Talk:Classical electromagnetism and special relativity

E-fields and B-fields

Since this is supposed to be an intro to this topic, perhaps a mention of what these fields are would be in order? GeneCallahan (talk) 14:26, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

The topic is the link between electromagnetism and special relativity. The article is not an intro to electromagnetism. I don't think that readers who are not familiar with E-fields and B-fields have any business here, so to speak, sort of, more or less :-)

Anyway, the lead already explicitly wikilinks to the concepts with the phrase "... in particular the electric and magnetic fields ...", directly pointing to the relevant articles. DVdm (talk) 14:47, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Merge with maths of em field

Almost all of the material in this article is in maths of em field. Opinions of merging? F = q(E+v×B) ⇄ ∑_ic_i 15:15, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose -- I would sooner cut the Lorentz transformation laws out of Mathematical descriptions of the electromagnetic field, where I don't think they fit particularly well, and keep them here. I mean, I can understand how maths of em field benefits from Lorentz transformation laws in various formalisms (vector fields, potentials, etc.), but I think the article would be fine without it, just as it is fine without the formulas for Poynting vector, Lorentz force, etc. in various formalisms. Plus the "Interrelationship between electricity and magnetism" section is not part of other articles.

Fun fact: When I made this page many years ago, it was partly in response to arguments with what I call "anti-magnetism fundamentalists". An "anti-magnetism fundamentalist" is someone who says "electromagnetism should really just be called electricity, because it is fundamentally based on only the electric force. The so-called magnetic force is just a relativistic side-effect of the more-fundamental electric force." Well I disagree with this point of view, but there used to be one or two editors who would write little "rants" like this on many magnetism and electromagnetism pages. I wanted to be able to delete those rants and replace them with a generic sentence plus a link to a dedicated article that could discuss at greater length whether or not special relativity proved that magnetism was inferior to electricity. So I made this page. I was expecting debates with anti-magnetism fundamentalists to pop up here but it didn't end up happening. :-P --Steve (talk) 01:33, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

As said - its becuase of so much mathematical overlap, and I was thinking the history could be added to maths of em field. I have nothing to say about "anti-magnetism fundamentalists"... I will remove all the Lorentz transforms from maths of EM field and add/mix to this article, if its ok... F = q(E+v×B) ⇄ ∑_ic_i 14:50, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Done. F = q(E+v×B) ⇄ ∑_ic_i 15:41, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Nice. :-) --Steve (talk) 01:41, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

If its also ok - I cut and pasted/mixed in the covariant tensor equations from maths of em field to here, as the sections are identical (aside from cgs units in this article), but the one in maths of em field now points to the lorentz transformations which are no longer there (now here instead), and includes some extra detail I presume you think is out of place? If this is not done, the we are unecessersarily duplicating content. The other article used SI units, it may be better to use them here also for familiarity. Revert if you think so. =) F = q(E+v×B) ⇄ ∑_ic_i 12:43, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Section on non-relativistic form of frame transformation equations for the fields is misleading

In the section on frame transformations of the fields it gives a list of non-relativistic limiting forms. While these equations are indeed what you get if you let v become very small, the equation for E and the equation for B do not simultaneously obey Galilean Relativity. To have a self-consistent low-speed limiting form you have to use either one or the other, representing the two low-speed physical possibilities of Electro-quasi-statics and Magneto-quasi-statics. A lot of textbooks get this wrong. Here is a good source if we need one:

http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/BF02895715

-- 129.63.129.196 (talk · contribs) 20:47, 24 April 2015‎ (UTC)

If we retain terms of order v² and drop terms of higher order, we get:

$\gamma \approx 1+{\frac {v^{2}}{2c^{2}}}$

and thus

${\begin{aligned}&\mathbf {E} '\approx \mathbf {E} +{\frac {\mathbf {E} v^{2}}{2c^{2}}}-{\frac {(\mathbf {E} \cdot \mathbf {v} )\mathbf {v} }{2c^{2}}}+\mathbf {v} \times \mathbf {B} \\&\mathbf {B} '\approx \mathbf {B} +{\frac {\mathbf {B} v^{2}}{2c^{2}}}-{\frac {(\mathbf {B} \cdot \mathbf {v} )\mathbf {v} }{2c^{2}}}-{\frac {\mathbf {v} \times \mathbf {E} }{c^{2}}}\,.\\\end{aligned}}$

