Analytical solution of Maxwell's equations for arbitrarily moving

point charges and its application for ultra-fast, high-quality

simulation of electromagnetic fields
This paper was downloaded from TechRxiv (https://www.techrxiv.org).

LICENSE

CC BY 4.0

SUBMISSION DATE / POSTED DATE

06-09-2023 / 29-09-2023

CITATION

Kühn, Steffen (2023). Analytical solution of Maxwell's equations for arbitrarily moving point charges and its
application for ultra-fast, high-quality simulation of electromagnetic fields. TechRxiv. Preprint.
https://doi.org/10.36227/techrxiv.24087840.v2

DOI

10.36227/techrxiv.24087840.v2

Analytical solution of Maxwell’s equations for arbitrarily moving
point charges and its application for ultra-fast, high-quality
simulation of electromagnetic fields
Steffen Kühn
steffen.kuehn@aurinovo.de
September 23, 2023
Maxwell’s equations from the 19th century and the almost
equally old Lorentz force equation provide the theoretical basis
of all of electrical engineering and consequently the foundation
for the majority of all modern technologies. For point charges,
this system of partial differential equations reduces to the Weber–
Maxwell wave equation. In this article, it is shown that this wave
equation can be solved analytically for arbitrarily moving point
charges, including accelerated charges, and that it is possible
to present an analytical solution in the style of Coulomb’s law.
This finding demonstrates that classical electrodynamics, with
all of its numerous wave phenomena, can also be represented
without differential equations. This is surprising and unexpected.
Moreover, this work enables the development of a novel class
of electromagnetic field solvers that are highly superior in
terms of speed and quality to existing solvers based on finite-
difference time-domain methods, the method of moments, or
finite element methods. In the future, this solution will make
it possible to simulate any electromagnetic task in interactive
form at previously unattainable quality, even on low-performance
computers.
Index Terms—Maxwell equations, Electromagnetic forces,
Electromagnetic propagation, Weber electrodynamics, Compu-
tational electromagnetics
I. Introduction
Modern civilization is based to a large extent on electrically
operated devices and control systems. Electricity is used for
energy and information transmission, as well as for informa-
tion processing. It is remarkable that all technically relevant
effects of classical electrical engineering can be described by
a few fundamental equations, namely, Maxwell’s equations
and the Lorentz force equation. However, the vast majority
of electrical engineers never use this system of partial dif-
ferential equations in a direct manner, because working with
these equations is abstract and requires intensive theoretical
knowledge. Furthermore, the equations can almost never be
solved directly in practical applications; rather, they must be
processed numerically via specialized computer programs, so-
called electromagnetic field solvers (EM solvers).
Corresponding to the practical importance of EM solvers,
countless textbooks (e.g. [1]–[4]) and scientific articles have
been written. Basically, the EM solvers that exist thus far can
be roughly divided into two classes. The first class comprises
the finite-difference time-domain (FDTD) methods or the finite
element method (FEM). Here, it is assumed that one does
not need to compute the field with infinitely high spatial
1
resolution, but that it is sufficient to determine the field only
at discrete grid points. The differential equations then become
a system of linear equations, which can be solved by methods
of linear algebra. The drawback of this approach is that the
approximation is of high quality only if the distances between
grid points are sufficiently small. Consequently, the number
of equations to be solved is usually extremely large, and the
solution requires an enormous amount of time.
The second class of EM solvers includes the method of
moments (MoM) or boundary element method. The basic
idea of these solvers is to consider only the surface of a
region or structure in a discretized way, but not its volume.
The quantities to be solved are only on the surface. With
the help of jump relations, the partial differential equations
are transformed into integral equations, which represent the
properties of the entire area. These integral equations are then
discretized and solved numerically, which is computationally
intensive and causes numerical errors.
The present article introduces a novel class of EM solvers
that is substantially faster and produces almost no numerical
errors. The basic principle is to model alternating and direct
currents with moving point charges and to calculate the cor-
responding fields by means of the general analytical solution
of Maxwell’s equations. This eliminates the major drawback
of the conventional methods, which require one to discretize
the space and to compute the fields with numerical methods.
Unexpectedly, Maxwell’s equations can be generally solved
for point charges. However, a substantial amount of theoretical
groundwork was necessary, which the author documents in
three articles [5]–[7] and which is based on important works
of other authors [8], especially from the field of Weber electro-
dynamics [9]–[16]. A short and recommendable introduction
into Weber electrodynamics can be found in [17]. A summary
of the current state of knowledge in Weber electrodynamics
and a discussion of the context is provided in [18].
Weber electrodynamics and Maxwell electrodynamics differ
considerably at first glance. The older Weber electrodynamics
with its force formula resembles the Coulomb law and appears
archaic in its simplicity. However, it has some important
advantages. For example, the force formula can explain all
magnetic effects caused by direct currents without the need
to define a magnetic field or a Lorentz force. Moreover, the
Weber force is, in contrast to the Lorentz force, symmetric

