 1767,providing his results until 1801,and by then Coulomb [7]had already a line of reasoning analogous to that used by Newton for the law of universal gravitation,implying that the field has an inverse square presented his.The parameter s appearing in equation(1)and dependence on distance.In the subsequent tests,instead of the cork related to the precision of the 1/r2 behaviour,is not very sphere inside a metallic cup,experimentalists considered a metallic useful from a theoretical point of view but is retained here shell enclosed within an outer charged shell or several because of its common historical use.Subsequent theoretical concentric shells. developments and improved understanding of the foundations for high precision tests of Coulomb's Law have led to the use analogous to the gravitational case and he thus concluded that of the quantityu=myc/=cwhich,as considered below, the electric force,like the gravitational force,must depend on is well motivated theoretically and represents the inverse distance as r-2.The lack of an observed ponderable force Compton wavelength of a photon of mass m.Coulomb's on the cork sphere inside the charged spherical shell was thus Law is violated if u0,i.e.if the photon mass is not zero. evidence of an inverse square law behaviour in the electric Before discussing Coulomb's experiment,we note that force. Cavendish,in addition to his celebrated measurement of the Franklin's work also served as inspiration for the efforts mean density of the Earth,also carried out an early experiment of Aepinus (1724-1802)[4],a German physicist.He on the physics of the electrical force.Inspired by the same idea made experimental and theoretical contributions to the study that motivated his predecessors,he too considered a metallic of electricity and in 1759 proposed in a theoretical essay, spherical shell enclosed within an outer shell consisting of written in Latin,the existence of two types of electric charges two hemispheres that could be opened or closed.In the closed (positive and negative)and a 1/r2 behaviour of the electric position,the two hemispheres were connected electrically to an force.His conjectures were made in analogy to what Newton electrostatic machine and charged while in ohmic contact with had proposed in order to explain Kepler's Law,the free the inner sphere.The hemispheres were then disconnected fall of bodies near the Earth's surface,and the outcome from the inner sphere and opened,and it was verified that they of Cavendish's laboratory experiment that investigated the remained charged.At this point,an electrometer was used to gravitational attraction between lead spheres [5]. check that the inner sphere was still uncharged,thus confirming All of these early qualitative phenomenological and the 1/r2 law but with an uncertainty that was smaller than that theoretical studies paved the way for the eventual quantitative of Robison (less than 1/60 of the charge moved to the inner verification of the basic law describing the electrical force.In shell over the thin wire interconnecting the two spheres).With fact,the essay of Aepinus was read by Robison(1739-1805) reference to equation (1),Cavendish obtained ss 0.03.An [6].an English physician who in 1769 carried out experimental improved version of the experiment was later performed by tests of the inverse square law and used the results to surmise Maxwell [8],who increased the precision of the test and found that it was indeed correct.His determination was made that the exponent of r in Coulomb's Law could differ from 2 somewhat before that of Coulomb,but history has given the by no more than s≥5×10-5. name of this interaction to the latter. We now turn to the famous experiment of Coulomb of 1788.Charles Augustin de Coulomb (1736-1806)was a 2.Early experimental verifications of Coulomb's French physicist and a pioneer in electrical theory.He was Law born in Angouleme.He served as a military engineer for France in the West Indies,but retired to Blois at the time of Robison's experiment was very straightforward.He measured the French Revolution to continue his research on magnetism, the repulsive force between two charged masses,equilibrated friction,and electricity.In 1777,he invented the torsion 6 He studied at Jena and Rostock and taught mathematics at Rostock from balance for the purpose of measuring the force of magnetic 1747 to 1755.After a brief stay in Berlin he went to St Petersburg as professor and electrical attractions.With this device,Coulomb was of physics and academician,remaining there until 1798 and rising to a high able to formulate the principle,now known as Coulomb's position as courtier to Catherine the Great. Law,governing the interaction between electric charges.In S160 Metrologia,41 (2004)S159-S170
G Spavieri et al Figure 1. Franklin placed a small sphere made of cork inside a metallic cup, and when this was charged he observed that the sphere did not move, suggesting that there was no interaction between it and the cup. Priestley explained the phenomenon in 1767, providing a line of reasoning analogous to that used by Newton for the law of universal gravitation, implying that the field has an inverse square dependence on distance. In the subsequent tests, instead of the cork sphere inside a metallic cup, experimentalists considered a metallic shell enclosed within an outer charged shell or several concentric shells. analogous to the gravitational case and he thus concluded that the electric force, like the gravitational force, must depend on distance as r−2. The lack of an observed ponderable force on the cork sphere inside the charged spherical shell was thus evidence of an inverse square law behaviour in the electric force. Franklin’s work also served as inspiration for the efforts of Aepinus (1724–1802) [4], a German physicist6. He made experimental and theoretical contributions to the study of electricity and in 1759 proposed in a theoretical essay, written in Latin, the existence of two types of electric charges (positive and negative) and a 1/r2 behaviour of the electric force. His conjectures were made in analogy to what Newton had proposed in order to explain Kepler’s Law, the free fall of bodies near the Earth’s surface, and the outcome of Cavendish’s laboratory experiment that investigated the gravitational attraction between lead spheres [5]. All of these early qualitative phenomenological and theoretical studies paved the way for the eventual quantitative verification of the basic law describing the electrical force. In fact, the essay of Aepinus was read by Robison (1739–1805) [6], an English physician who in 1769 carried out experimental tests of the inverse square law and used the results to surmise that it was indeed correct. His determination was made somewhat before that of Coulomb, but history has given the name of this interaction to the latter. 2. Early experimental verifications of Coulomb’s Law Robison’s experiment was very straightforward. He measured the repulsive force between two charged masses, equilibrated 6 He studied at Jena and Rostock and taught mathematics at Rostock from 1747 to 1755. After a brief stay in Berlin he went to St Petersburg as professor of physics and academician, remaining there until 1798 and rising to a high position as courtier to Catherine the Great. by the force of gravity acting on them. By knowing their weight, and by repeating the measurements at different distances, it was possible to calculate the size of the electrical force, evaluate its dependence on distance, and thus verify the exactness of the hypothesized 1/r2 law. From his observations, Robison deduced that the law must have the functional form F ∝ 1 r2±ε , (1) where ε represents a measure of the precision to which the 1/r2 behaviour is verified. He found an upper limit of 0.06 for ε and thus could state that for masses in electrical repulsion to each other, the force went as r−2.06. However, for electrical attraction his limit was weaker, stated as r−c where c < 2, but still essentially confirming the expected r−2 dependence. Unfortunately, Robison did not publish his results until 1801, and by then Coulomb [7] had already presented his. The parameter ε appearing in equation (1) and related to the precision of the 1/r2 behaviour, is not very useful from a theoretical point of view but is retained here because of its common historical use. Subsequent theoretical developments and improved understanding of the foundations for high precision tests of Coulomb’s Law have led to the use of the quantityµ = mγ c/h¯ = λ−1 C which, as considered below, is well motivated theoretically and represents the inverse Compton wavelength of a photon of mass mγ . Coulomb’s Law is violated if µ = 0, i.e. if the photon mass is not zero. Before discussing Coulomb’s experiment, we note that Cavendish, in addition to his celebrated measurement of the mean density of the Earth, also carried out an early experiment on the physics of the electrical force. Inspired by the same idea that motivated his predecessors, he too considered a metallic spherical shell enclosed within an outer shell consisting of two hemispheres that could be opened or closed. In the closed position, the two hemispheres were connected electrically to an electrostatic machine and charged while in ohmic contact with the inner sphere. The hemispheres were then disconnected from the inner sphere and opened, and it was verified that they remained charged. At this point, an electrometer was used to check that the inner sphere was still uncharged, thus confirming the 1/r2 law but with an uncertainty that was smaller than that of Robison (less than 1/60 of the charge moved to the inner shell over the thin wire interconnecting the two spheres). With reference to equation (1), Cavendish obtained ε 0.03 . An improved version of the experiment was later performed by Maxwell [8], who increased the precision of the test and found that the exponent of r in Coulomb’s Law could differ from 2 by no more than ε 5 × 10−5. We now turn to the famous experiment of Coulomb of 1788. Charles Augustin de Coulomb (1736–1806) was a French physicist and a pioneer in electrical theory. He was born in Angouleme. He served as a military engineer for ˆ France in the West Indies, but retired to Blois at the time of the French Revolution to continue his research on magnetism, friction, and electricity. In 1777, he invented the torsion balance for the purpose of measuring the force of magnetic and electrical attractions. With this device, Coulomb was able to formulate the principle, now known as Coulomb’s Law, governing the interaction between electric charges. In S160 Metrologia, 41 (2004) S159–S170