Does that work? JRSpriggs (talk) 08:57, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

I should have said that electromagnetism is essentially (Einsteinian) relativistic. So it is not reasonable to expect any version of it to obey Galilean relativity. Or rather, that magnetism would not exist at all, if Galilean relativity were true. JRSpriggs (talk) 06:39, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Classical electromagnetism and special relativity. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090226225531/http://www.hep.princeton.edu/~mcdonald/examples/EM/ganley_ajp_31_510_62.pdf to http://www.hep.princeton.edu/~mcdonald/examples/EM/ganley_ajp_31_510_62.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:31, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

"Deriving magnetism from electrostatics" - Incorrect statement

This section states "The chosen reference frame determines if an electromagnetic phenomenon is viewed as an effect of electrostatics or magnetism." This is incorrect. In the Feynman lectures[1] and textbooks such as[2] uses an infinite straight wire as example, and the analysis is electrostatic as described. But the authors does not claim that this method can be generalized to other cases. And it can't. In all other cases charge carrier velocities must be taken into account, and the angular dependent retarded electric field must be used, when evaluation the fields. In case on perpendicular motion with respect to an infinite straight wire, the static charge on the wire is zero, and the force arises due to field retardation, and not length contraction. I have no official references for this, but se the discussion I've started on stackexchange

https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/519382/is-magnetism-an-electrostatic-or-electrodynamic-effect-in-the-rest-frame-of-the

Or se this document, where i show that the retarded field gives out the expected force in case of a single wire segment. https://drive.google.com/file/d/1HITikNdOX-IbxHmQVZVKQLATOrNXheXp/view?usp=sharing

Cheers "MadsVS (talk) 15:32, 16 December 2019 (UTC)"

[1] R. Feynman, The Feynman lectures on physics volume II, chapter 13.6 https://www.feynmanlectures.caltech.edu/II_13.html

[2] David J. Griffiths, Introduction to electrodynamics, third edition, chap. 12.3.1. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MadsVS (talk • contribs) 12:39, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

Please sign all your talk page messages with four tildes (~~~~) — See Help:Using talk pages. Thanks.

The text is properly sourced, and without other wp:reliable sources we cannot change anything about it. Our own wp:original research about this is not accepted. - DVdm (talk) 13:29, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

Thank you DVdm. We could remove the statement i refer to. The sources we reference doesn't state that the electrostatic analysis can be used generally, but this page does. I've dissused my results with two professors in SR and GR, and they both agreed, but they don't have time to help me publish. MadsVS (talk) 15:50, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

I don't see where our article says that the method can be generalized to other cases. The statement itself seems to be adequately backed by the cited sources. - DVdm (talk) 17:15, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

"The chosen reference frame determines if an electromagnetic phenomenon is viewed as an effect of electrostatics or magnetism."

"An electromagnetic phenomenon" is very general in my ears. It should in principle be "an infinite wire, and only in the case of parallel motion", instead. Feynman show the electrostatic relation for this case only. MadsVS (talk) 19:55, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

I don't see a real problem with that. This talk page has 13 recent watch visitors, any comments from anyone else? - DVdm (talk) 22:15, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

DVdm I have found a textbook source that analyses perpendicular motion. I think it would make the page more accurate if this information is included so the readers will not be left with the impression that magnetism can always be derived from electrostatics.

Here is a suggested edit to the section Deriving magnetism from electrostatics with the changes underlined. Let me know what you think.

The chosen reference frame determines whether an electromagnetic phenomenon is viewed as an electric or magnetic effect or a combination of the two. Authors usually derive magnetism from electrostatics when special relativity and charge invariance are taken into account. The Feynman Lectures on Physics (vol. 2, ch. 13-6) uses this method to derive the "magnetic" force on a charge in parallel motion next to a current-carrying wire. See also Haskell and Landau.