and satisfies Newton’s third law. However, classical Weber
electrodynamics cannot describe electromagnetic waves but
only oscillations. In contrast, Maxwell electrodynamics is
an excellent tool for modeling electromagnetic waves and
has proven to be very successful in electrical engineering.
The differences between these are not unresolvable, and it is
possible to combine both theories, as the author shows in the
previously referred articles [5]–[7]. In the present article, this
will become even more obvious.
We begin the article with a derivation of the general solution
of Maxwell’s equations for point charges. First, we demon-
strate the solution method before presenting the final result.
Afterward, we discuss the practical applications.
II. Solution approach
Maxwell’s equations comprise four partial differential equa-
tions. These equation are completed by the Lorentz force
F = qd (E + u × B), which expresses the effect of the fields
E(r, t) and B(r, t) on a point-like test charge qd as a measurable
force F. The electromagnetic force F(r, u, t) itself is a field as
well and is a function not only of location r and time t, but
also of velocity u. In Maxwell’s electrodynamics, the meaning
of this velocity u is unclear. In the scientific literature, one
usually does not find an explanation regarding the frame of
reference to which this velocity u refers. Usually, this point is
ignored without further clarification, and one uses the velocity
of the test charge in the laboratory frame [19].
However, Maxwell’s equations can also be applied to point
charges. In this case, they simplify to the Weber-Maxwell
wave equation [5], [6] and it is possible to interpret the
velocity u as the relative velocity u = ṙr (t) := ṙd (t) − ṙ s (t)
between the two point charges qd and q s with trajectories
rd (t) and r s (t). Thus, the velocity u has here a clear and
well-defined meaning, namely, as the time derivative of the
difference of the trajectories rd (t) and r s (t). Note that is in
general impossible to interpret the velocity u in this way, as
currents are often assumed to be the source of the electric and
magnetic fields. However, currents do not have a single relative
velocity with respect to the test charge qd , because they are
usually composed of many different point charges moving at
different velocities with respect to qd .
The electromagnetic force F can be expressed in Weber–
Maxwell electrodynamics by means of two potentials, Φ and
A:
∂ rr (t′ ) → rr (tc′ ) + ṙr (tc′ )(t′ − tc′ )
!
F = −qd lim A + ∇Φ , (1)
r→0 ∂t
where Φ is denoted as the scalar potential and
ṙr (t′ )
A=− Φ (2)
c2
is the vector potential. For the scalar potential, there exists a
simple and universally valid formula [5]:
q s γ(ṙr (t′ )) c
Φ=
, (3)
4 π ε0 c2 (t − t′ ) + ṙr (t′ ) · (r + rr (t′ ))
2
where, for the past time t′ , the equation
∥r + rr (t′ )∥
t′ = t − (4)
c
must be true. γ(·) is the Lorentz factor.
In principle, the force F can be stated immediately, because
one only needs to insert the difference of the trajectories
rr (t′ ) := rd (t′ ) − r s (t′ ) (5)
and the difference velocity
ṙr (t′ ) := ṙd (t′ ) − ṙ s (t′ ) (6)
at time t′ and t′ itself. Afterwards, one only has to calculate the
derivatives of the right side in Equation (1) to obtain the force.
However, the time t′ is an unknown function with respect to
r and t. For very simple cases, this function can be expressed
in algebraic form by solving Equation (4) for t′ . In general,
however, this is not possible.
However, it is fairly simple to solve Equation (4) numerically
at the location r = 0 by applying a fixed-point iteration
and finding a tc′ that satisfies the equation. Moreover, by
using Banach’s fixed-point theorem, it is possible to show
that the fixed-point iteration converges and that the solution
is unambiguous, if the condition ∥ṙ s (t′ )∥ < c is satisfied1 for
all t′ ≤ t. Consequently, the relative velocity must not become
higher than the speed of light, which is always the case in
electrical engineering.
By using the found tc′ , one can now express rr (t′ ) at the
location t′ ≈ tc′ in the form of a Taylor series:
r + rr (t′ ) ≈ R(t′ ) (7)
with
R(t′ ) := r + rr (tc′ ) + ṙr (tc′ )(t′ − tc′ ) + O(t′ − tc′ )2 . (8)
This expression can be substituted into Equation (4), neglect-
ing the higher-order terms, and solved for t′ . We obtain2
p
c2 t + R(0) · Ṙ(0) − c2 R(t)2 − ∥R(0) × Ṙ(0)∥2
t =
′
, (9)
c2 − Ṙ(0)2
which is now an explicit function of r and t.
Thus, using tc′ , it is possible to express t′ , rr (t′ ), and ṙr (t′ )
as functions of t and r, where t and r can be slightly varied.
Thus, in the scalar potential (Equation (3)), we can perform
the following substitutions:
(10)
and
ṙr (t′ ) → ṙr (tc′ ) + r̈r (tc′ )(t′ − tc′ ). (11)
In this way, we arrive at a differentiable Φ in which all
dependences of r and t are explicit.
However, this step solves the problem, because this explicit
scalar potential can be inserted into the vector potential
1 In this case, |t′ (t1′ ) − t′ (t2′ )| < |t1′ − t2′ | holds for any t1′ , t2′ ∈ (−∞, t].
2 The
magnitude of a vector is denoted by a non-bold notation, i.e., x := ∥x∥.
 3