Physical implications of Coulomb's Law atttila publication of his results may signal that he was more aware than his colleagues of how fundamental and important this work was. Wire q 3.Null tests of Coulomb's Law:theory Mirror The technique employed by Cavendish has been used in most of the experimental work done since then,as it turned out to be potentially the most sensitive.It is intrinsically a null experiment,in the sense that the experimentalist seeks to verify with great precision the absence of charge from the inner sphere,rather than having to measure with less precision a Light ray non-null physical quantity,such as the twist in the fibre,as in the torsion balance approach. Following Robison and Maxwell and supposing that the Light source exponent in Coulomb's Law is not -2 but -(2+s),to first order in s the electric potential at a point r due to the charge Figure 2.The Coulomb torsion balance was similar in principle to the torsion balance used by Cavendish for measurement of the density distribution p(r')is given by gravitational attraction between masses.The interaction between the charged spheres produces a measurable twist in the torsion fibre, V(r)= dr p(r') Ir-r (3) which lets the apparatus rotate until equilibrium is reached.By accurately measuring the torsion angle,Coulomb confirmed the 1/r2 law with a precision surpassing that of the previous If the charge is uniformly distributed on a spherical shell experiments of Robison and Cavendish. of radius a r,then p(r',0',')08(r-a)and we may arbitrarily choose r to coincide with the z axis and 1779,Coulomb published the treatise Theorie des machines expression(3)becomes simples (Theory of Simple Machines),an analysis of friction o sine'de'do' in machinery.After the war Coulomb came out of retirement V(r)= and assisted the new government in devising a metric system (r2+a2 -2ar cos )(1+) of weights and measures.The unit of quantity used to measure *1 dcos0' electrical charges,the coulomb,was named for him. = 1(r2+a2 -2ar cos 0)(1+) His torsion balance,shown in figure 2,was similar in principle to that used by Cavendish for the measurement of =f(r+a)-f(r-a) (4) the mean density of the Earth(now interpreted as a seminal 2ar laboratory test of Newtonian gravitation).The interaction In the case where Coulomb's Law is perfectly valid, between the charged spheres produces a torque that acts s=0 and on the torsion fibre,with the apparatus then rotating until +1 d(cos0) equilibrium is reached.By accurately measuring the torsion V(r)=2πp a=const. angle,Coulomb found a limiting value for s in equation (1) (r2+a2 -2ar cos0= of g 0.01,thus surpassing the precision of the previous (5) experiments of Robison and Cavendish.The scalar expression so that V(r)-V(a)=0 and the electric field inside the charged for what has come to be known as Coulomb's Law says that the spherical shell vanishes.Thus,in tests of Coulomb's Law,we force F between two charges gi and q2 separated by a distance are interested in the potential induced on a sphere of radius r may be written in the simple form r by a charge distributed uniformly on a concentric sphere of radius a r,i.e. F=k9192 2 (2) V(r)-V(a)=a[f(atr)-f(a-r) (6) where the value of the constant of proportionality,k,will be V(a) f(2a) considered in section 7. To first order in,equation(6)yields The reasons why Coulomb achieved greater success and recognition than did his predecessors are essentially two.First, V(r)-V(a) =EM(a,r), (7) he performed his tests with combinations of both negative V(a) and positive charges.Cavendish used only charges of the same sign,but Coulomb sought to measure both attractive and where repulsive forces.Second,he published his results immediately, while Robison did not make his findings available until 1801, M(a,r)= (侣)-(】 (8) thirteen years after Coulomb.Cavendish too delayed the dissemination of his work,and it thus garnered no attention Since M(a,r)turns out to be of order unity,s is essentially until nearly a century later when a citation to it was given the quotient [V(r)-V(a)]/V(a)of the measured potential by Maxwell in his famous essay [8].Coulomb's prompt difference,V(r)-V(a),and the applied voltage,V(a). Metrologia,41(2004)s159-S170 S161
Physical implications of Coulomb’s Law Light ray Wire Mirror d Light source q θ q Q Figure 2. The Coulomb torsion balance was similar in principle to the torsion balance used by Cavendish for measurement of the gravitational attraction between masses. The interaction between the charged spheres produces a measurable twist in the torsion fibre, which lets the apparatus rotate until equilibrium is reached. By accurately measuring the torsion angle, Coulomb confirmed the 1/r2 law with a precision surpassing that of the previous experiments of Robison and Cavendish. 1779, Coulomb published the treatise Theorie des machines ´ simples (Theory of Simple Machines), an analysis of friction in machinery. After the war Coulomb came out of retirement and assisted the new government in devising a metric system of weights and measures. The unit of quantity used to measure electrical charges, the coulomb, was named for him. His torsion balance, shown in figure 2, was similar in principle to that used by Cavendish for the measurement of the mean density of the Earth (now interpreted as a seminal laboratory test of Newtonian gravitation). The interaction between the charged spheres produces a torque that acts on the torsion fibre, with the apparatus then rotating until equilibrium is reached. By accurately measuring the torsion angle, Coulomb found a limiting value for ε in equation (1) of ε 0.01, thus surpassing the precision of the previous experiments of Robison and Cavendish. The scalar expression for what has come to be known as Coulomb’s Law says that the force F between two charges q1 and q2 separated by a distance r may be written in the simple form F = k q1q2 r2 , (2) where the value of the constant of proportionality, k, will be considered in section 7. The reasons why Coulomb achieved greater success and recognition than did his predecessors are essentially two. First, he performed his tests with combinations of both negative and positive charges. Cavendish used only charges of the same sign, but Coulomb sought to measure both attractive and repulsive forces. Second, he published his results immediately, while Robison did not make his findings available until 1801, thirteen years after Coulomb. Cavendish too delayed the dissemination of his work, and it thus garnered no attention until nearly a century later when a citation to it was given by Maxwell in his famous essay [8]. Coulomb’s prompt publication of his results may signal that he was more aware than his colleagues of how fundamental and important this work was. 3. Null tests of Coulomb’s Law: theory The technique employed by Cavendish has been used in most of the experimental work done since then, as it turned out to be potentially the most sensitive. It is intrinsically a null experiment, in the sense that the experimentalist seeks to verify with great precision the absence of charge from the inner sphere, rather than having to measure with less precision a non-null physical quantity, such as the twist in the fibre, as in the torsion balance approach. Following Robison and Maxwell and supposing that the exponent in Coulomb’s Law is not −2 but −(2 + ε), to first order in ε the electric potential at a point r due to the charge density distribution ρ(r ) is given by V (r) = d3 r ρ(r ) | r − r | 1+ε . (3) If the charge is uniformly distributed on a spherical shell of radius a>r, then ρ(r , θ , ϕ ) = σ δ(r − a) and we may arbitrarily choose r to coincide with the z axis and expression (3) becomes V (r) = σ sin θ dθ dϕ (r2 + a2 − 2ar cos θ )(1+ε)/2 = +1 −1 d cos θ (r2 + a2 − 2ar cos θ )(1+ε)/2 = f (r + a) − f (r − a) 2ar . (4) In the case where Coulomb’s Law is perfectly valid, ε = 0 and V (r) = 2πρ +1 −1 d(cos θ ) (r2 + a2 − 2ar cos θ )1/2 = 1 a = const, (5) so thatV (r)−V (a) = 0 and the electric field inside the charged spherical shell vanishes. Thus, in tests of Coulomb’s Law, we are interested in the potential induced on a sphere of radius r by a charge distributed uniformly on a concentric sphere of radius a>r, i.e. V (r) − V (a) V (a) = a r f (a + r) − f (a − r) f (2a) − 1. (6) To first order in ε, equation (6) yields V (r) − V (a) V (a) = εM(a, r), (7) where M(a, r) = 1 2 a r ln a + r a − r − ln 4a2 a2 − r2 . (8) Since M(a, r) turns out to be of order unity, ε is essentially the quotient [V (r) − V (a)]/V (a) of the measured potential difference, V (r) − V (a), and the applied voltage, V (a). Metrologia, 41 (2004) S159–S170 S161
G Spavieri et al As an alternative to equations (7)and (8),de Broglie [9] The voltage across the inductor of capacity C is then considered a simple generalization of Maxwell's equations given [15]by involving a small non-zero rest mass of the photon.In this case,two charges will repel each other by a Yukawa force V(r)-V(a)= -(a2-r2).(14) C 6 derived from the potential Save for the standard termq/C(which is zero when there U(r)= e-ur e-rlic 一= (9) is no charge on the inner shell),the term dependent on u in r equation(14)coincides with that of equation (10). where u=myc/h=c is the inverse Compton wavelength of the photon.In the limit ua 3000V),from a condenser generator operating at the described below,it is convenient to start from a relativistically low resonance frequency of the galvanometer,was applied invariant linear generalization of Maxwell's equations,namely to the outer globe.The sensitivity was such that a voltage the Proca equations [13],which allow for a finite rest mass of of 10-6V was easily observable above the small level of the photon.Proca's equations for a particle of spin I and mass background noise.With this technique they succeeded in my are [14] reducing Maxwell's limit to s≥2×l0-9. 4π +2)Ay= (11) Another of the classic 'null experiments'that tests the exactness of the electrostatic inverse square law was performed and Gauss'Law becomes by Bartlett et al [19].In this experiment,the outer shell of a spherical capacitor was raised to a potential V with respect to 7·E=4rp-up (12) a distant ground and the potential difference V(r)-V(a)of Equation (12)may be applied to two concentric, equations (7)and (10)induced between the inner and outer conducting,spherical shells of radii r and a (a >r)with an shells was measured.Five concentric spheres were used and a inductor across (i.e.in parallel with)this spherical capacitor. potential difference of 40kV at 2500 Hz was imposed between If a potential Voe is applied to the outer shell,the resulting the two outer spheres.A lock-in detector with a sensitivity electric field is [15] of about 0.2 nV measured the potential difference between the inner two spheres.Any deviation in Coulomb's law shouldlead E(r)=(gr-2u2Voeir)i, (13) to a non-null result for V(r)-V(a)proportional to s as shown by equation (7).The result obtained by these authors was where g is the total charge on the inner shell. s<I x 10-13.A comparable result was found even when S162 Metrologia,41 (2004)S159-S170
