Foundations of Physics

, Volume 37, Issue 4–5, pp 747–760 | Cite as

Trouton–Noble Paradox Revisited

  • Tomislav Ivezić

An apparent paradox is obtained in all previous treatments of the Trouton–Noble experiment; there is a three-dimensional (3D) torque T in an inertial frame S in which a thin parallel-plate capacitor is moving, but there is no 3D torque T′ in S′, the rest frame of the capacitor. Different explanations are offered for the existence of another 3D torque, which is equal in magnitude but of opposite direction giving that the total 3D torque is zero. In this paper, it is considered that 4D geometric quantities and not the usual 3D quantities are well-defined both theoretically and experimentally in the 4D spacetime. In analogy with the decomposition of the electromagnetic field F (bivector) into two 1-vectors E and B we introduce decomposition of the 4D torque N (bivector) into 1-vectors N s , N t . It is shown that in the frame of “fiducial” observers, in which the observers who measure N s and N t are at rest, and in the standard basis, only the spatial components \(N_{s}^{i}\) and \(N_{t}^{i}\) remain, which can be associated with components of two 3D torques T and T t . In such treatment with 4D geometric quantities the mentioned paradox does not appear. The presented explanation is in complete agreement with the principle of relativity and with the Trouton–Noble experiment without the introduction of any additional torque.


Trouton–Noble paradox 4D geometric quantities 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Trouton F.T., Noble H.R. (1903). Philos. Trans. R. Soc. Lond. Ser. A 202: 165ADSGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Hayden H.C. (1994). Rev. Sci. Instrum. 65: 788CrossRefADSGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    von Laue M. (1911). Phys. Zeits. 12: 1008Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Pauli W. (1958). Theory of Relativity. Pergamon, New YorkzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Singal A.K. (1993). Am. J. Phys. 61: 428CrossRefADSGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Teukolsky S.A. (1996). Am. J. Phys. 64: 1104CrossRefADSGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Jefimenko O.D. (1999). J. Phys. A: Math. Gen. 32: 3755zbMATHCrossRefADSMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Ivezić T. (2005). Found. Phys. Lett. 18: 401CrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Ivezić T. (2006). Found. Phys. 36: 1511CrossRefADSMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    D. Hestenes, Space-Time Algebra(Gordon & Breach, New York, 1966); New Foundations for Classical Mechanics (Kluwer Academic, Dordrecht, 1999), 2nd. edn.; Am. J. Phys. 71, 691 (2003).Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    C. Doran, and A. Lasenby, Geometric algebra for physicists (Cambridge University, Cambridge, 2003).Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Jefimenko O.D. (1997). Retardation and Relativity. Electret Scientific, Star CityGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Jackson J.D. (2004). Am. J. Phys. 72: 1484CrossRefADSGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Jackson J.D. (1977). Classical Electrodynamics, 2nd edn. Wiley, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    A. Einstein, Ann. Physik. 17, 891 (1905); in The Principle of Relativity, tr. W. Perrett and G. B. Jeffery, eds. (Dover, New York, 1952).Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Rohrlich F. (1966). Nuovo Cimento B 45: 76Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    T. Ivezić, Found. Phys. 33, 1339 (2003); Found. Phys. Lett. 18, 301 (2005); Found. Phys. 35, 1585 (2005).Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Ivezić T. (2002). Found. Phys. Lett. 15: 27 physics/0103026; physics/0101091CrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2007

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Ruđer Bošković InstituteZagrebCroatia

Personalised recommendations