(Equation (2)) and into Equation (1). Then, a direct symbolic is introduced. The value of tc′ is the only value that usually has
evaluation of the derivatives of the term on the right-hand to be determined numerically. For this purpose, the equation
side of Equation (1) can be performed, for example, by using ∥rr (tc′ )∥
the software Mathematica. It is recommended that Equation tc′ = t − (19)
c
(9) not be used at this stage; rather, this step should only be
performed after simplification and summarization of all terms. must be solved, which can be performed rapidly and efficiently
Furthermore, it is noted that after the derivatives have been with a fixed-point iteration. Once this value is calculated, it
obtained, all occurrences of the term t′ − tc′ can be replaced by can be substituted into the equations presented above. As can
zero. be seen, only elementary operations, such as addition, sub-
traction, multiplication, division, and exponential operations,
The above-described method takes advantage of the fact that are required when evaluating these equations. Therefore, the
the quadratic term (t′ − tc′ )2 and all higher-order terms in the resulting algorithm is extraordinarily efficient. Furthermore,
approximation (Equation (7)) are omitted when the derivatives the result is of superior quality because the space does not
are calculated. This can be seen by deriving a Taylor series of have to be discretized, as in finite-difference time-domain
the following form: (FDTD) methods or the finite element method (FEM), nor
∞
X do integral equations have to be solved, as in the method of
f (t) = c0 +

k
ck t′ − tc′ (12) moments (MoM). This advantage becomes immediately clear
k=1 when fields are plotted for specific problems.
with the constant parameters ck with respect to t. Here, it
follows that IV. Validation by means of special cases
∞
d X d In this section, the algorithm documented in Section III is
f (t) = k ck t′ − tc′ k−1 t′ .


(13) verified for plausibility. For this purpose, we study some
dt k=1
dt
simple scenarios for which the exact solutions are known.
After the derivative has been obtained, one can exploit the fact
that t′ ≈ tc′ . Therefore, the major part of the sum is omitted We start with the simplest special case and assume that two
and we have point charges q s and qd have little influence on each other and
d d that no other forces act on them. Under these circumstances,
f (t) = c1 t′ . (14)
dt dt the point charges are moving more or less uniformly and the
Thus, the described method does not provide an approxima- trajectories are approximately linear. One can then express the
tion, but an exact solution. trajectories by the equations rd (t) = rd +ud t and r s (t) = r s +u s t.
As can be easily seen, the constants rd and r s describe the
III. Final solution and algorithm locations of the point charges at time t = 0. The parameters
ud and u s are constant, time-invariant velocities.
This section presents an analytical solution of the Weber–
Maxwell wave equation for two arbitrarily moving point The difference trajectory under these conditions is
charges. It is noted that in the deduction, the approximation
rr (t) = (rd − r s ) + (ud − u s ) t. (20)
γ(ṙr (t′ )) ≈ γ(ṙr (tc′ )) was used. Consequently, the derivatives
following from this term have been neglected. For electrical This trajectory can be substituted into Equations (15) and (16),
engineering, this is a valid approximation. A derivation with- and we obtain rc = rr (tc′ ), uc = ud − u s , ac = 0, and rt = rr (t).
out this approximation is also possible, but leads to longer Then, the auxiliary quantity (Equation (18)) can be calculated.
formulas. Moreover, the validity of classical electrodynamics Finally, Equation (19) is solved, and all is substituted into
at velocities close to the speed of light is questionable. Equation (17). The final result is
qd q s rr (t) 1 − ṙr (t)2 /c2
p
With the help of the definitions
F= 3 , (21)
rc := rr (tc′ ), uc := ṙr (tc′ ), ac := r̈r (tc′ )