G Spavieri et al As an alternative to equations (7) and (8), de Broglie [9] considered a simple generalization of Maxwell’s equations involving a small non-zero rest mass of the photon. In this case, two charges will repel each other by a Yukawa force derived from the potential U (r) = e−µr r = e−r/λC r , (9) where µ = mγ c/h¯ = λ−1 C is the inverse Compton wavelength of the photon. In the limit µa 1, U (r) = 1/r − µ + 1 2µ2r and equation (6) yields V (r) − V (a) V (a) = −1 6 µ2 (a2 − r2 ). (10) Although U (r) contains the term µ, what is tested experimentally is the result of equation (10). Since the other tests of Coulomb’s Law are explicitly sensitive to µ2 and not to µ, the quadratic dependence of V (r)−V (a) on µ makes a test based on this approach comparable to other tests. Thus, the potential difference V (r)−V (a) is not zero if Coulomb’s Law is invalid or, equivalently, if the photon rest mass is non-zero. For direct tests of Coulomb’s Law that consist of measuring the static potential difference of charged concentric shells, one may use either equation (7) or equation (10). However, one can also test Coulomb’s Law by determining µ with independent, indirect methods. In general, these would rely on either finding possible variations due to the presence of the Yukawa potential (9) or on the standard fields of massless electrodynamics, such as, e.g., measurements at either large distances or long times, where the percentage effect would be much higher. Typical of these approaches are those that involve the magnetic field of the Earth. For example, one might consider (a) satellite verification that the magnetic field of the Earth falls off as 1/r3 out to distances at which the solar wind is appreciable [10], (b) observation of the propagation of hydromagnetic waves through the magnetosphere [11], (c) application of the Schrodinger external field method [12], or other methods such ¨ as those described below. The three approaches outlined above should all give roughly the same limit, µ 10−11 cm−1. In the high-frequency (direct) null test of Coulomb’s Law described below, it is convenient to start from a relativistically invariant linear generalization of Maxwell’s equations, namely the Proca equations [13], which allow for a finite rest mass of the photon. Proca’s equations for a particle of spin 1 and mass mγ are [14] ( + µ2 )Aν = 4π c Jν (11) and Gauss’ Law becomes ∇ · E = 4πρ − µ2 ϕ. (12) Equation (12) may be applied to two concentric, conducting, spherical shells of radii r and a (a>r) with an inductor across (i.e. in parallel with) this spherical capacitor. If a potential V0eiωt is applied to the outer shell, the resulting electric field is [15] E(r) = qr−2 − 1 3µ2 V0eiωtr r,ˆ (13) where q is the total charge on the inner shell. The voltage across the inductor of capacity C is then given [15] by V (r) − V (a) = a r E · dl = q C − µ2 V0eiωt 6 (a2− r2 ). (14) Save for the standard term q/C (which is zero when there is no charge on the inner shell), the term dependent on µ in equation (14) coincides with that of equation (10). 4. Direct tests of Coulomb’s Law After the development of the phase-sensitive detectors such as lock-in amplifiers, new and more sensitive attempts to test Coulomb’s Law were made such as the ones by Plimpton and Lawton [16], Cochran and Franken [17], and Bartlett and Phillips [18]. In this section, we consider Maxwell’s derivation (equations (6) and (7)) applied to the simple case of a conducting sphere containing a smaller concentric sphere. The potential of the outer sphere is raised to a value V and the potential difference between them is measured. The actual shape of these conductors should not be relevant because the electric field inside a cavity of any shape vanishes unless Coulomb’s Law is violated. Thus, Cochran and Franken [17] could use conducting rectangular boxes in their experiment and set a limit of ε 0.9 × 10−11. The experiments of both Cavendish and Maxwell required connecting the inner sphere to an electrometer. The accuracy of the experiment was thus limited by fluctuations in the contact potentials while measuring the inner sphere’s voltage. Another problem was that of spontaneous ionization between the spheres. These problems were overcome by Plimpton and Lawton [16] by using alternating potentials. They developed a quasi-static method and charged the outer sphere with a slowly alternating current. The potential difference between the inner and outer spheres was detected with a resonant frequency electrometer. It consisted of an undamped galvanometer with amplifier, placed within the globes, and with the input resistor of the amplifier forming a permanent link connecting them, so as to measure any variable potential difference. No effect was observed when a harmonically alternating high potential V (>3000 V), from a condenser generator operating at the low resonance frequency of the galvanometer, was applied to the outer globe. The sensitivity was such that a voltage of 10−6 V was easily observable above the small level of background noise. With this technique they succeeded in reducing Maxwell’s limit to ε 2 × 10−9. Another of the classic ‘null experiments’ that tests the exactness of the electrostatic inverse square law was performed by Bartlett et al [19]. In this experiment, the outer shell of a spherical capacitor was raised to a potential V with respect to a distant ground and the potential difference V (r) − V (a) of equations (7) and (10) induced between the inner and outer shells was measured. Five concentric spheres were used and a potential difference of 40 kV at 2500 Hz was imposed between the two outer spheres. A lock-in detector with a sensitivity of about 0.2 nV measured the potential difference between the inner two spheres. Any deviation in Coulomb’s law should lead to a non-null result for V (r)−V (a) proportional to ε as shown by equation (7). The result obtained by these authors was ε 1 × 10−13. A comparable result was found even when S162 Metrologia, 41 (2004) S159–S170
Physical implications of Coulomb's Law the frequency was reduced to 250 Hz and the detector was measurement of interaction forces between two macroscopic synchronized with the charging current rather than with the charged bodies. charge itself In view of the high levels of precision achieved in several The best result obtained so far through developments of these tests,it is interesting to consider what possible of the original Cavendish technique is still that from 1971 competing effects gravity might introduce into them.The by Williams et al [15],who improved an earlier experiment result f(a,r)in equation(5)was derived strictly from classical [20].They used five concentric metallic shells in the form electrodynamics.In it.a uniform charge distribution is of icosahedra rather than spheres in order to reduce the errors assumed and the effect of gravity is neglected.As noted due to charge dispersion.A high voltage and frequency signal by Plimpton and Lawton [16].if electrons have weight was applied to the external shells and a very sensitive detector meg the electron density on the conducting sphere must be checked for any trace of a signal related to variable charging asymmetrical,being greater at the bottom where the electrons of the internal shell.The detector worked by amplifying the are pulled by the force of gravity.For the experiment of signal of the internal shell and comparing it with an identical Plimpton and Lawton this effect is insignificant as it leads to a reference signal,progressively out of phase at arhythm of 360 maximum potential difference over the globe of 10-10 V,which per half hour.Any signal from the detector would indicate a is far less than the minimum detectable voltage of 10-6V. violation of Coulomb's Law.In order to avoid introducing Thus,while such a gravitational effect should be negligible unrelated fields,the reference signal and the detector output in the relatively low sensitivity experiment of Plimpton and signal were transmitted by means of optical fibres.The outer Lawton,it could conceivably be important in experimental shell,of about 1.5m diameter,was charged 10kV peak-to-peak tests of higher sensitivity.According to this model,the overall with a 4 MHz sinusoidal voltage.Centred inside this charged effect of gravity is to produce a distortion in what should conducting shell is a smaller conducting shell.Any deviation otherwise be a uniform charge distribution.Of course,the from Coulomb's Law is detected by measuring the line integral more general problem is to account for effects of a non- of the electric field between these two shells with a detection uniform charge distribution regardless of the origin of the sensitivity of about 10-12 V peak-to-peak. non-uniformity.In equation (5),the null result comes from The null result of this experiment expressed in the form of the assumption that Coulomb's Law is valid and that the the photon rest mass squared (equation (14)or equation (10)) charge is distributed uniformly on the sphere.However, is u2=2.3 x 10-19 cm-2.Expressed as a deviation from Shaw [22]objected to the assumption that the charge will Coulomb's Law in the form of equation (7),their result is distribute itself uniformly over a conducting spherical shell, =6 x 10-16,extending the validity of Coulomb's Law by even in the absence of any gravitational effect.In conventional two orders of magnitude beyond the findings of Bartlett et al. electrostatics,the uniform charge distribution for Coulomb and Yukawa potentials follows from the symmetry of the problem and the uniqueness of the solution.If these potentials are not 5.Limits due to the effects of gravity valid there is no guarantee of a uniform charge distribution and thus irregularities in the spherical surface would bias the We have mentioned above that null experiments that test the concept that the inner potential does not depend on the shape validity of Coulomb's Law are typically more precise than of the outer sphere.However,considering that any violation those that attempt to directly measure the interaction force of Coulomb's Law is very small,departures from the expected between charges.One of the problems arising when making uniformity should give [19]only second-order corrections to direct measurements of the force between two macroscopic equations (7)and (8). charged bodies,as done when using a torsion balance,is that the charges are distributed over conducting surfaces of 6.Indirect tests of Coulomb's Law finite size.In the ideal case,Coulomb's Law describes the interaction between two point charges separated by a precisely In addition to the tests discussed in the previous sections,there known distance.In any practical arrangement,even the have also been a number of indirect experimental verifications charge on a microscopically small conducting ball cannot be of Coulomb's Law,and these will be discussed briefly in what considered to be truly point-like-as if placed at the centre- follows. but rather distributed over the ball's surface.If the charged ball is interacting with another charged ball,the distribution 6.1.Geomagnetic and astronomical tests on the surface is no longer uniform and has to be determined using the method of images.Saranin [21]has studied in detail A consequence of Coulomb's Law is that the magnetic field the departures from Coulomb's Law that can occur when two produced by a dipole goes as 1/r3 at distances from its conducting spheres interact electrostatically with each other. centre for which the dipole approximation is valid.For the By computing forces on them as a function of their separation, magnetic field of a planet,this distance is equivalent to about he found that at small distances a switch from repulsion to two planetary radii (at least).If the photon rest mass is not attraction occurs in the general case of arbitrarily but similarly zero-which is equivalent to a violation of Coulomb's Law- charged spheres.The only exception-and in it they always a Yukawa factor e-r/c is introduced in the 1/r terms for the repel each other-is the case in which the charges on the electrostatic and magnetostatic potentials.In this case,the spheres are related as the squares of their radii.The results of magnetic field produced by a dipole no longer goes as 1/r3 Saranin help corroborate the idea that,even in principle,null but contains corrections related to the Compton wavelength experiments can be more precise than tests based on the direct Ac =u=h/myc where my is the photon mass. Me1 ologia,41(2004)s159-S170 S163
