Jtam-A4.dvi JOURNAL OF THEORETICAL AND APPLIED MECHANICS 50, 3, pp. 807-817, Warsaw 2012 50th Anniversary of JTAM OBJECTIVITY AND FRAME INDIFFERENCE OF ACCELERATION-SENSITIVE MATERIALS Wolfgang Muschik Technische Universität Berlin, Institut für Theoretische Physik, Berlin, Germany e-mail: muschik@physik.tu-berlin.de Constitutive equations have to be compatible with material axioms. Here, the axioms of material frame indifference and material motion dependence, that are the transformation properties of the constitutive equations by changing observer and by changing themotion of the material, are discussed. Starting out with the observer-independent material mapping, its domain – the state space – is extended by a second entry describing the motion of the material with regard to a fixed standard frame of reference. This results in observer- independent tensorial constitutive equations. Different component representations of these equations belong to different observers. Finally, two examples –anisotropic heat conduction andMaxwell’s equations – are considered. Key words: material frame indifference, material motion dependence, accelaration-sensitive material 1. Introduction It is nearly impossible to cite all publicationson theobjectivity and frame indifference.Therefore, we refer to the literature which is cited in two papers: Muschik (1998), Muschik and Restuccia (2008), and here we discuss the concepts of objectivity and material frame indifference (MFI) which were developed during the last two decades. These concepts are slightly different from the classical ones except from one item: We have rigorously to distinguish between the motion of the material with respect to a freely, but fixed chosen standard frame of reference liable for allmaterials and the relativemotion of an arbitrary frame (synonymously an observer) with regard to the material. The observer can be changed freely, resulting in changing the relative motion between the observer and material, but not affecting the motion of the material with respect to the fixed standard frame of reference. This distinction requires the introduction of a second entry in thedomain of the constitutivemapping. Themissing of this second entry excludes acceleration-sensitive materials1. The second item which is slightly different from the classical procedure is the presupposed observer-invariance of the balance equations: No observer is distinguished2. The fields of the ba- lance equations transform by changing the observer in such away that their observer-invariance holds3. A consequence is for example that the force density is not a tensor under changing the observer (Muschik and Restuccia, 2002)4. Thematerial is describedby constitutive equationswhich are represented by the constitutive mapping, its domain consisting of the state space and the 2nd entry, and its range consisting 1A factwhichwas ignored for aboutmore than 30 years during the development of thematerial theory 2Also not the inertial one 3The class of the admitted observersmust be defined and depends on the considered realm: Classical Mechanics, Electrodynamics, Special andGeneral Relativity Theory, see example in Section 5.2 4Inertial forces appear 808 W.Muschik of the constitutive properties, for example the heat flux density. This distinction is necessary because one part of MFI – the observer-independence of the material mapping – requires this concept. The last item which is slightly different from the classical procedure is the distinction of tensor equations and component equations. Component equations are generated by choice of a frame (observer), whereas the corresponding tensor equation is observer-independent and serves for describing the material independently of any observer. The paper is organized as follows: after having introduced balance equations, constitutive equations are discussed in detail. Material axioms and the constitutivemappingwill be conside- red in connection with objectivity and changing the observer. Because this changing must not influence material properties, we need a recipe for describing them by changing the observer: MFI. Finally, the examples of a rigid anisotropic heat conductor and ofMaxwell’s equations are shortly discussed for elucidation. 