If the charge instead moves perpendicular to a current-carrying wire, electrostatics cannot be used to derive the "magnetic" force. In this case it can instead be derived by considering the relativistic compression of the electric field due to the motion of the charges in the wire. MadsVS (talk) 13:29, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

References

@MadsVS: Apart from the scare quotes around magnetic, it looks good to me. - DVdm (talk) 23:22, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

@DVdm Great. I will make the edit, and remove the scare quotes it the original text as well, so it is consistent. In line 5 in the introduction I will also substitute "electrostatic" with "electric". MadsVS (talk) 08:01, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

@MadsVS: I made some style-related tweaks to the ref and added a direct link to the relevant page in the book: [1], [2]. - DVdm (talk) 10:32, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

Beautiful! Thank you so much for your help @DVdm MadsVS (talk) 17:37, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

System of units

Can someone mention in the article if the equations here are in SI or CGS? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zlelik2000 (talk • contribs) 19:05, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

Removing the claim that the Lorentz transformation of the fields is "also called the Joules-Bernoulli equation"

This claim was first added on 27 March 2010‎ by '186.136.83.209', in other words, a user without an account. The addition of that claim was the only change made in that edit, and it was provided without any references. All this—an anonymous user; this being the only change; no references—is already suspicious. Since then, no one has added any references for this claim. Indeed, there is little doubt that the claim is, in fact, false. This is for several reasons, to be discussed shortly.

Motivation for this write-up: appearance of the incorrect name in published papers and theses

The incorrect name "Joules-Bernoulli equation" (sometimes "Joule-Bernoulli equation") has, since 2010, appeared in at least five published papers and six theses (doctoral, licentiate, or master's). They all either use it without reference or provide a reference that itself doesn't use that name. Therefore it is a near certainty that the authors used the incorrect name they found on Wikipedia. The fact that the incorrect name proliferated from Wikipedia to published papers and theses is my main motivation for putting a bit of effort into this write-up.

Here are the papers and theses I have been able to locate that use the incorrect name.

Published papers

T. G. Tenev, P. A. Ivanov, and N. V. Vitanov, "Proposal for trapped-ion emulation of the electric dipole moment of neutral relativistic particles," Phys. Rev. A 87, 022103 (2013). Top-left of p. 2; no reference provided.

D. Catania, M. D'Abbicco, and P. Secchi, "Stability of the linearized MHD-Maxwell free interface problem," Commun. Pure Appl. Anal. 13, 2407-2443 (2014). At least in the arXiv version, the name appears as the "Joule–Bernoulli equation" (Joule rather than Joules) on p. 8; no reference provided.

A. Morando, P. Secchi, Y. Trakhinin, and P. Trebeschi, "Stability of an incompressible plasma–vacuum interface with displacement current in vacuum," Math. Methods Appl. Sci. 43, 7465–7483 (2020); bottom of p. 7468; cites Ref. 15, which is L. I. Sedov, Mechanics of Continuous Media, vol. 1 (World Scientific, Singapore, 1997). If you search inside that book on Google books for Joule, Joules, or Bernoulli, you will see that no hits correspond to Joules-Bernoulli or Joule-Bernoulli.

Y. Trakhinin, "On violent instability of a plasma-vacuum interface for an incompressible plasma flow and a nonzero displacement current in vacuum," Commun. Math. Sci. 18, 321-337 (2020), as Joules-Bernoulli equations (plural) near the top of p. 328; cites (as Ref. 24) the same textbook by Sedov as Morando et al.

C. Zimmer, P. Yzombard, A. Camper, and D. Comparat, "Positronium laser cooling in a magnetic field," Phys. Rev. A 104, 023106 (2021); bottom-left of p. 4; no reference provided.

For completeness, I will also mention the following two papers, even though I found multiple aspects of each one to be eyebrow-raising (as far as content, copy editing, and mathematical typography):

Page 3 of this one, citing Ref. 11. This reference is T. L. Chow, Introduction to Electromagnetic Theory: A Modern Perspective (2006), which does not use the name "Joules-Bernoulli equation." (In the paper, the textbook's author's last name is misidentified as Tai, which is actually the first name, but helpfully the ISBN is included in the reference.)

Page 48 (bottom) of this paper, citing Ref. 17, which is again the textbook by Chow.

Theses

V. T. Pham, Ferromagnetic/Nonmagnetic Nanostructures for the Electrical Measurement of the Spin Hall Effect and the Detection of Domain Walls, Ph.D. thesis, SPINTEC (2017); p. 12, cites (as Ref. 20) the textbook by Chow, which, again, does not use the name.