(15) 4 π ε0 rr (t)2 − c12 ∥rr (t) × ṙr (t)∥2 2
and as can be verified using Mathematica.
rt := rc + uc t − tc′ ,


(16)
Clearly, Equation (21) depends only on rr (t) because the
the analytical solution is velocity ṙr (t) = ud − u s is time-independent. Thus, the force
F is always parallel to rr (t), i.e., it starts from the location
of the charge q s at time t rather than the location at time tc′ .
  
(c2 −v2c ) (c2 −v2c −rc ·ac )

qd q s ac c − rt ·uc
+ rt (c2 (t−t
c c) h
rh ′ )+r ·u r
F=
c
. (17) This result gives the impression that the force would propagate
3
infinitely fast in the absence of accelerations. However, this is
t − tc′ + rc · uc 1 − cvc2
 2 2
4 π ε0 c2 c2



not the case, as one must also solve Equation (19) for uniform
motion.
To shorten the notation, the auxiliary function Incidentally, this interesting property is the origin of Weber
electrodynamics. Weber electrodynamics preceded Maxwell’s
r
∥rc × uc ∥2
rh := rt2 − (18) electrodynamics and is based on a hypothesis of Carl Friedrich
c2

Gauss from 1835 [20], which states that the electromagnetic
force between two point charges depends not only on the
distance vector r = rd − r s , but also on the relative velocity
u = ud − u s . The corresponding force formula, which was de-
termined by Wilhelm Eduard Weber in numerous experiments
around 1845 [21], is
v2 3  r u 2 r
!
q s qd
F= 1+ 2 − · . (22)
4 π ε0 c 2 r c r3
The Weber force (Equation (22)) is an approximation of
Equation (21) for relative velocities much smaller than the
speed of light. This relation can be verified by setting the time
t in Equation (21) equal to zero. This is not a restriction of
generality, as we are free to choose the value of t. In the second
step, we perform the substitution u → vh u and develop the
resulting equation in terms of the auxiliary scalar variable vh
into a second-order Taylor series. Subsequently, we set vh = 1,
i.e., we reverse the substitution u → vh u. If we then compare
the result with the Weber force (Equation (22)), we find that
the two equations are identical.
Thus, Weber electrodynamics is a special case of the general
solution presented in Section III. This finding is important
because Weber electrodynamics is an excellent theory for
explaining the magnetic effects of direct currents and has
been shown to work well in numerous experiments [22]–[24].
Furthermore, this relation is ultimately the reason that it is
possible to completely omit the B field and the Lorentz force
and to instead work only with the electromagnetic force F.
However, the limitations of classical Weber electrodynamics
also become obvious, because Equation (21) and the classical
Weber force are not able to describe electromagnetic waves.
Moreover, equation (21) is an approximation that gives good
results only when accelerations are negligible. There are some
experiments to verify Weber’s electrodynamics where this
condition is not fulfilled and contradictions occur [25]. Further
studies should analyze whether these results can be interpreted
using the more general Equation (17). However, Equation (21)
can be interpreted as a modern formulation of the Weber force,
which is also valid at higher velocities. It clearly shows that the
electromagnetic force F for v → c does not become infinite,
but zero. This is not the case with the classical Weber force
(Equation (22)).
The solution (17) is very general and also includes all elec-
tromagnetic wave phenomena that arise whenever electric
point charges are accelerated. To demonstrate this feature,
we consider a point charge q s that is always very close
to the coordinate origin, but is otherwise allowed to move
almost arbitrarily, for example, in the form of a jitter motion.
Thus, mathematically formulated, for the trajectory r s (t), the
condition ∥r s (t)∥ ≈ 0 should be satisfied for all times t. With
the solution from Section III, it is now straightforward to
calculate the corresponding electromagnetic force F on a test
charge at rest qd with trajectory rd (t) = r.
Here, the solution approach is only sketched because of length
constraints, especially because the result can be easily verified
4
with Mathematica. First, one substitutes the trajectories into
the definitions of Section III and solves Equation (19), which
is very simple, as the equation tc′ = t−r/c results from ∥r s (t)∥ ≈
0. Then, we insert the result into Equation (17) and apply
Mathematica to calculate the final result. The solution is very
long; however, one can simplify the solution by exploiting the
fact that ∥r s (t)∥ is very small. This allows a first-order Taylor
series expansion, and after rearranging the terms, we obtain
 