2. Balance equations Wedenote an arbitrarybutfixedobserver B∗ as the standard frame of reference andanother one with respect to B∗ arbitrarily moving frame B as the chosen observer. A change of the frame in classical mechanics is described by a proper orthogonal time dependent rotation Q j· ·l (t) and by a time dependent translation cj(t) of the position coordinates (Einstein’s sum convention) B→B∗ : x∗j =Q j· ·l (t)[xl −cl(t)] Q·li·Q m· ·l = δ m i =Q l· ·iQ ·m l· det(Q j· ·l )(t)= 1 (2.1) This changing of the observer5 is achieved by aEuclidean transformation. Balance equations belonging to the observer B are of the shape6 B : ∂t(ρΨ)+∇· (ρvΨ +Φ)+Σ=0 (2.2) Here Ψ is the balanced quantity, Φ its flux, ρ themass density, v thematerial velocity and Σ production and supply of Ψ. Because no observer is distinguished, we accept Axiom I: • Balance equations are observer-invariant7. Consequently, we obtain for B∗ : ∂∗t (ρ ∗Ψ∗)+∇∗ · (ρ∗v∗Ψ∗+Φ∗)+Σ∗ =0 (2.3) This axiom has a very clear interpretation: Because no observer is distinguished, they all “see” their balance equations – having the same component form – which belong to different bases. If two equations are of the same shape for two different observers, we call them observer- invariant. The axiom, that balance equations are observer-invariant, is not a new one (Noll, 1958; Bertram, 1989). The advantage of this axiom is, that it uses only quantities which are measurable for the corresponding observers independently of theirmutualmotion to each other. 5Only valid in non-relativistic physics 6That is a component equation belonging to the basis {ej} of B written down symbolically for shortness 7Also called form-invariant Objectivity and frame indifference of acceleration-sensitive materials 809 As an example, we consider the balance of momentumwhich writes for the two observers in components B : ∂t(ρv)+∇· (ρvv−T T)− f =0 B∗ : ∂∗t (ρ ∗v∗)+∇∗ · (ρ∗v∗v∗−T∗T)− f∗ =0 (2.4) For elucidation, we are here only interested in the transformation properties of the components of the force density, because historically the inertal framewas of great importance. For defining this frame, one needs a rule or another recipe by which we can decompose f and f∗ into their so-called imposed and inertial parts (imp and in) f∗k = f∗kimp+f ∗k in =Q k· ·j(f j +f j rel )=Qk· ·j(f j imp+f j in+f j rel ) (2.5) Here, frel is the relative part of the force density which prevents that f and f ∗ transforms as tensors of the first order by changing the observer according to (2.1)1. The decomposition into the imposed and inertial parts cannot be achieved by measuring devices. The imposed part is now defined as a tensor of the first order f∗kimp =Q k· ·jf j imp −→ f ∗k in =Q k· ·j(f j in+f j rel ) (2.6) according to (2.5). A frame B∗ ⊙ is denoted as an inertial frame, if f ∗ ⊙in ≡0 −→ frel =−fin (2.7) Because in (2.6)2 the Q k· ·j is arbitrarily orthogonal, (2.7)2 is valid for all non-inertial observers. 3. Constitutive equations For solving balance (2.2), we need variables z on which the fields {Ψ,Ψ,Σ} are defined and on which ∂t and ∇ operate. The variables z, to which ρ and v belong, span the state space, and {Ψ,Ψ,Σ}(t) are the constitutive properties which describe together with the chosen state space the material under consideration. The constitutive properties depend on the state space: this connection, the constitutive equations, are not arbitrary. They have to satisfy material axioms which are considered in the next section. 