R. B. Thompson, Crystal orientation dependence of spin-orbit torque in epitaxial Pt thin films for spintronic applications, Ph.D. thesis, Tohoku University (2021); near the top of p. 20; no reference given.

X. T. Trinh, Electron Paramagnetic Resonance Studies of Negative-U Centers in AlGaN and SiC, licentiate thesis, Linköping University (2014); p. 18. If any of the provided references applies, it is Ref. 98 (Phys. Rev. Lett. 88, 086403, 2002), which does not use the name.

D. Bridarolli, Fabrication of spin-orbit logic devices by thermal nanolithography, Master's thesis, Polytechnic University of Milan (2020/2021); p. 10, cites (as Ref. 13) the textbook by Chow.

T. Kerremans First-principles study of the local spin texture in inversion symmetric crystals, Master's thesis, University of Antwerp, (2018); pp. 4-5, cites (as Ref. 10) the 1962 textbook by Jackson, which doesn't use the name.

S. L. R. Vieira Análise semi-clássica da interação do momento de quadrupolo magnético de uma partícula neutra com campos externos, Master's thesis, Federal University of Paraíba (2019); bottom of p. 36; no reference given.

Presentations

S. C. Buchert, "Joule Heating and the Atmospheric Dynamo," on slide 2; reference given as Jackson (1975), but that textbook doesn't use the name. (Note that the corresponding published paper does not use the false name.)

Other

In addition, the false name also appears in two Physics StackExchange answers, in both cases without reference (here and here).

Reasons for doubting that the equations are called the "Joules-Bernoulli equation" (or "Joule-Bernoulli equation")

History of the development of the Lorentz transformations doesn't record significant contributions of anyone named either Bernoulli, or Joules, or Joule

As a first step, if you check the Wikipedia article on the history of Lorentz transformations, you will notice that there is no mention of anyone by the name of Bernoulli, Joules, or Joule.

Wikipedia, of course, should not be the last place one looks, so let's look at Arthur I. Miller's Albert Einstein's Special Theory of Relativity: Emergence (1905) and Early Interpretation (1905-1911) (readable for free here, at the Internet Archive, provided you go through a free sign-up). The book begins by describing developments of the late 19th century. It has a rich cast of characters that includes Fresnel, Airy, Arago, Bestelmeyer, Föppl, Boltzmann, Voigt, von Laue, Mach, Born, Brace, Varićak, Kaufmann, Abraham, Heaviside, Thomson, Searle, Larmor, Bucherer, Wien, Cohn, Gans, and many others (including, of course, Maxwell, Hertz, Lorentz, Poincaré, and Einstein). But what the book doesn't mention at all is anyone named Bernoulli, Joules, or Joule.

Even the most recent well-known scientist or mathematician named Bernoulli died much too early to have been involved

Again, let's start (but not end) with Wikipedia. If you look at the list of people named Bernoulli, you will notice that the last famous person so named, and who was a scientist or a mathematician, died in 1807, way before Maxwell's equations or Lorentz transformations were discovered.

To confirm, we can look at the Dictionary of Scientific Biography. It is available online, but behind a paywall. I have access to it, and I searched for the keyword "Bernoulli." It returned the same eight Bernoullis that Wikipedia lists:

• Bernoulli, Johann (Jean) I (b. Basel, Switzerland, 6 August 1667; d. Basel, 1 January 1748) mathematics
• Bernoulli, Johann (Jean) II (b. Basel, Switzerland, 28 May 1710; d. Basel, 17 July 1790) mathematics.
• Bernoulli, Johann (Jean) III (b, Basel, Switzerland, 4 November 1744; d. Berlin, Germany, 13 July 1807) mathematics, astronomy.

• Bernoulli, Daniel (b. Groningen, Netherlands, 8 February 1700; d. Basel. Switzerland, 1 March 1782) medicine, mathematics, physics.

• Bernoulli, Jakob (Jacob, Jacques, James) I (b. Basel, Switzerland, 27 December 1654; d. Basel, 16 August 1705) mathematics, mechanics, astronomy.
• Bernoulli, Jakob (Jacques) II (b. Basel, Switzerland, 17 October 1759; d. St. Petersburg, Russia, 15 August 1789) mathematics.