2 r · ṙ s t − cr 

qd q s r 
F= 1 +  +
4 π ε0 r3  cr 
  
qd q s r × r × ṙ s t − cr (23)
+
4 π c ε0 r4
  
qd q s r × r × r̈ s t − cr
.
4 π c2 ε0 r3
As can be seen, this result agrees with our expectations and
the equations in standard textbooks [26], [27]. For very short
distances and small velocities, the Coulomb force dominates
in the first term. In contrast, for very long distances, only the
term in the third line remains, because this term only decreases
with 1/r. It can be seen immediately that the third line is the
far field of a Hertzian dipole. The second line and a part of the
first line describe the so-called near field. If one subtracts the
Coulomb field and plots the force in the form of a field, one
recognizes that the result corresponds to the radiation field of
a resting Hertzian dipole from the perspective of a likewise
resting test charge.
Note that the constraint ∥r s (t)∥ ≈ 0 was introduced only
because of convenience in order to avoid a fixed-point iteration
of Equation (19). In practice, no approximations are required,
and the point charges can move on arbitrary trajectories as long
as these are physically reasonable and the differential velocity
does not exceed the speed of light c. Figures 1 to 4 show
several examples that were obtained by the method described
in this article, i.e., without solving differential equations.
V. New classs of EM solver
The previous section has demonstrated through multiple exam-
ples that the solution presented in Section III is plausible for
charges with uniform motion as well as for simple antennas.
The same solutions would be obtained if the differential
equations were solved directly and in the conventional way.
However, the effort for the conventional approach is signif-
icantly greater, because the solution of differential equation
systems requires substantial experience and, moreover, usually
leads to usable results only for very simple problems. Real-
world problems can almost never be solved in this way, which
has led to the development of so-called EM solvers, i.e.,
specialized computer programs that solve Maxwell’s equations
numerically.
We now introduce a novel solver that does not belong to
any of the known classes, but represents a new independent
category and has the greatest similarity with physics engines
used for the production of computer animations in films or
 5

Fig. 3. A positive point charge is moving at a speed of 0.9 c. One can clearly
see that the Coulomb field is flattened in the direction of motion, which is
the cause of all magnetic effects.
Fig. 1. A positive and a negative point charge coming from the left are
moving at a speed of 0.3 c to the right and oscillate with an amplitude of
1 cm in opposite directions along the z-direction. The frequency is 1 GHz.
The edge length of the drawing area corresponds to 1 m. The figure shows
the resulting electromagnetic field and the trajectories of the point charges up
to the current time.

Fig. 4. A resting positive point charge is accelerated to almost the speed of

light.

video games3 . The purpose of such physics engines is to

render the force-based motion of objects as realistic as pos-
sible. Computer-simulated objects usually consist of so-called
vertices, which are located on the surface of the object and
are connected to each other by edges. This creates polygonal
surfaces that envelop the entire object, which is called a mesh.
Fig. 2. The same situation as in Figure 1, but without the negative point
charge.
Originally, these surfaces served only as obstacles for simu-
lated light rays during the ray-tracing process. With growing