3.1. Material axioms Material frame indifference belong to thematerial axioms (Muschik et al., 2001) which are 1. the 2nd law of thermodynamics 2. transformation properties by changing the observer • of the constitutive mapping • of its domain, the state space • of its range, the constitutive properties 3. transformation properties by changing the motion of the material 4. material symmetry 5. finite speed of wave propagation. Here we are concerned with axioms #2 and#3. 810 W.Muschik 3.2. Constitutive mapping and objectivity We now consider two observers: B represented by the basis {ej} and another observer B∗ represented by {e∗k}, both detecting the same material. The observer change B → B∗ is represented by (2.1)1. For describing this material, each observer needs state space variables and a set which includes the constitutive properties. For the example of heat conduction, the gradient of temperature is a state space variable, and the value of the heat flux is in the set of the constitutive properties. Thus, we have: — state space variables inB : {zj} inB∗ : {z∗k} (3.1) — sets of constitutive properties inB : {Mj} inB∗ : {M∗k} (3.2) The fact that B and B∗ watch the samematerial, results in the transformationswith respect to (2.1)1 z∗k =Qk· ·jz j M∗k =Qk· ·jM j (3.3) that means, with respect to changing the observer, the zj and the Mj are tensor components8 of the observer-independent tensors z(x, t) and M(x, t), they are called objective z∗k(x, t)= e∗k ·z(x, t) zj(x, t)= ej ·z(x, t) (3.4) and M∗k(x, t) = e∗k ·M(x, t) Mj(x, t) = ej ·M(x, t) (3.5) Mathematically, we have a double-fibre bundle consisting of z and M on (x, t). Presupposing, we are in large state spaces (Muschik, 2007), we introduce a constitutive mapping M (Muschik, 1990) whose domain is spanned by the set of the variables z and which maps into the constitutive properties, the range of M M(x, t) =M(z(x, t)) (3.6) Inserting (3.6) into (3.5), we obtain the constitutive component equations belonging to B∗ and B by taking (3.4) into account M∗k(x, t) = e∗k ·M(z∗m(x, t)e∗m) M j(x, t)= ej ·M(zm(x, t)em) (3.7) or in another form M∗k(x, t) =M∗k(z∗m(x, t)) Mj(x, t)=Mj(zm(x, t)) (3.8) The procedure in this section can be described by the following Axiom II: • The constitutive mapping is observer-independent • Domain and range of the constitutive mapping are spanned by Euclidean tensors9. that means, the state space variables z(x, t) and the constitutive properties M(x, t) are Euc- lidean tensors by changing the observer: they are objective. This represents the situation of the famous “frame indifference” considered by a lot of authors (Svendsen and Bertram, 1999; Bertram and Svendsen, 2001). As we will see in the next section, we have to extend the domain of material mapping (3.6). 8Not necessarily of the first order: here a symbolic representation is used 9Later on, the domainmust be extended by additional non-tensorial quantities in connectionwith the motion of the material Objectivity and frame indifference of acceleration-sensitive materials 811 4. Material frame indifference Constitutive mapping (3.6) does not contain any information about themotion of thematerial: z and M are observer-independent Euclidean tensors which do not refer to any observer. Up to now, there is no place in the material mapping for describing the motion of the material with respect to a chosen frame10. Wenow introduce the so-called local co-rotational rest frame, B0, which is fixedat amaterial point X at (x, t)0(t). Consequently, we have for all times in B 0 : v0(x0(t), t)≡0 ω0(x0(t), t)≡0 (4.1) Here x0 and ω0 are the velocity and the angular velocity of the material at X which both vanish by definition for the local co-rotational rest frame B0. The motion of the material can now be described by a Euclidean tranformation between B0 and a so-called standard frame of reference B⋄ B⋄ −→B0 : x0j =Q ⋄j· ·l (t)[x⋄l − c⋄l(t)] (4.2) which is characterized by Q ⋄j· ·l (t) and c⋄l(t). These quantities creating a Euclidean transforma- tion are not Euclidean tensors. Consequently as non-Euclidean quantities, they cannot appear neither in the domain nor in the range of constitutive mapping (3.6). Thus, the domain of the constitutivemappingmustbe supplementedbya“second entry ✷⋄” (Muschik, 1998). This is do- ne by introducing it as a functional F of the quantitieswhich generateEuclidean transformation (4.2) ✷ ⋄(t)≡F[Q ⋄j· ·l (t),c⋄l(t)] (4.3) and which extend the domain of the constitutive mapping. Axiom III: • Material Motion Dependence (MMD) M⋄(x, t)=M ( z(x, t),✷⋄ ) (4.4) A constitutive family is created by different motions of the material, the family parameter is (4.3), and (4.4) are observer-independent tensor equations including themotion of the material with respect to a fixed chosen standard frame of reference B⋄. Consequently, the constitutive family consists of identical materials – all defined by the samematerial mapping M – that are moving to each other. Thematerial properties M⋄(x, t) depend on the individualmotion of the considered element of the constitutive family according to (4.4). A special time independent second entry is that of differential type which is given by a function of time derivatives of the quantities generating Euclidean transformation (4.2) d ✷ ⋄ =F[Q̇⋄k· ·j , ċ ⋄j,Q̈⋄k· ·j , c̈ ⋄j, . . .] (4.5) Materials described by MMD (4.4) are acceleration-sensitiv according to (4.5). The existence of such materials is well known in physics11. From the definition of the second entry follows by (4.3) and (4.2) that ✷⋄(t) is observer-independent: B⋄ and B0 are two fixed frames, and M is the observer-independent tensorial constitutive mapping. 10Transformation (2.1)1 describes only the relativemotion of an arbitrary observerwith respect to the rest frame of the material 11E.g. Barnett effect 1914, Lexikon der Physik, CD-ROM Version, Spektrum Akademischer Verlag, Heidelberg, 1998/99 812 W.Muschik We now consider two identical materials in different states of motion, one resting in B0 according to (4.1), the other one resting in the standard frame of reference B⋄. The second entry for the material resting in B⋄ becomes analogously to (4.3) and (4.5) ✷ 0 =F[δkj ,0 j] d✷0 =F[0kj ,0 j,0kj ,0 j, . . .] (4.6) and its observer-independentmaterial equation is M0(x, t)=M ( z(x, t),✷0 ) (4.7) The transition from (4.4) to (4.7) is an observer-independent active transformation of identical materials – described by the same material mapping M – moving to each other. For this case, we accept the following Axiom IV: • A uniform (inaccelerated) motion with respect to two identical materials does not influence their material properties. Consequently, (4.5) does not contain the constant relative translation velocity d ✷ ⋄ =F[Q̇⋄k· ·j ,Q̈ ⋄k· ·j , c̈ ⋄j, . . .] (4.8) The second entry allows one to comparematerials in different states ofmotion. If thismotion is uniform, d✷⋄ =d ✷0, materials of the same constitutive family are identical. The standard frame of reference is often chosen as an inertial frame B⋄ ⊙ which was shortly discussed in Sec- tion 2. The constitutive equations of the two identical materials resting in B0 and B⋄ which belong to two observers B∗ and B+ are according to (3.8) B∗ : M⋄k ∗ =Mk ∗ (zm ∗ ,✷⋄) M0k ∗ =Mk ∗ (zm ∗ ,✷0) B+ : M⋄k+ =M k +(z m + ,✷ ⋄) M0k+ =M k +(z m + ,✷ 0) (4.9) Changing the observers B∗ → B+ does not change the second entries ✷⋄ and ✷0 describing the motion of the materials with respect to the standard frame of reference. We now consider the observer change B+ −→B∗ : zm ∗ =Qm· ·j z j + M ♯k ∗ =Qk· ·jM ♯j + ♯= ⋄,0 (4.10) Inserting (4.10) into (4.9)1 results in M ♯p + =Q ·p k· Mk ∗ (Qm· ·j z j +,✷ ♯)=M p +(z m + ,✷ ♯) Q ·p k· Mk ∗ (Qq· ·m•,•) =M p +(•,•) (4.11) The last equation describes