• Bernoulli, Nikolaus I (b. Basel, Switzerland, 21 October 1687; d. Basel, 29 November 1759) mathematics.
• Bernoulli, Nikolaus II (b. Basel. Switzerland, 6 February 1695; d. St Petersburg. Russia, 31 July 1726) mathematics.

We see that the most recent one was Johann III, who died in 1807. That was much too early to have been involved in the development of the Lorentz transformations of the electric and magnetic fields.

No well-known scientist was named Joules

This is confirmed by the fact that 1. there is simply no person so named with a Wikipedia article, and 2. searching for Joules in the Dictionary of Scientific Biography returns no hits.

No one named Joule was involved

Wikipedia has pages for two people named Joule: the famous James Prescott Joule, and John Joule, a still-living chemist. A search in the Dictionary of Scientific Biography only returns the former. John Joule was born way too late (got his PhD in 1961) and is active in much too unrelated a field (heterocyclic chemistry) to have had any chance to significantly contribute to the development of the Lorentz transformations. James Prescott Joule, on the other hand, was alive at about the right time (died in 1889) to be able to contribute to the beginnings of the development of the Lorentz transformations. However, the fact is that he didn't; the articles about him on Wikipedia and in the Dictionary of Scientific Biography make no mention of any activity relevant to the development of the Lorentz transformations of the electric and magnetic fields.

No textbook on electromagnetism (including the best-known ones) mentions anything called either the "Joules-Bernoulli equation" or the "Joule-Bernoulli equation" (or any permutation thereof)

I have checked the following textbooks—all of which treat the Lorentz transformations of the electric and magnetic field—to see if any of them mention anything called the "Joules-Bernoulli equation" or the "Joule-Bernoulli equation." In fact, I looked at whether they mention "Bernoulli," and if so in what context, and then whether they mention "Joules" or "Joule". In each book, I also checked the text surrounding the equations for the Lorentz transformations of the $\mathbf {E}$ and $\mathbf {B}$ fields.