Physical implications of Coulomb’s Law the frequency was reduced to 250 Hz and the detector was synchronized with the charging current rather than with the charge itself. The best result obtained so far through developments of the original Cavendish technique is still that from 1971 by Williams et al [15], who improved an earlier experiment [20]. They used five concentric metallic shells in the form of icosahedra rather than spheres in order to reduce the errors due to charge dispersion. A high voltage and frequency signal was applied to the external shells and a very sensitive detector checked for any trace of a signal related to variable charging of the internal shell. The detector worked by amplifying the signal of the internal shell and comparing it with an identical reference signal, progressively out of phase at a rhythm of 360˚ per half hour. Any signal from the detector would indicate a violation of Coulomb’s Law. In order to avoid introducing unrelated fields, the reference signal and the detector output signal were transmitted by means of optical fibres. The outer shell, of about 1.5 m diameter, was charged 10 kV peak-to-peak with a 4 MHz sinusoidal voltage. Centred inside this charged conducting shell is a smaller conducting shell. Any deviation from Coulomb’s Law is detected by measuring the line integral of the electric field between these two shells with a detection sensitivity of about 10−12 V peak-to-peak. The null result of this experiment expressed in the form of the photon rest mass squared (equation (14) or equation (10)) is µ2 = 2.3 × 10−19 cm−2. Expressed as a deviation from Coulomb’s Law in the form of equation (7), their result is ε = 6 × 10−16, extending the validity of Coulomb’s Law by two orders of magnitude beyond the findings of Bartlett et al. 5. Limits due to the effects of gravity We have mentioned above that null experiments that test the validity of Coulomb’s Law are typically more precise than those that attempt to directly measure the interaction force between charges. One of the problems arising when making direct measurements of the force between two macroscopic charged bodies, as done when using a torsion balance, is that the charges are distributed over conducting surfaces of finite size. In the ideal case, Coulomb’s Law describes the interaction between two point charges separated by a precisely known distance. In any practical arrangement, even the charge on a microscopically small conducting ball cannot be considered to be truly point-like—as if placed at the centre— but rather distributed over the ball’s surface. If the charged ball is interacting with another charged ball, the distribution on the surface is no longer uniform and has to be determined using the method of images. Saranin [21] has studied in detail the departures from Coulomb’s Law that can occur when two conducting spheres interact electrostatically with each other. By computing forces on them as a function of their separation, he found that at small distances a switch from repulsion to attraction occurs in the general case of arbitrarily but similarly charged spheres. The only exception—and in it they always repel each other—is the case in which the charges on the spheres are related as the squares of their radii. The results of Saranin help corroborate the idea that, even in principle, null experiments can be more precise than tests based on the direct measurement of interaction forces between two macroscopic charged bodies. In view of the high levels of precision achieved in several of these tests, it is interesting to consider what possible competing effects gravity might introduce into them. The result f (a, r)in equation (5) was derived strictly from classical electrodynamics. In it, a uniform charge distribution is assumed and the effect of gravity is neglected. As noted by Plimpton and Lawton [16], if electrons have weight meg the electron density on the conducting sphere must be asymmetrical, being greater at the bottom where the electrons are pulled by the force of gravity. For the experiment of Plimpton and Lawton this effect is insignificant as it leads to a maximum potential difference over the globe of 10−10 V, which is far less than the minimum detectable voltage of 10−6 V. Thus, while such a gravitational effect should be negligible in the relatively low sensitivity experiment of Plimpton and Lawton, it could conceivably be important in experimental tests of higher sensitivity. According to this model, the overall effect of gravity is to produce a distortion in what should otherwise be a uniform charge distribution. Of course, the more general problem is to account for effects of a nonuniform charge distribution regardless of the origin of the non-uniformity. In equation (5), the null result comes from the assumption that Coulomb’s Law is valid and that the charge is distributed uniformly on the sphere. However, Shaw [22] objected to the assumption that the charge will distribute itself uniformly over a conducting spherical shell, even in the absence of any gravitational effect. In conventional electrostatics, the uniform charge distribution for Coulomb and Yukawa potentials follows from the symmetry of the problem and the uniqueness of the solution. If these potentials are not valid there is no guarantee of a uniform charge distribution and thus irregularities in the spherical surface would bias the concept that the inner potential does not depend on the shape of the outer sphere. However, considering that any violation of Coulomb’s Law is very small, departures from the expected uniformity should give [19] only second-order corrections to equations (7) and (8). 6. Indirect tests of Coulomb’s Law In addition to the tests discussed in the previous sections, there have also been a number of indirect experimental verifications of Coulomb’s Law, and these will be discussed briefly in what follows. 6.1. Geomagnetic and astronomical tests A consequence of Coulomb’s Law is that the magnetic field produced by a dipole goes as 1/r3 at distances from its centre for which the dipole approximation is valid. For the magnetic field of a planet, this distance is equivalent to about two planetary radii (at least). If the photon rest mass is not zero—which is equivalent to a violation of Coulomb’s Law— a Yukawa factor e−r/λC is introduced in the 1/r terms for the electrostatic and magnetostatic potentials. In this case, the magnetic field produced by a dipole no longer goes as 1/r3 but contains corrections related to the Compton wavelength λC = µ−1 = h/m ¯ γ c where mγ is the photon mass. Metrologia, 41 (2004) S159–S170 S163
G Spavieri et al In terms of the Compton wavelength and photon mass, cannot be electromagnetic wave propagation.With g0 the the sensitive explorations of the validity of Coulomb's Law equation for the scalar electromagnetic potential and vector reported by Williams et al [20]yielded an upper limit of potentialA takes the form of a Klein-Gordon equation and the 1.05 x 1010 cm for Ac and 2 x 10-47g for my.while their velocity of propagation in vacuo of sinusoidal electromagnetic subsequent direct test with concentric icosahedra [15]yielded waves decreases as the wavelength A increases,and it vanishes the slightly better findings of 1.95 x 1010 cm for c and for a valuemx()that depends ons.The greater the observed 1.6×10-7 g for my. Amax(s),the smaller is e. The first results obtained from orbital data were those of A very sensitive test of this concept using an LCR circuit Goldhaber and Nieto [14],who used satellite measurements of was carried out by Franken and Ampulski[29]in 1970.These the Earth's magnetic field to set limits of 5.5x 1010cm for Ac authors point out that the free-space phase velocity of light and 4x 10-48g for my.This corresponded to an equivalent may be expressed as value of s1.7 x 10-16.Davis et al [23]verified the 1/r3 behaviour of the magnetic field of Jupiter(much more intense (15) than that of the Earth)from observations of the Pioneer 10 o2- spacecraft,and were able to improve the precision of the limit such that Ac≥3.14×101l,i.e.my≤2.8×10-l1cm-1= where is the angular frequency of the electromagnetic waves 8×10-49g. in a resonant cavity and=2c/Ac.The latter quantity can be rewritten as h@c =mc2,which introduces a mass into the Further studies on the photon mass and planetary magnetic argument.In fact,the lowest resonant frequency of a cavity is fields were carried out by Bicknell [24].He extended Schrodinger's [12]expression for a dipole field to a complete @c,irrespective of the size of the cavity.The phase velocity spherical harmonic analysis of a static planetary field. becomes infinite at the critical frequency while the group Additional components of the magnetic field were identified velocity approaches zero at this frequency,corresponding to a massive photon with zero momentum and hence an infinite which would arise from a non-zero photon mass.However,no uncertainty in position,which,in turn,requires an infinitely new limits were set on Ac because the most important terms large cavity for confinement.The results of the test [29] in the expressions for the geomagnetic field were of the same yield the values of2×l0l2 cm forλcand1×l0-49gfor order as Schrodinger's apparent external field.An analysis of my,corresponding to the equivalent value s 4.3 x 10-8 Earth's magnetic field,performed by Fischbach et al [25],led A difficulty with this test is that so-called'warped'conducting to an upper limit value of m,=1 x 10-48g. cavities have been used in order to make up for the requirement It is important to note that there is still another way of of a very large cavity and there is no rigorous proof that the characterizing deviations from Coulomb's Law,based on an theoretical considerations valid for a rectangular box apply also electromagnetic analogue of a fifth force,and that this line to warped cavities. of thought leads to additional suggestions for experimental Several authors have discussed possible limitations of the tests.The relevant works in this area are those of Bartlett and test by Franken and Ampulski.In one analysis of lumped- Logl [26],Fischbach et al [25],and also Kloor et al [27]. circuit tests of photon mass,Boulware [30]showed that the An upper limit for the photon mass was also found only effect of a photon mass,if there is one,is to produce by Lowenthal [281.who used astronomical observations small changes in the inductance and capacitance of the circuit of the gravitational deflection of electromagnetic radiation. as well as changes in its radiative half-life.The behaviour of a Although this method does not lead to a better upper limit low-frequency,lumped LC circuit is essentially independent than those mentioned above,the method is nevertheless of the dynamics of the electromagnetic fields.Also Park and interesting and,because it is not related to the other techniques, Williams [31],and Kroll [32]have noted that in reducing the it constitutes an independent approach to restricting the size of their apparatus to table-top dimensions the authors have magnitude of the photon mass.The question posed by lowered the sensitivity of their experiment by the same ratio Lowenthal was the following:if the general theory of relativity thus making it difficult to set significant limits on the photon predicts a deflection of starlight by the Sun of 1.75 s of arc,how rest mass. is this deflection altered if the photon has a small rest mass In examining the physical significance of the experiment (in units ofc==1)?Lowenthal showed that the deflection by Franken and Ampulski,Goldhaber and Nieto [33]show varies proportionally to u and he set the correction term that in the massive-photon case the fields and currents of the equal to the difference between the measured deflection angle system are changed only by order (uD)2from those of the and the calculated deflection angle for photons of zero rest massless-photon case (D is the dimension of the system).This mass.After taking into account the accuracy of the deflection implies that the above-mentioned 'table-top'experiment is measurements,he obtained an upper limit ofu<7x 10-40g. only weakly sensitive to small Yukawa-like deviations from which is not as stringent as the other limits,but still a useful Coulomb's Law and they argue that it is therefore unlikely that result. this test can improve present limits on the photon mass. 6.2.Lumped-circuit tests and the photon mass 6.3.Cryogenic experiments Another indirect method to verify the 1/r2 form of Coulomb's Modern theories that appeal to the concept of spontaneous Law involves observations of electromagnetic waves of symmetry breaking assume that particles,which are massless increasing wavelength,A.Underlying it is the concept that above a certain critical temperature Te,acquire mass below if s is small but =0,there is a Amax(s)beyond which there this temperature.Within this framework it is natural to S164 Metrologia,41 (2004)S159-S170