the connection of the components of thematerialmappingbelonging to different observers. If the material mapping is linear, we obtain from (4.11) M ♯p + =L p +m(✷ ♯)zm+ Q ·p k· Lk ∗q(✷ ♯)Qq· ·m =L p +m(✷ ♯) (4.12) These equations donot represent an isotropic functionneither for the components of thematerial mapping nor for thematerial mapping itself. This fact is clear, because changing observer (2.1)1 has nothing to do with symmetry properties of the material. The observer components of the material mapping are observer-independent for isotropic materials12 (Muschik, 2012): — isotropic material Mk ∗ =Mk+ =:M L k ∗q(✷ ♯)=Lk+q(✷ ♯)=:Lkq(✷ ♯) (4.13) Consequently, (4.11)2 and (4.12)2 become isotropic function for isotropic material. For elucidation, a simple, not very realistic example is discussed in the next section. 12Which is out of scope of this paper, because we did not introduce a symmetry group Objectivity and frame indifference of acceleration-sensitive materials 813 5. Examples 5.1. Anisotropic heat conduction We consider a simple example of Fourier heat conduction in rigid rotating media. We have two anisotropicmaterials which are identical when they are restingwith respect to each other13. There is a standard frame of reference B⋄, one of the two materials (marked by ⋄) is resting with respect to this frame, and the other one (marked by 0) is rotating with respect to B⋄. The constitutive equations of the two materials moving to each other are (4.4) and (4.7). The state space variables and theMMD-data are z(x, t) = (Θ,∇Θ)(x, t) ✷⋄ :=0 ✷0 :=Ω (5.1) Here Θ is the temperature, and Ωdescribes the constant rotation of the 0-material with respect to B⋄. Consequently, two constitutive equations (4.4) and (4.7) transform with (5.1) to the following Fourier equations −q⋄(x, t)=κ(Θ,0) ·∇Θ −q0(x, t)=κ(Θ,Ω) ·∇Θ (5.2) which both are observer-independent. Now two further observers B∗ and B+ are introduced, and (5.2) results in constitutive component equations B∗ : −q ⋄j ∗ =κ ji ∗ (Θ∗,0)∂∗iΘ −q 0j ∗ =κ ji ∗ (Θ∗,Ω)∂∗iΘ B+ : −q ⋄j + =κ ji +(Θ+,0)∂+iΘ −q 0j + =κ ji +(Θ+,Ω)∂+iΘ (5.3) State space and constitutive properties transform by changing the observer Θ∗ =Θ+ =:Θ ∂∗iΘ=Q ·k i·∂+kΘ q 0j ∗ =Q j· ·k q0k+ q ⋄j ∗ =Q j· ·k q⋄k+ κ ji ∗ (Θ,•) =Q j· ·mκ mn + (Θ,•)Q i· ·n •=0,Ω (5.4) The pairs q0j ∗ ←→ q⋄j ∗ q 0j + ←→ q ⋄j + q 0j ∗ ←→ q ⋄j + q 0j + ←→ q ⋄j ∗ (5.5) are not connected by any transformation with regard to changing the observer. The “frame dependence of the heat flux” refers to different local material rest framesmoving to each other, and consequently, the frame dependence is caused by different motions of identical materials according to (5.2). Another example elucidating Axiom I – balance equations are observer-invariant – is discus- sed in the next section. 5.2. “Non-relativistic” electrodynamics We start out with the special case of a non-relativistic change of observer (2.1)1, the Galilei transformation14 B−→B∗ : (x, t)⋆ =(x, t)−wt w= const t⋆ = t ∇⋆ =∇ ∂t⋆ = ∂t+w ·∇ (5.6) 13They belong to the same constitutive family 14As in (2.2) and (2.3), component equations belonging to observers are written symbolically in bold faces; tensor equations will not appear in this section 814 W.Muschik applied to the general 3-dimensional form of Maxwell’s equations valid for arbitrary materials (Muschik, 1999) ∇×H(x, t)= j(x, t)+∂tD(x, t) ∇×E(x, t)=−∂tB(x, t) ∇·B(x, t)= 0 ∇·D(x, t)= ̺(x, t) (5.7) These 12 fields, E and D, electric field and dielectrical displacement, H and B, magnetic field andmagnetic induction, are coupled to each other by the constitutive equations D(x, t) = ε0E(x, t)+P(x, t) B(x, t) =µ0H(x, t)+M(x, t) (5.8) The polarization P and the magnetization M are generated by the material and vanish in vacuum. The constants ε0 and µ0 are the dielectric and the magnetic permeability of vacuum. According to (2.2) and (2.3), Maxwell’s