1. Jackson, Classical Electrodynamics, 1st (1962), 2nd (1975), and 3rd (1999) editions
2. Landau and Lifshitz, The Classical Theory of Fields (Course of Theoretical Physics, Volume 2), Fourth Revised English Edition (1975)
3. Landau and Lifshitz, Electrodynamics of Continuous Media (Course of Theoretical Physics, Volume 8), Second Edition revised and enlarged (1984)
4. Stratton, Electromagnetic Theory (2007)
5. Purcell (and, in 3rd ed., Morin), Electricity and Magnetism (Berkeley Physics Course, Vol. II), 1st (1965), 2nd (1985), and 3rd (2013) editions
6. Griffiths, Introduction to Electrodynamics, 4th edition (2013)
7. Feynman, Leighton, and Sands, The Feynman Lectures on Physics. Volume II, Mainly Electromagnetism and Matter (1964)
8. Vanderlinde, Classical Electromagnetic Theory, Second Edition (2005)
9. Chow, Introduction to Electromagnetic Theory: A Modern Perspective (2006); this is the reference given for that section (now as well as back in 2010)
10. Grant and Phillips, Electromagnetism, 2nd edition (1990)
11. Garg, Classical electromagnetism in a nutshell (2012)
12. Fetter, Classical Electromagnetism (1999)
13. Smythe, Static and dynamic electricity, Third Edition, Revised Printing (1989)
14. Jeans, The Mathematical Theory of Electricity and Magnetism, both 1st (1908) and 5th (1927) editions
15. Greiner, Classical electrodynamics (1998)
16. Lorrain, Corson, and Lorrain, Electromagnetic Fields and Waves, Including Electric Circuits (1988)
17. Lorrain and Corson, Electromagnetism: Principles and Applications (1979)
18. Dávalos and Zanette, Fundamentals of electromagnetism: Vacuum electrodynamics, media, and relativity (1999)
19. Davidson, An Introduction to Electrodynamics (2019)
20. Nayfeh and Brussel, Electricity and Magnetism (1985)
21. Pollack and Stump, Electromagnetism (2002)
22. Heald and Marion, Classical Electromagnetic Radiation, 3rd ed. (1995)
23. Schwichtenberg, No-Nonsense Electrodynamics: A Student Friendly Introduction (2020)
24. Zangwill, Modern Electrodynamics (2013)
25. Schwartz, Principles of Electrodynamics (1987)
26. Slater and Frank, Electromagnetism, First Edition, Second Impression (1947)
27. Barut, Electrodynamics and Classical Theory of Fields and Particles (1980)
28. Schwinger, DeRaad, Milton, and Tsai, Classical electrodynamics (1998)
29. Wegner, Classical Electrodynamics (manuscript) (2003)
30. Chaichian, Merches, Radu, and Tureanu, Electrodynamics: an intensive course (2016)
31. Land and Horwitz, Relativistic Classical Mechanics and Electrodynamics (2019)
32. Panofsky and Phillips, Classical Electricity and Magnetism, 2nd ed. (1962)
33. Jentschura, Advanced classical electrodynamics: Green functions, regularizations, multipole decompositions (2017)
34. Demtröder, Electrodynamics and Optics (2019)
35. Leble, Practical Electrodynamics with Advanced Applications (2020)
36. Bhattacharya and Mukhopadhyay, Introduction to Advanced Electrodynamics (2021)
37. Wangsness, Electromagnetic Fields, 2nd ed. (1986)
38. Wen, Foundations of Applied Electrodynamics (2010)
39. Lechner, Classical Electrodynamics: A Modern Perspective (2018)
40. Likharev, Part EM: Classical Electrodynamics (Essential Graduate Physics) (2013)
41. Melia, Electrodynamics (2001)
42. Müller-Kirsten, Electrodynamics: An Introduction Including Quantum Effects (2004)
43. Brau, Modern Problems in Classical Electrodynamics (2004)
44. Reitz and Milford (and, in 4th ed., Christy), Foundations of Electromagnetic Theory, 1st (1960) and 4th (2009) editions
45. Rosser, Interpretation of Classical Electromagnetism (1997)
46. Matveev, Electricity and Magnetism (1986)
47. Fujimoto, Physics of Classical Electromagnetism (2007)
48. Fitzpatrick, Classical Electromagnetism: An intermediate level course (2015) (course notes)
49. Chattopadhyay and Rakshit, Electricity and magnetism: with electromagnetic theory and special theory of relativity, 4th ed. (2000)
50. Walecka, Introduction to Electricity and Magnetism (2018)
51. Duffin, Electricity and Magnetism, 4th ed. (1990)
52. Rosser, Classical Electromagnetism via Relativity: An Alternative Approach to Maxwell's Equations (1968)
53. Kogut, Special Relativity, Electrodynamics, and General Relativity: From Newton to Einstein, 2nd ed. (2018)
54. Hammond, Applied Electromagnetism (1971)
55. Toptygin, Foundations of Classical and Quantum Electrodynamics (2014)
56. Van Bladel, Electromagnetic Fields, 2nd ed. (2007)
57. Franklin, Solved Problems in Classical Electromagnetism (2018)
58. Pierrus, Solved Problems in Classical Electromagnetism: Analytical and numerical solutions with comments (2018)
59. Cottingham and Greenwood, Electricity and Magnetism (1991)
60. Shadowitz, The Electromagnetic Field (2010)
61. Becker, Electromagnetic Fields and Interactions (1964, reissued 2012)
62. Grandy, Introduction to Electrodynamics and Radiation (1970)
63. Kovetz, Electromagnetic Theory (2000)
64. Eyges, The Classical Electromagnetic Field (2010)
65. Wald, Advanced Classical Electromagnetism (2022)
66. Stupakov and Penn, Classical Mechanics and Electromagnetism in Accelerator Physics (2018)
67. Biggs, The Electromagnetic Field (1934)
68. Wang, Mathematical Principles of Mechanics and Electromagnetism: Part B: Electromagnetism and Gravitation (1979)
69. Franklin, Classical Electromagnetism, 2nd ed. (2017)
70. Helrich, The Classical Theory of Fields: Electromagnetism (2012)
71. Macchi, Moruzzi, and Pegoraro, Problems in Classical Electromagnetism: 157 Exercises with Solutions (2017)
72. Low, Classical Field Theory: Electromagnetism and Gravitation (1997)
73. Baldassare, Classical Theory of Electromagnetism, 3rd ed. (2018)
74. Dobbs, Basic Electromagnetism (1993)
75. Pramanik, Electromagnetism: Theory and Applications, 2nd ed. (2009)
76. Novozhilov and Yappa, Electrodynamics (1981; 2nd printing 1986)
77. Ohanian, Classical Electrodynamics (1988)
78. Sommerfeld, Electrodynamics (Lectures on Theoretical Physics, Vol. III) (1952)
79. Raychaudhuri, Classical Theory of Electricity and Magnetism: A Course of Lectures (2022)
80. Mahajan and Choudhury, Electricity, Magnetism and Electromagnetic Theory (2012)
81. Barnes, Foundations of Electricity and Magnetism (1965)