3 See, e.g., https://www.blender.org.


demands for realism in computer games and animations in
movies, physics engines were later added in addition to ray
tracing.
The basic principle of such a physics engine is to assign a mass
to each vertex of a mesh. Thus, a vertex becomes a point mass
and can react to external forces such as gravity. To prevent a
mesh from collapsing because of gravity, one must add internal
forces and constraint forces in addition to external forces.
The internal forces are usually modeled as harmonic forces
between the individual vertices of a mesh. These forces ensure
that the point masses maintain their approximate nominal
spacing.
Such a mesh is more or less elastic and deformable, depending
on the strength of the internal forces. However, taken as a
whole, the mesh is an object that moves like a real object, can
fall, can bounce, and also has torque and momentum. With the
help of these few basic principles, which are directly based
on the three laws of Newtonian mechanics, modern physics
engines are able to create extremely realistic animations that
are hardly or not at all distinguishable from reality for a human
user.
Considered at the lowest level, a physics engine consists of n
equations:
n
X the field of electrical engineering rarely have wavelengths of
mi r̈i (t) = Fext,i + Fi j , (24)
j=1
where Fi j is the force that point mass j exerts on point mass i
with mass mi 4 . Fext,i is the force acting on the point mass
i from the outside, such as gravity or a constraint force.
Equation (24) can be solved time-step by time-step using a
Runge–Kutta method.
For the simulation to produce realistic results, it is essential
that the internal forces in Equation (24) satisfy Newton’s
third law. Thus, for all i and j, the equation Fi j = −F ji
must be satisfied. As a consequence, the energy, momentum,
and angular momentum of a mesh are guaranteed not to
change during the animation. This feature is important because
even slight violations of the conservation laws would appear
unrealistic and disturbing. Weber–Maxwell electrodynamics
fulfills these requirements according to its basic concept [6].
At present, only forces are used in physics engines, which
have an instantaneous effect. However, this restriction is not
necessary because the electromagnetic force (Equation (17))
also satisfies Newton’s third law and can be calculated very
quickly and easily. The fact that the electromagnetic force does
not propagate infinitely fast is not an issue here. Of course,
each point charge generates a complex electromagnetic field,
but this field does not have to be known and expensively
calculated, as in existing EM solvers, because it can be easily
obtained from the trajectories when needed.
The basic idea of the new EM solver is to assign not only a
mass but also an electric charge to each vertex of a mesh.
Modeling an electrical insulator is quite simple. First, we
4 The force that a point mass exerts on itself is defined as zero.
6
create the geometric structure of the mesh and add stiffening
edges. Then, we assign a positive electric charge to each
vertex, which represents the charge of an atomic nucleus.
Afterwards, we couple to each vertex another vertex with a
distance of zero and a negative charge of the same quantity.
A harmonic or anharmonic force can be used as the coupling
force. In this way, each vertex of the mesh becomes an atom
consisting of a nucleus and an electron shell that can move
slightly with respect to the nucleus.
In the next step, we can place a Hertzian dipole outside of
the mesh, which emits an electromagnetic wave due to the
forced oscillation inside of it. Each of the charges in the mesh
perceives this external electromagnetic force, which directly
leads to a force according to Equation (17). As a result, time-
dependent spatial displacements and electromagnetic forces
exist between the charges within the mesh. Therefore, the mesh
starts to deform because of the acting electromagnetic wave
and to radiate a secondary electromagnetic wave itself. This
wave then travels into the mesh on the one hand and out again
on the other.
In many applications besides microelectronics, it will not
be possible to assign a single vertex to each single atom.
However, this is not necessary, as electromagnetic waves in
less than 3 cm. Thus, a grid structure of approximately 3 mm is
sufficient for simulation, because a further grid size reduction
of the mesh would no longer have any relevant effects.
It is immediately obvious that an EM solver using the princi-
ples outlined here would be massively superior to any existing
EM solver in all respects. On the one hand, this conventional
physics engine can well simulate the motions of objects and
their interactions, such as mechanical collisions, constraining
forces, or deformations. On the other hand, this solver can also
simulate mechanical reactions due to the effects of external
and internal electromagnetic waves, including cases in which
objects are moving very fast relative to each other. It is also
possible to create complex composite objects consisting of
materials with very different mechanical and electromagnetic
properties.
Finally, it should not go unmentioned that such a solver will be
extraordinarily fast. In many cases, it will be able to process
even complex scenarios on conventional personal computers
in an interactive way, as the need to solve Maxwell’s equations
and the boundary conditions is completely eliminated. As has
become clear, classical electrodynamics will become a true
subfield of Newtonian mechanics, which is a necessary feature
for engineering.
VI. Why has all this been discovered only now?
At this point, one might wonder why it took more than a
century to present classical electrodynamics in a form that fits
seamlessly into Newtonian mechanics. In the end, one can
only speculate about the reasons. From today’s perspective,
however, it seems as if the first mistake was to ignore
Weber electrodynamics, which recognized that magnetism is