G Spavieri et al In terms of the Compton wavelength and photon mass, the sensitive explorations of the validity of Coulomb’s Law reported by Williams et al [20] yielded an upper limit of 1.05 × 1010 cm for λC and 2 × 10−47 g for mγ , while their subsequent direct test with concentric icosahedra [15] yielded the slightly better findings of 1.95 × 1010 cm for λC and 1.6 × 10−47 g for mγ . The first results obtained from orbital data were those of Goldhaber and Nieto [14], who used satellite measurements of the Earth’s magnetic field to set limits of 5.5 × 1010 cm for λC and 4 × 10−48 g for mγ . This corresponded to an equivalent value of ε 1.7 × 10−16. Davis et al [23] verified the 1/r3 behaviour of the magnetic field of Jupiter (much more intense than that of the Earth) from observations of the Pioneer 10 spacecraft, and were able to improve the precision of the limit such that λC 3.14 × 1011, i.e. mγ 2.8 × 10−11 cm−1 = 8 × 10−49 g. Further studies on the photon mass and planetary magnetic fields were carried out by Bicknell [24]. He extended Schrodinger’s [12] expression for a dipole field to a complete ¨ spherical harmonic analysis of a static planetary field. Additional components of the magnetic field were identified which would arise from a non-zero photon mass. However, no new limits were set on λC because the most important terms in the expressions for the geomagnetic field were of the same order as Schrodinger’s apparent external field. An analysis of ¨ Earth’s magnetic field, performed by Fischbach et al [25], led to an upper limit value of mγ = 1 × 10−48 g. It is important to note that there is still another way of characterizing deviations from Coulomb’s Law, based on an electromagnetic analogue of a fifth force, and that this line of thought leads to additional suggestions for experimental tests. The relevant works in this area are those of Bartlett and Logl [26], Fischbach et al [25], and also Kloor et al [27]. An upper limit for the photon mass was also found by Lowenthal [28], who used astronomical observations of the gravitational deflection of electromagnetic radiation. Although this method does not lead to a better upper limit than those mentioned above, the method is nevertheless interesting and, because it is not related to the other techniques, it constitutes an independent approach to restricting the magnitude of the photon mass. The question posed by Lowenthal was the following: if the general theory of relativity predicts a deflection of starlight by the Sun of 1.75 s of arc, how is this deflection altered if the photon has a small rest mass µ (in units of c = h¯ = 1)? Lowenthal showed that the deflection varies proportionally to µ2 and he set the correction term equal to the difference between the measured deflection angle and the calculated deflection angle for photons of zero rest mass. After taking into account the accuracy of the deflection measurements, he obtained an upper limit of µ < 7×10−40 g, which is not as stringent as the other limits, but still a useful result. 6.2. Lumped-circuit tests and the photon mass Another indirect method to verify the 1/r2 form of Coulomb’s Law involves observations of electromagnetic waves of increasing wavelength, λ. Underlying it is the concept that if ε is small but =0, there is a λmax(ε) beyond which there cannot be electromagnetic wave propagation. With ε = 0 the equation for the scalar electromagnetic potential ϕ and vector potential A takes the form of a Klein–Gordon equation and the velocity of propagation in vacuo of sinusoidal electromagnetic waves decreases as the wavelength λ increases, and it vanishes for a value λmax(ε)that depends on ε. The greater the observed λmax(ε), the smaller is ε. A very sensitive test of this concept using an LCR circuit was carried out by Franken and Ampulski [29] in 1970. These authors point out that the free-space phase velocity of light may be expressed as vϕ c 2 = ω2 ω2 − ω2 c , (15) where ω is the angular frequency of the electromagnetic waves in a resonant cavity and ωc = 2πc/λC. The latter quantity can be rewritten as ¯h ωc = mc2, which introduces a mass into the argument. In fact, the lowest resonant frequency of a cavity is ωc, irrespective of the size of the cavity. The phase velocity becomes infinite at the critical frequency ωc while the group velocity approaches zero at this frequency, corresponding to a massive photon with zero momentum and hence an infinite uncertainty in position, which, in turn, requires an infinitely large cavity for confinement. The results of the test [29] yield the values of 2 × 1012 cm for λC and 1 × 10−49 g for mγ , corresponding to the equivalent value ε 4.3 × 10−8. A difficulty with this test is that so-called ‘warped’ conducting cavities have been used in order to make up for the requirement of a very large cavity and there is no rigorous proof that the theoretical considerations valid for a rectangular box apply also to warped cavities. Several authors have discussed possible limitations of the test by Franken and Ampulski. In one analysis of lumpedcircuit tests of photon mass, Boulware [30] showed that the only effect of a photon mass, if there is one, is to produce small changes in the inductance and capacitance of the circuit as well as changes in its radiative half-life. The behaviour of a low-frequency, lumped LC circuit is essentially independent of the dynamics of the electromagnetic fields. Also Park and Williams [31], and Kroll [32] have noted that in reducing the size of their apparatus to table-top dimensions the authors have lowered the sensitivity of their experiment by the same ratio, thus making it difficult to set significant limits on the photon rest mass. In examining the physical significance of the experiment by Franken and Ampulski, Goldhaber and Nieto [33] show that in the massive-photon case the fields and currents of the system are changed only by order (µD)2 from those of the massless-photon case (D is the dimension of the system). This implies that the above-mentioned ‘table-top’ experiment is only weakly sensitive to small Yukawa-like deviations from Coulomb’s Law and they argue that it is therefore unlikely that this test can improve present limits on the photon mass. 6.3. Cryogenic experiments Modern theories that appeal to the concept of spontaneous symmetry breaking assume that particles, which are massless above a certain critical temperature Tc, acquire mass below this temperature. Within this framework it is natural to S164 Metrologia, 41 (2004) S159–S170
Physical implications of Coulomb's Law Copper pick-up c Lead/aluminium outer shield Silver ground surface(1) Twin X Charging lock-in coax cable Silver surface(2)】 Inner surface (3) Superconducting 20μF and mu-metal core solenoid Capacitor C23 Figure 3.Schematic diagram of the cryogenic photon-mass experiment of Ryan et al.The system measures the current that flows between two closed surfaces in response to an impressed voltage difference.The apparatus is kept at very low temperature (1.36 K).(Figure I from Ryan et al [34].Copyright(1985)by the American Physical Society (with permission of Prof.Austin).) speculate that the photon could also be massless above a critical represents a correction due to the photon non-vanishing rest temperature and acquire a rest mass below it. mass m.The quantity II(p),which can be expressed in terms A cryogenic photon-mass experiment was performed by of the Bessel functions lo and Ko that are regular at the origin Ryan et al [34].As shown diagrammatically in figure 3, and infinity respectively,reads it consisted essentially of a null experiment with concentric containers (closed surfaces),similar in a way to the previous Π(p)=j(a-P) Ko(mxp) o dp'lo(myp) direct tests of Coulomb's Law such as the one by Williams et al [15].Unlike a standard Coulomb's Law experiment,this method measured the current that flows between two closed lo(myp) p'dp'Ko(myp） surfaces in response to an impressed voltage difference,not the voltage difference itself.The apparatus was immersed in liquid helium.The result of the experiment set a limit on the mass -j0(p-a)Ko(myp)p'dp'lo(myp'). (18) of the photon of my≤(1.5±l.38)×10-42gatl.36K.The Thus,for the standard solenoid configuration,finite range sensitivity is lower than that of other previous tests.However, would lead to a small B field leakage outside the solenoid the result is still important because the thermodynamic validity represented by m(p).In principle,one could arrange for of Coulomb's Law is now extended from the standard terrestrial the leakage flux addition to be an integer,in which case only ('room')temperatures to those typical of a planet far away from the interior field would contribute,making the scenario just as the Sun,or to those of the galactic environment. non-local as in the standard massless case. Because of the extra mass-dependent term,some non- 6.4.The Aharonov-Bohm effects and the mass of the photon trivial limits on the range of the transverse photon might thus be obtained from a table-top experiment.By comparing the As discussed in the literature,several conjectures related theoretical corrections to the flux through a small circular to the Aharonov-Bohm effect [35]have been developed region of radius p with the flux for the massless case assuming electromagnetic interaction of fields of infinite range Boulware and Deser were able to estimate the size of a possible i.e.zero photon mass.The possibility that any associated experimental limit on the range m.For scale sizes of effects,specifically the Aharonov-Bohm effect itself,might be manifest within the context of finite-range electrodynamics ~10cm,the observable ranges are m102 km. has been discussed by Boulware and Deser [361. It would also be interesting to consider the other non-local These authors consider the coupling of the photon mass effects of the Aharonov-Bohm type,such as those associated my,as predicted by the Proca equation in the form with neutral particles that have an intrinsic magnetic or electric dipole moment [37].The goal would be to see if they provide 0Fu"+m子A“=JH (16) similar correction terms that might be suitable for setting more precise limits on the range of m.In the case of and show that the component of the magnetic field for a the standard Aharonov-Casher effect,this analysis has been solenoid of the type that might be used in a test of the performed by Fuchs [38]who points out that,unlike the Aharonov-Bohm effect is case for the Aharonov-Bohm effect,a neutral particle with a magnetic dipole moment that couples to non-gauge fields B Bo+m nI(p). (17)has no classical acceleration regardless of the photon mass,so that no observable corrections would be expected. where the first term,Bo,is the standard magnetic field for However,this may not be the case for a neutral particle zero photon mass-the field confined inside a long solenoid with an electric dipole moment.In fact,in the Aharonov- of radius a and carrying the current j-and the second term Casher effect a particle with magnetic dipolem acquires an Metrologia,.41(2004)s159-S170 S165