A few textbooks treat covariant electrodynamics, but don't provide explicit transformation equations for the fields. For completeness, I checked them anyway:

1. Jefimenko, Electricity and Magnetism: An Introduction to the theory of Electric and Magnetic Fields, 2nd ed. (1989)
2. Thidé, Electromagnetic Field Theory (2000)
3. Susskind and Friedman, Special Relativity and Classical Field Theory (Theoretical Minimum) (2017)
4. Bettini, A Course in Classical Physics 3: Electromagnetism (2016)
5. Baylis, Electrodynamics: A Modern Geometric Approach (2002)
6. Garrit, Electricity and Magnetism for Mathematicians: A Guided Path from Maxwell's Equations to Yang-Mills (2015) (treats the connection between electromagnetism and special relativity, but stops short of giving full covariant treatment)
7. Page, An Introduction to Electrodynamics From the Standpoint of the Electron Theory (1922) (different from the rest, but covariant)
8. Page and Adams, Electrodynamics (1945; reprinted in 1965) (similar to the above)
9. Kip, Fundamentals of electricity and magnetism (1969) (treats the connection between electromagnetism and special relativity, but stops short of giving full covariant treatment)

In addition, again for completeness, here is a number of textbooks—some of them well-known—that don't treat the Lorentz transformation of the electric and magnetic fields at all:

1. Saslow, Electricity, Magnetism, and Light (2002)
2. Holt, Introduction to electromagnetic fields and waves (1967)
3. Peck, Electricity and Magnetism (1953)
4. Kelly, Electricity and Magnetism (2015)
5. Nelkon, Electricity and magnetism (1952)
6. Prytz, Electrodynamics: The Field-Free Approach: Electrostatics, Magnetism, Induction, Relativity and Field Theory (2015)
7. Irodov, Basic Laws of Electromagnetism (1986)
8. Loeb, Fundamentals of Electricity and Magnetism, 3rd ed. (1947)
9. Ramsey, Electricity and Magnetism: An Introduction to the Mathematical Theory (1937)
10. Tewari, Electricity and Magnetism, Rev. ed. (2011)
11. Ball, Maxwell's Equations of Electrodynamics: an explanation (2012)
12. Fleisch, A Student's Guide to Maxwell's Equations (2008)
13. Crowell, Electricity and Magnetism, 2.3 ed. (2006)
14. Harnwell, Principles of Electricity and Electromagnetism (1949)
15. Whitehead, Electricity and Magnetism: An Introduction to the Mathematical Theory (1939)
16. Hallén, Electromagnetic theory (1962)
17. Liao, Dourmashkin, and Belcher, Introduction to Electricity and Magnetism (MIT 8.02 Course Notes) (2011)
18. Mason and Weaver, The Electromagnetic Field (1929)
19. Schott, Electromagnetic Radiation and the Mechanical Reactions Arising From It (1912)
20. Coey, Magnetism and Magnetic Materials (2010)
21. Matsushita, Electricity and Magnetism: New Formulation by Introduction of Superconductivity, 2nd ed. (2021)
22. Haus and Melcher, Electromagnetic Fields and Energy (1989)
23. Ilie and Schrecengost, Electromagnetism: Problems and solutions (2016)
24. Sarin, Electromagnetic Field Theory (2019)
25. Smith, Electromagnetic Theory for Complete Idiots (2020)
26. Planck, Theory of Electricity and Magnetism, Being Volume III of Introduction to Theoretical Physics, 2nd ed. (1932)
27. Ramo, Whinnery, and Van Duzer Fields and waves in communication electronics (1994)
28. Chew, Waves and Fields in Inhomogenous Media (1990)
29. Harrington, Time-Harmonic Electromagnetic Fields (2001)
30. Balanis, Advanced engineering electromagnetics, 2nd ed. (2012)
31. Johnk, Engineering electromagnetic fields and waves, 2nd ed. (1989)
32. Hammond, Electromagnetism for engineers: an introductory course, 3rd ed. (1986)
33. Sadiku, Elements of Electromagnetics, 7th ed. (2018)
34. Iskander, Electromagnetic fields and waves (1992)
35. Bleaney and Bleaney, Electricity and Magnetism, 3rd ed. (1976)
36. Carter, Electromagnetism for Electronic Engineers (2009)
37. Compton, Basic Electromagnetism and its Applications (1990)
38. Cervantes, Unconventional Introduction To Electricity And Magnetism For Scientists, 2nd ed. (2012)
39. Carter, Electromagnetic Waves: Microwave Components and Devices (1990)
40. Binns and Lawrenson, Analysis and Computation of Electric and Magnetic Field Problems, 2nd ed. (1973)
41. Hammond, Energy Methods in Electromagnetism (1981)
42. Buck and Hayt, Engineering Electromagnetics, 9th ed. (2018)
43. Raju, Electromagnetic Field Theory and Transmission Lines (2006)
44. Ghosh and Datta, Electromagnetic field theory (2012)
45. Bakshi and Bakshi, Electromagnetic Field Theory (2009)
46. Ulaby and Ravaioli, Fundamentals of Applied Electromagnetics, 8th ed. (2019)
47. Duckworth, Electricity and Magnetism (1960)
48. Benumof, Concepts in electricity and magnetism (1961)
49. Hopf, Applied classical electrodynamics. Volume I: Linear Optics (1985)
50. Culver, Theory And Applications Of Electricity And Magnetism (1947)
51. Franklin and Macnutt, The elements of electricity and magnetism; a text-book for colleges and technical schools (1916)