an electrical effect caused by relative velocities and that the
electromagnetic force satisfies Newton’s third law. Instead,
scientists of that time started to separate electric and magnetic
forces and to consider current densities rather than point
charges as the causes of fields. However, because only forces
are measurable, one finally had to combine the electric and
magnetic field again with the help of a formula to obtain
a force. For this purpose, the Lorentz force equation was
developed.
Unfortunately, the Lorentz force is a heuristic that is suffi-
ciently correct only for direct currents, that is, for Maxwell’s
equations without the displacement current [9], [10]. For point
charges, the Lorentz force can be shown to violate Newton’s
third law5 . Another weakness of the Lorentz force is that it
cannot explain why an electromagnetic wave travels at the
speed of light c from the perspective of a test charge. In fact,
if one solves Maxwell’s equations in the rest frame of the
field-generating current, the wave moves with velocity c only
in the rest frame of the transmitter, but not in the rest frame of
the test charge moving at v. This problem became evident at
the end of the 19th century and finally led to the development
of the Lorentz transformation.
Another solution could have been to recognize that Maxwell’s
equations6 should be considered valid only in the rest frame of
the test charge. Indeed, this approach solves several problems
at the same time. Firstly, the magnetic field in the Lorentz
force is omitted and the electric field becomes equal to the
total electromagnetic force divided by the charge of the test
charge. Secondly, the problem with the constant propaga-
tion velocity of the electromagnetic wave is solved, which
makes the Lorentz transformation obsolete. Moreover, the
disappearance of the magnetic field has the advantage of
greatly simplifying Maxwell’s equations and reducing them
to a single wave equation. Unfortunately, this possibility was
not recognized, although in 1898, the engineer Alfred-Marie
Liénard showed that it is possible to solve Maxwell’s equations
in the reference frame of the receiver [29]. Additionally, We-
ber electrodynamics was almost completely forgotten around
1900, being abandoned because of its ostensible inability to
describe electromagnetic waves [17].
For this reason, around 1900, the Lorentz transformation
appeared to have no alternative. In 1905, a philosophical
interpretation was applied to the Lorentz transformation in
the form of the special theory of relativity. Finally, how-
ever, one should realize that both the Lorentz force and the
Lorentz transformation compensate for an error that consists
in the fact that one usually solves Maxwell’s equations in
the wrong reference frame, namely, that of the transmitter.
Both the Lorentz transformation and Lorentz force increase
the complexity considerably, which then made it very difficult
for following generations of scientists to separate the essential
from the irrelevant.
5 See, e.g., the Liénard–Schwarzschild force [4, Eq. (26)] in [28]
6 with displacement current term
7
VII. Summary and conclusion
This article has shown that classical electrodynamics in its
whole complexity can be expressed without differential equa-
tions. For this purpose, an explanation was provided for solv-
ing the Weber–Maxwell wave equation. The resulting force
formula is similar to the Coulomb law, as only an algebraic
function F(rr (t′ ), ṙr (t′ ), r̈r (t′ )) of the time-dependent distance
of two point charges and their derivatives. The property of
being able to represent waves results from the fact that distance
rr (t′ ), relative velocity ṙr (t′ ), and relative acceleration r̈r (t′ ) are
used at a past time t′ , which in turn depends on the location of
the test charge at time t and can be easily calculated by a fixed-
point iteration. For this reason, it is possible to plot fields and
generate animations, clearly demonstrating that one does not
need differential equations to describe electromagnetic waves.
As a unique feature of the formula obtained herein, the artifi-
cial separation into a magnetic and an electric force is omitted.
This separation was already unnecessary in classical Weber
electrodynamics, but is generalized here to electromagnetic
waves as well. In addition, the formula satisfies Einstein’s
postulates without requiring the Lorentz transformation.
Another important property of the formula derived in this
article is that it satisfies Newton’s third law. Consequently,
every point charge produces on every other point charge
everywhere and at every time a force that is exactly opposite
to the force produced by the second point charge on the first
charge. This property guarantees that the total momentum of
a system of point charges is an invariant conserved quantity.
This fact is also of great importance for the conservation of
energy.
Because of its aforementioned properties and rapid com-
putability, this solution formula provides an ultimate tool for
simulating electromagnetic waves and their interaction with
matter. This article has provided an introductory description of
how such simulation tools could be implemented. In particular,
a promising approach is to use existing physics engines applied
in computer games and extend them to handle electromagnetic
waves and their force effects. A number of these new tools will
certainly emerge in the next few years, which will, in turn,
raise the technological level of engineering to a new stage.
References
[1] K. S. Kunz and R. J. Luebbers, The Finite Difference Time Domain
Method for Electromagnetics. CRC Press, 1993.
[2] W. C. Chew, J.-M. Jin, E. Michielssen, and J. Song, Fast and Efficient
Algorithms in Computational Electromagnetics. Artech House Publish-
ers, 2000.
[3] A. Taflove and S. C. Hagness, Computational Electrodynamics: The
Finite-Difference Time-Domain Method, 3rd ed. Artech House, 2005.
[4] W. C. Gibson, The Method of Moments in Electromagnetics. Chapman
and Hall/CRC, 2021.
[5] S. Kühn, “Inhomogeneous wave equation, Liénard-Wiechert potentials,
and Hertzian dipoles in Weber electrodynamics,” Electromagnetics,
vol. 42, no. 8, pp. 571–593, 2022.
[6] ——, “The importance of Weber–Maxwell electrodynamics in electrical
engineering,” IEEE Transactions on Antennas and Propagation, vol. 71,
no. 8, pp. 6698–6706, 2023.
 8