and constitutive equations are presupposed to be observer-invariant ∇⋆×H⋆(x⋆, t⋆)= j⋆(x⋆, t⋆)+∂t⋆D ⋆(x⋆, t⋆) ∇⋆×E⋆(x⋆, t⋆)=−∂t⋆B ⋆(x⋆, t⋆) ∇⋆ ·B⋆(x⋆, t⋆)= 0 ∇⋆ ·D⋆(x⋆, t⋆)= ̺⋆(x⋆, t⋆) (5.9) and D⋆(x⋆, t⋆)= ε0E ⋆(x⋆, t⋆)+P⋆(x⋆, t⋆) B⋆(x⋆, t⋆)=µ0H ⋆(x⋆, t⋆)+M⋆(x⋆, t⋆) (5.10) The following statement is well known (Müller, 1985). Proposition: Presupposing the observer invariance of the charge density byGalilean changing observer (5.6)1 ̺⋆ = ̺ (5.11) the transformed fields are B⋆ =B E⋆ =E+w×B D⋆ =D H⋆ =H−w×D j⋆ = j−̺w (5.12) � Inserting transformation formulas (5.12) into (5.10), we obtain the transformation rules for the polarization and for the magnetization P ⋆ =P−ε0w×B M ⋆ =M+µ0w×D (5.13) Consequently, we obtain the strange result that vacuum of the observer B (P ≡ 0 and M ≡ 0) is not transformed into vacuum of the observer B∗ (P∗ 6= 0 and M∗ 6= 0). This means that vacuum is not observer-independent. Consequently, we have to distinguish observers for which polarization and magnetization vanish in vacuum and those for which polarization andmagnetization depend on the relative velocity between the observers P ⋆ vac =−ε0w×B M ⋆ vac =µ0w×D (5.14) We will not at all accept this strange statement, and therefore we obtain the well known result that the Galilei transformation (5.6)1 is not an allowed observer transformation in electrodyna- mics. If (5.6)1 is not allowed, also (2.1)1 cannot be allowed in electrodynamics. Objectivity and frame indifference of acceleration-sensitive materials 815 We discussed this example, because we want to demonstrate that the observer invariance of the balance equations – here theMaxwell equations – and thematerial frame indifference of the constitutive equations as basic axiomsmay single out special observer transformations, here the Galilei and the Euclidean transformation15. Although (5.13) is not correct with regard to the Euclidean observer change, we can ask, if (5.13) may be valid approximatively in a special limit. We remember the connection of the vacuum constants 1 ε0µ0 = c2 (5.15) Here c is the velocity of light, and we obtain from (5.8) and (5.15) ε0w×B= 1 µ0c 2 w× (µ0H+M)= 1 c2 w×H+ε0w×M (5.16) and µ0w×D= 1 ε0c 2 w× (ε0E+P)= 1 c2 w×E+µ0w×P (5.17) Neglecting the “relativistic terms” 1 c2 w× ⊠ ≈0 (5.18) we obtain from (5.13) in the non-relativistic approximation neglecting relativistic terms P⋆ ≈P−ε0w×M M ⋆ ≈M+µ0w×P (5.19) In this approximation, Galilei transformation (5.6)1 transfers vacuum into vacuum. Thus, the Galilei transformation can be used as a non-relativistic approximation. This can also be proved by taking the non-relativistic limit of the relativistic description of electrodynamics into account (Schmutzer, 1968). 6. Discussion Thematerial mapping (3.6) – defined on state space (3.1)1 andmapping to constitutive proper- ties (3.2)1 – does not contain accelerations, because (3.6) is an observer-independent tensorial equation, and accelerations belong always to a special frame. Taking the experimental fact into account, thatmaterials canbeacceleration-sensitive, thedomainof the constitutivemappinghas to be extended by a second entry – (4.3) or (4.5) –which introduces thesemissing accelerations. This extension establishes tensorial constitutive family (4.4). Each observer generates its consti- tutive component equation (4.9) by choosing its base. Observer transformations are generated by Euclidean transformation (2.1)1 changing the observer components according to (3.3). Following up the scheme discussed above, axioms are needed to ensure the procedure: • Balance equations are observer-invariant • Constitutive mappings are observer-independent (and therefore tensorial) • State space and constitutive properties are objective • The domain of the constitutive mapping is extended by the accelerations of the material with respect to a standard frame of reference excluding the inaccelerated boost (MMD). 