None of these textbooks mention anything named either the "Joules-Bernoulli equation" or the "Joule-Bernoulli equation." Indeed, few of them mention Bernoulli at all; those that do, mention it in contexts that have nothing to do with Lorentz transformations. In particular, the last two chapters of Feynman's book are on the physics of fluids, including a discussion of Bernoulli's principle (which Feynman calls Bernoulli's theorem); Kelly also mentions this, although under the name "Bernoulli's equation"; Davidson, in a chapter on magnetohydrodynamics, mentions Bernoulli′s function; Chaichian et al. deal with "Bernoulli’s equation in relativistic magnetofluid dynamics"; Jentschura mentions Bernoulli polynomials and Bernoulli numbers; Heald and Marion mention that Jacob and Daniel Bernoulli were the first to study special cases of that which later came to be known as Bessel functions; Brau mentions that the calculus of variation started with Johann Bernoulli's challenge to his brother Jakob; Wegner says that "Daniel Bernoulli conjectured that there might be a $1/r^{2}$-law for the electrostatic interaction"; Coey states that Daniel Bernoulli "promoted" the horseshoe magnet.

None of the books mention anyone named Joules. On the other hand, Joule is mentioned in many of them, but only in the context of the unit of energy, and also Joule heating. Only Coey mentions him in the context of magnetostriction.

A general Google search for the "Joules-Bernoulli equation" or the "Joule-Bernoulli equation" returns only unrelated independent hits

A 1968 textbook by Freeman does use the term "Joule-Bernoulli equation," but as a name of the equation expressing the pressure of an ideal gas in terms of the average kinetic energy of molecules, i.e., $pV={\frac {1}{3}}Nm\langle v^{2}\rangle$; see here. I have been unable to find any other reference that uses this name, but at least it is not an unreasonable one, as both Daniel Bernoulli and James Prescott Joule were involved in relevant research.

Conclusion

I conclude that the edit of 27 March 2010‎ by '186.136.83.209' was either an honest mistake or—more likely—an act of vandalism. One way or another, that incorrect edit has now been reverted (after almost 13 years!). Reuqr (talk) 22:33, 15 February 2023 (UTC)