[7] ——, “Interpretation of the solution of Maxwell’s equations for a [29] A.-M. Liénard, “Champ électrique et magnétique produit par une
moving Hertzian dipole,” Progress In Electromagnetics Research C, charge concentrée en un point et animée d’un mouvement quelconque,”
vol. 3, pp. 121–130, 2023. L’Éclairage Électrique, 1898.
[8] H. Dodig, “Direct derivation of Liénard–Wiechert potentials, Maxwell’s
equations and Lorentz force from Coulomb’s law,” Mathematics, vol. 9,
no. 3, 2021.
[9] P. Graneau, “Ampere and Lorentz forces,” Physics Letters, vol. 107 A,
no. 5, pp. 235–237, 1985.
[10] J. P. Wesley, “Weber electrodynamics, Part I. General theory, steady
current effects,” Foundations of Physics Letters, vol. 3, no. 5, pp. 443–
469, 1990.
[11] A. K. T. Assis, “Weber’s force versus Lorentz’s force,” Physics Essays,
vol. 8, no. 3, pp. 335–341, 1995.
[12] A. K. T. Assis and M. A. Bueno, “Equivalence between Ampere and
Grassmann’s forces,” IEEE Transactions On Magnetics, vol. 32, no. 2,
pp. 431–436, 1996.
[13] A. K. T. Assis and H. T. Silva, “Comparison between Weber’s electrody-
namics and classical electrodynamics,” Pramana, vol. 55, pp. 393–404,
2000.
[14] A. K. T. Assis and J. P. M. C. Chaib, Ampère’s electrodynamics: Analysis
of the meaning and evolution of Ampère’s force between current ele-
ments, together with a complete translation of his masterpiece: Theory
of electrodynamic phenomena, uniquely deduced from experience. C.
Roy Keys Inc., 2015.
[15] Anonymous, Advances in Weber and Maxwell electrodynamics. Ama-
zon Fulfillment, 2018.
[16] J. P. M. C. Chaib and F. M. S. Lima, “Resuming Ampère’s experimental
investigation of the validity of Newton’s third law in electrodynamics,”
Annales de la Fondation Louis de Broglie, vol. 45, no. 1, pp. 19–51,
2020.
[17] J. M. Montes, “On the modernisation of Weber’s electrodynamics,”
Magnetism, vol. 3, no. 2, pp. 102–120, 2023.
[18] C. Baumgärtel and S. Maher, “Foundations of electromagnetism: A
review of Wilhelm Weber’s electrodynamic force law,” Foundations,
vol. 2, no. 4, pp. 949–980, 2022.
[19] A. K. T. Assis and F. M. Peixoto, “On the velocity in the Lorentz force
law,” The Physics Teacher, vol. 30, pp. 480–483, 1992.
[20] A. O’Rahilly, Electromagnetic Theory: A Critical Examination of Fun-
damentals. Dover Publications, 1965, vol. 2.
[21] W. Weber, Wilhelm Weber’s Werke (Band 3). Galvanismus und Elek-
trodynamik. Erster Teil., H. Weber, Ed. Königliche Gesellschaft zu
Göttingen, 1893.
[22] C. Baumgärtel, R. T. Smith, and S. Maher, “Accurately predicting
electron beam deflections in fringing fields of a solenoid,” Scientific
Reports, vol. 10, no. 1, p. 10903, 2020.
[23] S. Kühn, “Experimental investigation of an unusual induction effect and
its interpretation as a necessary consequence of Weber electrodynamics,”
Journal of Electrical Engineering, vol. 72, no. 6, pp. 366–373, 2021.
[24] C. Baumgärtel and S. Maher, “Resolving the paradox of unipolar
induction: new experimental evidence on the influence of the test
circuit,” Scientific Reports, vol. 12, no. 16791, 10 2022.
[25] M. Tajmar and M. Weikert, “Evaluation of the influence of a field-less
electrostatic potential on electron beam deflection as predicted by Weber
electrodynamics,” Progress In Electromagnetics Research M, vol. 105,
pp. 1–8, 2021.
[26] J. D. Jackson, Classical electrodynamics, 3rd ed. New York, NY: Wiley,
1999.
[27] G. Lehner, Electromagnetic Field Theory for Engineers and Physicists.
Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg, 2010.
[28] A. K. T. Assis, “Circuit theory in Weber electrodynamics,” European
Journal of Physics, vol. 18, no. 3, p. 241, 1997.