15Electrodynamics is compatible with the Lorentz tranformation by changing the observer 816 W.Muschik This four material axioms are shortly denoted as the material frame indifference and material motion dependence. The material motion dependence can clearly be seen by considering the example of heat conduction. If the second entry would be cancelled, one has instead of two equations (5.2) only one. Because now no accelerations appear in this tensorial heat conduction equation, the heat conduction tensor does not depend on acceleration and thematerial becomes acceleration- insensitive. The second example of non-relativistic electrodynamics shows that the observer invariance of the basic equations may exclude special observer transformations. Acknowledgment Thanks to H.-H. v. Borzeszkowski for valuable and helpful discussions, especially on the relativistic version of the items presented here. References 1. Bertram A., 1989, Axiomatische Einführung in die Kontinuumsmechanik, BI-Wissenschafts- verlag,Mannheim, p.179 2. Bertram A., Svendsen B., 2001, On material objectivity and reduced constitutive equations, Archive of Mechanics, 53, 653-675 3. Müller I., 1985,Thermodynamics, Pitman, London, Sect. 9.6.1./2 4. Muschik W., 1990, Aspects of Non-Equilibrium Thermodynamics, World Scientific, Singapore, Sect. 1.2 5. MuschikW., 1998,Objectivityand frame indifference, revisted,Archive ofMechanics,50, 541-547 6. Muschik W., 1999, Covariance and objectivity in electrodynamics, [In:] Ciągłe modele zjawisk mechanicznych w układach materialnych i środowisku, Politechnika Poznańska, Poznań, Polska, ISBN 83-7143-047-7, p.71-84 7. Muschik W., 2007,Why somany “schools” of thermodynamics?,Forschung im Ingenieurwesen, 71, 149-161, 3.1 8. Muschik W., 2012, Comment on: I-Shih Liu: Constitutive theory of anisotropic rigid heat con- ductors,ContinuumMechanics andThermodynamics, DOI 10.1007/s00161-011-0224-7,Continuum Mechanics and Thermodynamics, 24, 175-180 9. Muschik W., Papenfuss C., Ehrentraut H., 2001, A sketch of continuum thermodynamics, Journal of Non-Newtonian Fluid Mechanics 96, 25-290, 4.1 10. Muschik W., Restuccia L., 2002, Changing the observer and moving materials in continuum physics: Objectivity and frame indifference,Technische Mechanik, 22, 152-160 11. Muschik W., Restuccia L., 2008, Systematic remarks on objectivity and frame indifference, liquid crystal theory as an example,Archive of Applied Mechanics, 78, 837-854 12. Noll W., 1958, Amathematical theory of the mechanical behavior of continuous media,Archive of Rational Mechanics and Analysis, 2, 197 13. Schmutzer E., 1968, Relativistische Physik (Klassische Theorie), Teubner, Leipzig, Sect. VII §5 14. Svendsen B., Bertram A., 1999, On frame-indifference and form-invariance in constitutive theory,Acta Mechanica, 132, 195-207 Objectivity and frame indifference of acceleration-sensitive materials 817 Obiektywność i niezmienniczość względem układu odniesienia obiektów wrażliwych na przyspieszenie Streszczenie Równania konstytutywnemusząbyć zgodne z aksjomatamiobiektu.Wpracyprzedyskutowanoaksjo- mat niezmienniczości względemukładuwspółrzędnych oraz zależność od ruchu, które stanowią podstawę transformacji równań konstytutywnych przy zmianie położenia obserwatora oraz przy uwzględnieniu ru- chu obiektu. Rozważania rozpoczęto od odwzorowania niezależnego od obserwatora, którego dziedzina – przestrzeń stanu – została rozszerzona o drugi element opisujący ruch obiektu względem ustalonego, standardowegoukładu odniesienia.Todoprowadziłodo sformułowanianiezależnych równańkonstytutyw- nych w postaci tensorowej. Różne składowe reprezentacji tych równań należą do różnych obserwatorów. Na zakończenie przedstawiono dwa przykłady – problem anizotropowego przewodzenia ciepła i równania Maxwell’a. Manuscript received December 15, 2011; accepted for print March 6, 2012