The ClassicalField Theories.

C. TRUESDELL

J
and R. TOUPIN .

With 47 Figures.

With an Appendix on Invariants by

J. L. ERICKSEN.

A. The field viewpoint in classical physics.

1. Corpusclesand fields. Today matter is universally regarded as composed
of molecules. Though moleculescannot be discerned by human senses, they mav
be defined precisely as the smallest portions of a material to exhibit certain of
its distinguishing properties, and much of the behavior of individual molecules
is predicted satisfactorily by known physical laws. Moleculesin their turn are

regarded as composed of atoms; these, of nuclei and electrons; and nuclei themselves as composed of certain elementary particles. The behavior of the elementary
particles has been reduced, so far, but to a partial subservience to theory. Whether

these elementary particles await analysis into still smaller corpuscles remains
for the future.

Thus in the physics of today, corpuscles are supreme. It might seem mandatory,
when we are to deal with extended matter and electricity, that we begin with the laws
governing the elementary particles and derive from them, as mere corollaries,the
laws governing apparently continuous bodies. Such a program is triply impractical :
A. The laws of the elementary particles are not yet fully established. Even
such senior disciplinesas quantum mechanics and general relativity remain open
to possible basic revision and not yet satisfactorily interconnected.

B. The mathematical difficulties are at present insuperable. (Even on a

lower level they remain: As is well known, the proof" that a quantum-mechanical
system may be replaced by a classical system in first approximation is defective.)

C. In such special cases as havc actually been treated, the mathematical

approximations" committed in order to get to an answer are so drastic that
the results obtained are not fair trials of what the basic laws may imply. \Vhen
such a result appears in disaccord with experience, we are at a loss whether to
assign the blame to the basic laws themselves or to the mathematical process
used in the subsequent derivations.

Acknowledgment. The authors are deeply indebted to Professor Dr. K. ZOLLERfor thorough
criticism of most of the manuscript and proofs. They are grateful also to Professors
J. L. ERIC
xSENand W. NOLLand to Dr. B. COLEMAN
for help in certain passages.

During portions of the period of preparation of this treatise. TRUESDEL1.'s

work was
supported by an ONR contract (1955to 1956)the U. S. National Science
Foundation
the John Simon Guggenheim Memorial Foundation (1957). the Mathematics (t0fO),
Research
Center, U. S. Army, University of Wisconsin (1958).and the National Bureau
of
Standards
(1959). During 1957 he was on sabbatical leave from Indiana University.
While all parts of this work have been discussed and revised jointly, Chaps. A to and
E
the first half of Chap. G were written by TRUESDELL;
Chap. F and the second half of Chap. G,
by TOUPIN.

The Classical Field Theories.

C. TRUESDELL and

R. TOUPIN I .

With 47 Figures.

With an Appendixon Invariants by

J. L. ERICKSEN.

A. The field viewpoint in classical physics.

1. Corpusclesand fields. Today matter is universally regarded as composed

of molecules. Though molecules cannot be discerned by human senses. they may,

be defined preciselyas the smallest portions of a material to exhibit certain of

its distinguishingproperties, and much of the behavior of individual molecules
is predicted satisfactorily by known physical laws. Moleculesin their turn are
them_
regarded as composedof atoms; these, of nuclei and electrons; and
selves as composed of certain elementary particles. The behavior of the elementary
particles has been reduced, so far, but to a partial subservience to theory. \Vhether

these elementary particles await analysis into still smaller corpuscles remains
for the future.
Thus in the physics of today, corpuscles arc supreme. It might seem mandatory,
when we are to deal with extended matter and electricity, that we begin wit h the laws

governing the elementary particles and derive from them, as mere corollaries,the

laws governing apparently continuous bodies. Such a program is triply impractical :

A. The laws of the elementary particles are not yet fully established. Even

such senior disciplines as quantum mechanics and general relativitv remain open
to possiblebasic revision and not yet satisfactorily interconnected.

B. The mathematical difficulties are at present insuperable. (Even on a

lower level they remain : As is well known, the proof" that a quantum-mechanical

system may be replacedby a classicalsystem in first approximationis defective.)

C. In such special cases as have actually been treated, the mathematical
approximations" committed in order to get to an answer are so drastic that
the results obtained are not fair trials of what the basic laws may imply. NA
Then
such a result appears in disaccord with experience, we are at a loss whether to
assignthe blame to the basic laws themselvesor to the mathematical process
used in the subsequentderivations.
1 Acknowledgment. The authors are deeply indebted to Professor Dr. K. ZOLLERfor thorough

criticism of most of the manuscript and proofs. They are grateful also to Professors J. L. ERICK-

SENand W. NOLLand to Dr. 13.COLEMAN

for help in certain passages.
During portions of the period of preparation of this treatise. TRUESDELL's
work was
supported by an ONR contract (1955to 1956)the U. S. National Science Foundation (1956),
the John Simon Guggenheim Memorial Foundation (1957), the Mathematics Research
Center, U. S. Army, University of Wisconsin (1958),and the National Bureau of Standards
(1959). During 1957he was on sabbatical leave from Indiana University.
While all parts of this work have been discussed and revised jointly, Chaps. A to E and
the first half of Chap. G were written by TRUESDELI-;
Chap. F and the second half of Chap. G.
by Toupm.