Physical implications of Coulomb’s Law Charging coax cable Copper pick-up coil Silver surface (2) Inner surface (3) and mu-metal core Superconducting solenoid 20 µF Capacitor C23 Twin X to lock-in Silver ground surface (1) Lead/aluminium outer shield Figure 3. Schematic diagram of the cryogenic photon-mass experiment of Ryan et al. The system measures the current that flows between two closed surfaces in response to an impressed voltage difference. The apparatus is kept at very low temperature (1.36 K). (Figure 1 from Ryan et al [34]. Copyright (1985) by the American Physical Society (with permission of Prof. Austin).) speculate that the photon could also be massless above a critical temperature and acquire a rest mass below it. A cryogenic photon-mass experiment was performed by Ryan et al [34]. As shown diagrammatically in figure 3, it consisted essentially of a null experiment with concentric containers (closed surfaces), similar in a way to the previous direct tests of Coulomb’s Law such as the one by Williams et al [15]. Unlike a standard Coulomb’s Law experiment, this method measured the current that flows between two closed surfaces in response to an impressed voltage difference, not the voltage difference itself. The apparatus was immersed in liquid helium. The result of the experiment set a limit on the mass of the photon of mγ (1.5 ± 1.38) × 10−42 g at 1.36 K. The sensitivity is lower than that of other previous tests. However, the result is still important because the thermodynamic validity of Coulomb’s Law is now extended from the standard terrestrial (‘room’) temperatures to those typical of a planet far away from the Sun, or to those of the galactic environment. 6.4. The Aharonov–Bohm effects and the mass of the photon As discussed in the literature, several conjectures related to the Aharonov–Bohm effect [35] have been developed assuming electromagnetic interaction of fields of infinite range, i.e. zero photon mass. The possibility that any associated effects, specifically the Aharonov–Bohm effect itself, might be manifest within the context of finite-range electrodynamics has been discussed by Boulware and Deser [36]. These authors consider the coupling of the photon mass mγ , as predicted by the Proca equation in the form ∂νF µν + m2 γ Aµ = J µ (16) and show that the component of the magnetic field for a solenoid of the type that might be used in a test of the Aharonov–Bohm effect is B = B0 + m2 γ (ρ), (17) where the first term, B0, is the standard magnetic field for zero photon mass—the field confined inside a long solenoid of radius a and carrying the current j—and the second term represents a correction due to the photon non-vanishing rest mass mγ . The quantity (ρ), which can be expressed in terms of the Bessel functions I0 and K0 that are regular at the origin and infinity respectively, reads (ρ) = jθ (a − ρ) K0(mγ ρ) ρ 0 ρ dρ I0(mγ ρ ) + I0(mγ ρ) a ρ ρ dρ K0(mγ ρ ) − jθ (ρ − a)K0(mγ ρ) a 0 ρ dρ I0(mγ ρ ). (18) Thus, for the standard solenoid configuration, finite range would lead to a small B field leakage outside the solenoid represented by m2 γ (ρ). In principle, one could arrange for the leakage flux addition to be an integer, in which case only the interior field would contribute, making the scenario just as non-local as in the standard massless case. Because of the extra mass-dependent term, some nontrivial limits on the range of the transverse photon might thus be obtained from a table-top experiment. By comparing the theoretical corrections to the flux through a small circular region of radius ρ with the flux for the massless case, Boulware and Deser were able to estimate the size of a possible experimental limit on the range m−1 γ . For scale sizes of ρ ∼ 10 cm, the observable ranges are m−1 γ 102 km. It would also be interesting to consider the other non-local effects of the Aharonov–Bohm type, such as those associated with neutral particles that have an intrinsic magnetic or electric dipole moment [37]. The goal would be to see if they provide similar correction terms that might be suitable for setting more precise limits on the range of m−1 γ . In the case of the standard Aharonov–Casher effect, this analysis has been performed by Fuchs [38] who points out that, unlike the case for the Aharonov–Bohm effect, a neutral particle with a magnetic dipole moment that couples to non-gauge fields has no classical acceleration regardless of the photon mass, so that no observable corrections would be expected. However, this may not be the case for a neutral particle with an electric dipole moment. In fact, in the Aharonov– Casher effect a particle with magnetic dipole µm acquires an Metrologia, 41 (2004) S159–S170 S165
G Spavieri et al electromagnetic momentum c-E xm because m couples Support with the electric field E,while a particle with an electric Tungsten wir +V DC supply dipolede couples with the vector potentialA [37]-as happens in the case of the Aharonov-Bohm effect-thus acquiring Mirror Laser an electromagnetic momentum c-(de.V)A.For field-free effects [37]on electric dipoles,a magnetic sheet is the source Sensor of A.Small leakages of the field-confined within the sheet in the massless photon case-may lead to observable corrections Amplifier of the type predicted by Boulware and Deser,thus presenting an interesting possibility for future study. Computer 98 mm Magnetic 6.5.Recent limits on the photon mass and the cosmic shield Air magnetic vector potential Flotation chamber shield A novel experimental approach for measuring the photon mass m has been based on a toroidal Cavendish balance 18.5mm 145mm used to evaluate the product u2A of the photon mass squared (u-=h/mc)and the ambient cosmic vector potential A. Figure 4.Block diagram of the sophisticated Cavendish balance This approach,developed by Lakes [39].points out that the used by Lakes to evaluate the product of the photon mass squared Maxwell-Proca equations modify the standard equations for and the ambient cosmic vector potential.The toroid carries an the curl of B to electric current giving rise to a dipole field aa that,if m0, interacts with the ambient vector potential Aambient to produce a torque r on the toroid.(Figure 1 from Lakes [39].Copyright (1998) V×B= g+ (19) by the American Physical Society (with permission of Prof.Lakes).) c at Gauge invariance is lost if u0,since in these equations the origin so that the dimensions of the sources of A correspond potentials themselves have physical significance,in addition to astronomical or galactic distances as opposed to those of to that of the usual fields.If a toroid carries an electric current. laboratory size.Thus,experiments of that type are able to or if it is permanently magnetized with a field B confined sidestep the implications of the argument of Goldhaber and within it,the corresponding magnetic vector potential may Nieto [33]. be represented by a dipole field ad.If u0,this dipole The experimental arrangement used by Lakes is such that field interacts with the ambient vector potential A to produce the torque on the torsion balance will vary with the rotation a torque r =ad x Au2 via the energy density of the vector of the Earth,making it possible to experimentally detect the potential.Thus,the method is based on the energy density of variations.However,if the cosmic ambient vector potential A in the presence of my,not on measurement of the magnetic were to be fortuitously aligned with the Earth's rotation axis, field. then this approach would fail.In order to avoid this possibility, The experiment does not yield a direct limit for u,but Luo et al [41]performed an improved experiment by rotating rather on Au.The modified Cavendish balance used to the torsion balance to ensure the effectiveness of detection for determine the product Auconsisted of a toroid of electrical all possible orientations of the vector potential.They were steel wound with many turns of wire that carried a current(see also able to remove the influences of sidereal disturbances in figure 4).The apparatus was supported by water flotation [40]. the environment by virtue of this method of modulation.The The experiment yielded Au22 x 1010 m.Even with more yields the new upper limitu>1.66x1011mand the photon conservative values for A,the limit set by this experiment mass is my 1.2 x 10-51 g. improves the precision attained with the Jovian magnetic field. Those latest results are certainly remarkable if one In the preceding section on lumped circuits we quoted the considers that,according to the uncertainty principle,a result of Goldhaber and Nieto [33].which suggests that for purely theoretical estimate of the photon mass is given by table-top experiments the sensitivity of any limit on ugoes my=h/(At)e2,which yields an order of magnitude number as 1/D2 where D is the dimension of the system.This line of 10-66g.where the age of the universe is taken to be of reasoning has become an often-used 'rule of thumb'in the roughly 1010 years.Table 1 summarizes the results of the field,and the inference of it is that table-top experiments will various experiments conducted since the time of Cavendish. be less sensitive than others.If so,it is then interesting to and figure 5 presents a graphical comparison of the related consider why the experiment of Lakes [39]sets such a good precisions. limit.We believe that the difference is due mainly to the fact In table 1,direct (d)and indirect (i)tests of Coulomb's hat in table-top tests such as those using lumped circuits,the Law are listed.The experiments performed up to 1971 directly modification of the vector potential A due to a massive photon measured the parameter s that indicates the degree of precision possesses a range that is logically limited to the dimensions of Coulomb's Law written in the form 1/r2+;most of the of the circuit or cavity where the electromagnetic waves are successive experiments are instead tests of the photon rest produced and confined.However,in the Lakes experiment, mass my (u=h/myc)and determine its upper limit. the mass u couples with a vector potential A that is of cosmic For these latter experiments,the corresponding 'precision S166 Metrologia,41 (2004)S159-S170
G Spavieri et al electromagnetic momentum c−1E × µm because µm couples with the electric field E, while a particle with an electric dipole de couples with the vector potentialA [37]—as happens in the case of the Aharonov–Bohm effect—thus acquiring an electromagnetic momentum c−1(de · ∇)A. For field-free effects [37] on electric dipoles, a magnetic sheet is the source of A. Small leakages of the field—confined within the sheet in the massless photon case—may lead to observable corrections of the type predicted by Boulware and Deser, thus presenting an interesting possibility for future study. 6.5. Recent limits on the photon mass and the cosmic magnetic vector potential A novel experimental approach for measuring the photon mass m has been based on a toroidal Cavendish balance used to evaluate the product µ2A of the photon mass squared (µ−1 = h/m ¯ γ c) and the ambient cosmic vector potential A. This approach, developed by Lakes [39], points out that the Maxwell–Proca equations modify the standard equations for the curl of B to ∇ × B = 4π c j + 1 c ∂ E ∂ t − µ2 A. (19) Gauge invariance is lost if µ = 0, since in these equations the potentials themselves have physical significance, in addition to that of the usual fields. If a toroid carries an electric current, or if it is permanently magnetized with a field B confined within it, the corresponding magnetic vector potential may be represented by a dipole field ad. If µ = 0, this dipole field interacts with the ambient vector potential A to produce a torque τ = ad × Aµ2 via the energy density of the vector potential. Thus, the method is based on the energy density of A in the presence of mγ , not on measurement of the magnetic field. The experiment does not yield a direct limit for µ, but rather on Aµ2. The modified Cavendish balance used to determine the product Aµ2 consisted of a toroid of electrical steel wound with many turns of wire that carried a current (see figure 4). The apparatus was supported by water flotation [40]. The experiment yielded Aµ2 2 × 1010 m. Even with more conservative values for A, the limit set by this experiment improves the precision attained with the Jovian magnetic field. In the preceding section on lumped circuits we quoted the result of Goldhaber and Nieto [33], which suggests that for table-top experiments the sensitivity of any limit on µ2 goes as 1/D2 where D is the dimension of the system. This line of reasoning has become an often-used ‘rule of thumb’ in the field, and the inference of it is that table-top experiments will be less sensitive than others. If so, it is then interesting to consider why the experiment of Lakes [39] sets such a good limit. We believe that the difference is due mainly to the fact that in table-top tests such as those using lumped circuits, the modification of the vector potential A due to a massive photon possesses a range that is logically limited to the dimensions of the circuit or cavity where the electromagnetic waves are produced and confined. However, in the Lakes experiment, the mass µ couples with a vector potential A that is of cosmic +v DC supply Amplifier Computer Magnetic shield Air shield 18.5 mm 145 mm Flotation chamber τ θ A Ad 98 mm Aambient ω earth Support Tungsten wire Mirror Sensor Laser Figure 4. Block diagram of the sophisticated Cavendish balance used by Lakes to evaluate the product of the photon mass squared and the ambient cosmic vector potential. The toroid carries an electric current giving rise to a dipole field ad that, if mγ = 0, interacts with the ambient vector potential Aambient to produce a torque τ on the toroid. (Figure 1 from Lakes [39]. Copyright (1998) by the American Physical Society (with permission of Prof. Lakes).) origin so that the dimensions of the sources of A correspond to astronomical or galactic distances as opposed to those of laboratory size. Thus, experiments of that type are able to sidestep the implications of the argument of Goldhaber and Nieto [33]. The experimental arrangement used by Lakes is such that the torque on the torsion balance will vary with the rotation of the Earth, making it possible to experimentally detect the variations. However, if the cosmic ambient vector potential were to be fortuitously aligned with the Earth’s rotation axis, then this approach would fail. In order to avoid this possibility, Luo et al [41] performed an improved experiment by rotating the torsion balance to ensure the effectiveness of detection for all possible orientations of the vector potential. They were also able to remove the influences of sidereal disturbances in the environment by virtue of this method of modulation. The experimental result was Aµ2 1.66×1011 m and the photon mass is mγ < 1.2 × 10−51 g. Those latest results are certainly remarkable if one considers that, according to the uncertainty principle, a purely theoretical estimate of the photon mass is given by mγ = h/(t)c ¯ 2, which yields an order of magnitude number of 10−66 g, where the age of the universe is taken to be roughly 1010 years. Table 1 summarizes the results of the various experiments conducted since the time of Cavendish, and figure 5 presents a graphical comparison of the related precisions. In table 1, direct (d) and indirect (i) tests of Coulomb’s Law are listed. The experiments performed up to 1971 directly measured the parameter ε that indicates the degree of precision of Coulomb’s Law written in the form 1/r2+ε; most of the successive experiments are instead tests of the photon rest mass mγ (µ−1 = h/m ¯ γ c) and determine its upper limit. For these latter experiments, the corresponding ‘precision’ S166 Metrologia, 41 (2004) S159–S170
Physical implications of Coulomb's Law Table 1.Coulomb's Law and photon mass experiments. Author Date u/cm-1 my/g≤ Cavendish 1773 d 3×10-2 1×10-2 2.8×10-40 Coulomb 1779 d 1×10-2 1×10-1 2.8×10-39 Robison 1801 d 6×10-2 6×10-2 2.8×10-40 Maxwell 1892 5×10-5 1×10-3 2.8×10-41 Plimpton and Lawton 1936 2×10-9 1×10-6 2.8×10-44 Cochran and Franken 1968 d 9×10-12 9×10-8 2.6×10-45 Bartlett et al 1970 d 1×10-13 1×10-8 2.8×10-46 Williams et al 1971 d 6×10-16 5×10-1o 1.4×10-7 Goldhaber and Nieto 1968 1.7×10-16 1.4×10-10 4.0×10-48 Franken and Ampulski 1971 4.3×10-18 3.6×10-12 1.0×10-49 Lowenthal 1973 3.0×10-08 2.5×10-2 7.0×10-40 Davis et al 1975 i 3.4×10-17 2.8×1011 8.0×10-49 Crandall 1983 d 3.4×10-16 2.8×10-10 8.0×10-48 Ryan et al 1985 6.4×10-11 5.3×10-5 1.5×10-2 Boulware and Deser 1989 1.2×10-13 1×107 2.8×10-45 Chernikov et al 1992 3.6×10-14 3×10-8 8.4×10-46 Fischbach et al 1994 4.3×10-17 3.5×10-11 1.0×10-48 Lakes 1998 6.8×10-19 5.7×10-13 1.6×10-50 Schaefer 1999 1.8×10-12 1.5×10-6 4.2×10-44 Lou et al 2002 5.1×10-20 4.3×10-14 1.2×10-45 1020 0 0 10 60 0 8 0 0100 0 0 10 00 0 10 1775180018251850187519001925195019752000 Year Figure 5.Graph showing the increasing'precision'by which Coulomb's Law in the form 1/has been verified since the 1700s.The law would be verified exactly when s=0.Although some of the recent experiments are relatively imprecise,they are nevertheless important because they extend the validity of Coulomb's Law as a function of the physical conditions of the measurement. s is here evaluated indirectly as if,instead of a photon test to the system of units chosen.Although arbitrary,in general, mass,equivalent experiments of the type by Williams et al,the choice has usually been made in such a way as to obtain maintaining the same proportion between s and u,were unitary and dimensionless constants. performed. Three systems of units have historically been used the most.The first two have been superseded by the third: 7.Coulomb's Law and units of measurement (1)The non-rationalized Gaussian system,which coincides The various tests discussed above have confirmed the validity with the old cgs electrostatic system of Coulomb's Law to a high degree of precision.We may write (2)The rationalized Gaussian system. it vectorially as (3)The presently accepted International System(SI). T21 In case (1),the constant k is dimensionless and unitary,i.e. F=kq1922-n1下 (20) k 1.From the expression of the force F above,we can immediately establish the physical dimensions of the electric where r and r2 are the position vectors of the charges q and charge [g]in terms of mechanical dimension such that 92,respectively.We are left with the task of determining the proportionality constant k,the value of which is strictly related [g][rlv[F]. (21) Metrologia,.41(2004)s159-S170 S167
Physical implications of Coulomb’s Law Table 1. Coulomb’s Law and photon mass experiments. Author Date ε µ/cm−1 mγ /g Cavendish 1773 d 3 × 10−2 1 × 10−2 2.8 × 10−40 Coulomb 1779 d 1 × 10−2 1 × 10−1 2.8 × 10−39 Robison 1801 d 6 × 10−2 6 × 10−2 2.8 × 10−40 Maxwell 1892 d 5 × 10−5 1 × 10−3 2.8 × 10−41 Plimpton and Lawton 1936 d 2 × 10−9 1 × 10−6 2.8 × 10−44 Cochran and Franken 1968 d 9 × 10−12 9 × 10−8 2.6 × 10−45 Bartlett et al 1970 d 1 × 10−13 1 × 10−8 2.8 × 10−46 Williams et al 1971 d 6 × 10−16 5 × 10−10 1.4 × 10−47 Goldhaber and Nieto 1968 i 1.7 × 10−16 1.4 × 10−10 4.0 × 10−48 Franken and Ampulski 1971 i 4.3 × 10−18 3.6 × 10−12 1.0 × 10−49 Lowenthal 1973 i 3.0 × 10−08 2.5 × 10−2 7.0 × 10−40 Davis et al 1975 i 3.4 × 10−17 2.8 × 10−11 8.0 × 10−49 Crandall 1983 d 3.4 × 10−16 2.8 × 10−10 8.0 × 10−48 Ryan et al 1985 i 6.4 × 10−11 5.3 × 10−5 1.5 × 10−42 Boulware and Deser 1989 i 1.2 × 10−13 1 × 10−7 2.8 × 10−45 Chernikov et al 1992 i 3.6 × 10−14 3 × 10−8 8.4 × 10−46 Fischbach et al 1994 i 4.3 × 10−17 3.5 × 10−11 1.0 × 10−48 Lakes 1998 i 6.8 × 10−19 5.7 × 10−13 1.6 × 10−50 Schaefer 1999 i 1.8 × 10−12 1.5 × 10−6 4.2 × 10−44 Lou et al 2002 i 5.1 × 10−20 4.3 × 10−14 1.2 × 10−45 1775 1800 1825 1850 1875 1900 1925 1950 1975 2000 Year 10-20 10-15 10-10 10-5 100 Precision ε Figure 5. Graph showing the increasing ‘precision’ ε by which Coulomb’s Law in the form 1/r2+ε has been verified since the 1700s. The law would be verified exactly when ε = 0. Although some of the recent experiments are relatively imprecise, they are nevertheless important because they extend the validity of Coulomb’s Law as a function of the physical conditions of the measurement. ε is here evaluated indirectly as if, instead of a photon test mass, equivalent experiments of the type by Williams et al, maintaining the same proportion between ε and µ, were performed. 7. Coulomb’s Law and units of measurement The various tests discussed above have confirmed the validity of Coulomb’s Law to a high degree of precision. We may write it vectorially as F = kq1q2 rˆ21 | r2 − r1 | 2 , (20) where r1 and r2 are the position vectors of the charges q1 and q2, respectively. We are left with the task of determining the proportionality constant k, the value of which is strictly related to the system of units chosen. Although arbitrary, in general, the choice has usually been made in such a way as to obtain unitary and dimensionless constants. Three systems of units have historically been used the most. The first two have been superseded by the third: (1) The non-rationalized Gaussian system, which coincides with the old cgs electrostatic system. (2) The rationalized Gaussian system. (3) The presently accepted International System (SI ). In case (1), the constant k is dimensionless and unitary, i.e. k = 1. From the expression of the force F above, we can immediately establish the physical dimensions of the electric charge [q] in terms of mechanical dimension such that [q] = [r] [F], (21) Metrologia, 41 (2004) S159–S170 S167
G Spavieri et al that is,the charge has the dimensions of length times the square sensitivities comparable with charge detection capabilities of root of a force.The corresponding unit was called the Franklin the cryogenic single-electron transistors. (or simply u.e.s)and was such that a force of I dyne would Coulomb's Law is also at the heart of pedagogical act between two unit charges separated by a distance of Icm physics.It is measured and tested by students in laboratory (1 Franklin 1 u.e.s 1cm3/2 g12s-1). classes virtually every day.There are several types of In the rationalized Gaussian system,k was also precision apparatus that are commercially available for student dimensionless and had a numerical value of k =1/4.The experiments on Coulomb's Law.In fact,a Coulomb null added complexity of incorporating a numerical constant into experiment that enables physics students to obtain rigorous the statement of Coulomb's Law is amply compensated by the upper bounds on the photon mass using an apparatus that disappearance of the 4 in the integral relations(as in Gauss operates with subnanovolt signals has been devised by Law).In this system,the unit of the electric charge was derived Crandall [46].It is inexpensive to assemble and use,and the using arguments similar to those of the first case,but the unit experimental arrangement can be adapted for use at several was seldom used. college levels.Of course,interest in the pedagogic aspects of The accepted standard,of course,is the International Coulomb's Law goes well beyond the obvious applications System or SI,within which the unit of electric charge is the of it to electrostatics.By introducing the superposition coulomb [C].The constant k now takes the value (4xeo) principle and the theory of special relativity,students are taught where eo.which has the defined value eo =8.854....x how generalizations of Coulomb's Law lead to Maxwell's 10-12Fm-,is the 'electric constant',i.e.the permittivity of equations [47]. free space or the dielectric constant in vacuo.In this case. In this review,we have presented a description of the k is neither a pure number nor a dimensionless ratio,instead ongoing development of empirical studies of the forces having the dimensions of [eo] between charges,beginning with the very early work by In spite of the ubiquity of the SI,use of the Gaussian people like Cavendish and others that established the nature system persists among many theoretical physicists because of the inverse square law,and then proceeding to the modern it offers a convenient form of k and velocities appear in experiments that search for deviations from exactness of the dimensionless form (instead of v the quotient v/c is used, inverse square law.Both Newton's Law of gravity and where c is the speed of light in vacuo).Of course,the SI is Coulomb's Law possess the same spatial dependence,1/r2. used uniquely for any measurements and all modern electrical and it is fair to say that these statements of the inverse square instruments and devices are calibrated accordingly. law have served as critical markers in guiding much of the development of theoretical physics,in parallel with the long history of improvement of the experimental situation.With 8.Modern interpretations and conclusions the development of modern physics,Newton's Law is now understood to be the weak-field limit of Einstein's general In considering the various tests of Coulomb's Law,or in relativity,while Coulomb's Law,as one statement of the applications of it to diverse physical phenomena,it is important electromagnetic interaction,has been absorbed into the unified to remember that this fundamental tenet of electrostatics is an theory of electro-weak interactions idealization.Therefore,care must be taken when applying it However,according to general relativity,matter and when exploring its limitations,as pointed out by Saranin introduces curvature into space-time and this is what [21].Even so,it finds use in all fields of science.For example, modifies the law of gravitation as originally formulated by it is employed in meteorology to test models of thunderstorm Newton.The result is that the theory is nonlinear in the charge distributions,as done by Stolzenburg and Marshall [42] sense that the principle of superposition of effects is not They considered the charge distribution in a stratiform region valid.On the contrary,Coulomb's Law is not altered in the of a mesoscale convective system and determined that the description of physical phenomena provided by modern unified general vertical charge structure of that region is horizontally theories.In the unified theory,the interaction (attraction extensive over at least 100 km.Charge distributions were or repulsion)between charges is no longer described in modelled in a three-dimensional domain using an approach that terms of forces but rather in terms of an exchange of virtual correctly calculates the electric field due to all the point charges particles (photons)that yields the same effect as the classical and their corresponding images on the basis of Coulomb's electrostatic force.If the photon mass is zero,Coulomb's Law Law.Atmospheric physics,planetary physics,astrophysics remains a fundamental law of electrodynamics,where linearity and plasma physics are vast domains of application for efforts and the principle of superposition of effects are valid.That is, of this type,and this hints at the range of scales over which it generally speaking,even unified field theories would predict, is routinely applied. for the observable interaction between stationary charges,the Coulomb's torsion balance was in essence the first same result predicted by Coulomb's Law,always supposing precision mechanical detector of charge,i.e.the first high- that the photon mass is zero.All this can introduce the thought precision electrometer.The modern analogues of such that Coulomb's Law is thus more fundamental than Newton's instruments are semiconductor-based field-effect devices,the Law and that electromagnetic interactions are a more primary most sensitive of which are cryogenically cooled transistors kind of fundamental interaction at the basis of any attempt of that function at the single-electrons level [43,44].Also, unification of the forces and interactions of nature. recently,a working nanometre-scale mechanical electrometer Finally,in discussing the physical implications of was constructed by Cleland and Roukes [45],who state that, Coulomb's Law,it is tempting to consider the remarkably high in principle,devices such as theirs should ultimately reach degree of precision with which the inverse square law holds, S168 Metrologia,41 (2004)S159-S170
G Spavieri et al that is, the charge has the dimensions of length times the square root of a force. The corresponding unit was called the Franklin (or simply u.e.s) and was such that a force of 1 dyne would act between two unit charges separated by a distance of 1 cm (1 Franklin = 1 u.e.s = 1 cm3/2 g1/2 s−1). In the rationalized Gaussian system, k was also dimensionless and had a numerical value of k = 1/4π. The added complexity of incorporating a numerical constant into the statement of Coulomb’s Law is amply compensated by the disappearance of the 4π in the integral relations (as in Gauss’ Law). In this system, the unit of the electric charge was derived using arguments similar to those of the first case, but the unit was seldom used. The accepted standard, of course, is the International System or SI, within which the unit of electric charge is the coulomb [C]. The constant k now takes the value (4π0)−1 where 0, which has the defined value 0 = 8.854.... × 10−12 F m−1, is the ‘electric constant’, i.e. the permittivity of free space or the dielectric constant in vacuo. In this case, k is neither a pure number nor a dimensionless ratio, instead having the dimensions of [0] −1. In spite of the ubiquity of the SI, use of the Gaussian system persists among many theoretical physicists because it offers a convenient form of k and velocities appear in dimensionless form (instead of v the quotient v/c is used, where c is the speed of light in vacuo). Of course, the SI is used uniquely for any measurements and all modern electrical instruments and devices are calibrated accordingly. 8. Modern interpretations and conclusions In considering the various tests of Coulomb’s Law, or in applications of it to diverse physical phenomena, it is important to remember that this fundamental tenet of electrostatics is an idealization. Therefore, care must be taken when applying it and when exploring its limitations, as pointed out by Saranin [21]. Even so, it finds use in all fields of science. For example, it is employed in meteorology to test models of thunderstorm charge distributions, as done by Stolzenburg and Marshall [42]. They considered the charge distribution in a stratiform region of a mesoscale convective system and determined that the general vertical charge structure of that region is horizontally extensive over at least 100 km. Charge distributions were modelled in a three-dimensional domain using an approach that correctly calculates the electric field due to all the point charges and their corresponding images on the basis of Coulomb’s Law. Atmospheric physics, planetary physics, astrophysics, and plasma physics are vast domains of application for efforts of this type, and this hints at the range of scales over which it is routinely applied. Coulomb’s torsion balance was in essence the first precision mechanical detector of charge, i.e. the first highprecision electrometer. The modern analogues of such instruments are semiconductor-based field-effect devices, the most sensitive of which are cryogenically cooled transistors that function at the single-electrons level [43, 44]. Also, recently, a working nanometre-scale mechanical electrometer was constructed by Cleland and Roukes [45], who state that, in principle, devices such as theirs should ultimately reach sensitivities comparable with charge detection capabilities of the cryogenic single-electron transistors. Coulomb’s Law is also at the heart of pedagogical physics. It is measured and tested by students in laboratory classes virtually every day. There are several types of precision apparatus that are commercially available for student experiments on Coulomb’s Law. In fact, a Coulomb null experiment that enables physics students to obtain rigorous upper bounds on the photon mass using an apparatus that operates with subnanovolt signals has been devised by Crandall [46]. It is inexpensive to assemble and use, and the experimental arrangement can be adapted for use at several college levels. Of course, interest in the pedagogic aspects of Coulomb’s Law goes well beyond the obvious applications of it to electrostatics. By introducing the superposition principle and the theory of special relativity, students are taught how generalizations of Coulomb’s Law lead to Maxwell’s equations [47]. In this review, we have presented a description of the ongoing development of empirical studies of the forces between charges, beginning with the very early work by people like Cavendish and others that established the nature of the inverse square law, and then proceeding to the modern experiments that search for deviations from exactness of the inverse square law. Both Newton’s Law of gravity and Coulomb’s Law possess the same spatial dependence, 1/r2, and it is fair to say that these statements of the inverse square law have served as critical markers in guiding much of the development of theoretical physics, in parallel with the long history of improvement of the experimental situation. With the development of modern physics, Newton’s Law is now understood to be the weak-field limit of Einstein’s general relativity, while Coulomb’s Law, as one statement of the electromagnetic interaction, has been absorbed into the unified theory of electro-weak interactions. However, according to general relativity, matter introduces curvature into space–time and this is what modifies the law of gravitation as originally formulated by Newton. The result is that the theory is nonlinear in the sense that the principle of superposition of effects is not valid. On the contrary, Coulomb’s Law is not altered in the description of physical phenomena provided by modern unified theories. In the unified theory, the interaction (attraction or repulsion) between charges is no longer described in terms of forces but rather in terms of an exchange of virtual particles (photons) that yields the same effect as the classical electrostatic force. If the photon mass is zero, Coulomb’s Law remains a fundamental law of electrodynamics, where linearity and the principle of superposition of effects are valid. That is, generally speaking, even unified field theories would predict, for the observable interaction between stationary charges, the same result predicted by Coulomb’s Law, always supposing that the photon mass is zero. All this can introduce the thought that Coulomb’s Law is thus more fundamental than Newton’s Law and that electromagnetic interactions are a more primary kind of fundamental interaction at the basis of any attempt of unification of the forces and interactions of nature. Finally, in discussing the physical implications of Coulomb’s Law, it is tempting to consider the remarkably high degree of precision with which the inverse square law holds, S168 Metrologia, 41 (2004) S159–S170
