Re: Is charge conserved between frames?
From: jahn (susysewnshow_at_yahoo.com.au)
Date: 11/24/04
- Next message: shuba: "Re: black holes and singularity Horizon Geons"
- Previous message: Mark K. Bilbo: "Re: GOD=G_uv GOD FOR DUMMYS"
- Maybe in reply to: Gauge: "Re: Is charge conserved between frames?"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: Wed, 24 Nov 2004 08:57:16 -0500
"Pmb" <pmb_phy@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:2a7af61a.0411100527.2f74455a@posting.google.com...
> waitedavid137@aol.com (WaiteDavid137) wrote <usual bogus claims>
>
> >The "electric field" is altogether a different quantity.
> >
> > Right, so stop calling it the "electric field" four-vector.
>
> Why? To please ignorant people like you who constantly fail to grasp
> the physics? Why don'y you be a man and e-mail Thorne and Blanchard
> and whine to them. If you are able to get them to "correct" their book
> on this point then I'll consider not calling it by its given name.
>
> Unless you don't have the courage or conviction to put your money
> where your mouth is?
>
> Besides, calling it such is quite consistent with the terminology
> widely used in relativity. You've obviously missed out on a lot of
> this. E.g. There are other tensors which have been named in a simial
> fashion. The 4-current is a 4-vector. However "current" itself is not
> a 4-vector but only part of a 4-vector. "Current" is a 3-vector. So
> too with 4-momentum, i.e. it also is a 4-vector. Yet "momentum" is a
> 3-vector, i.e. part of a 4-vector.
>
> Then again you've never really grasped relativity fully so this
> misunderstanding of yours is just par for the course for you.
>
> <snipped whining and usual bogus comments>
>
> Sorry waite but you've once again proved that you're incapable of
> learning. So you can forget all your other bogus resposes from what I
> explained to you. You're still unable or unwilling to learn.
<<
dh/dx = - k1 de/dt (1) k1=E0, the permittivity of free space.
de/dx = - k2 dh/dt (2) k2=U0, the permeability of free space.
These formulae were taken to imply that (1) if an electric field varied
with time, there resulted magnetic field spread over space, and (2) if
magnetic flux varied over time, there resulted electric field spread
over space. Further, the minus sign in these two equations indicated
causality to the reader, because of the reader's knowledge of Lenz's
Law; ".. The induced flux opposes the time rate of change of the
externally produced flux" - Kip, 1962. The proliferation of these two
equations in various forms - differential form, integral form, divs and
dels, then buried the physics of the matter in a cloud of mathematical
obfuscation. (However, if changing electric field caused magnetic field,
it would have been more reasonable to expect a formula of the form h = k
de/dt {perhaps with a minus sign} rather than dh/dx = k de/dt. In the
year 2,000 we are able to explain the situation due to the discovery
that throughout the twentieth century, nobody in the world actually
thought about Maxwell's Equations, beyond merely glorifying them and
telling each other how wonderful the equations were. {The reader is
urged to search for 20th century discussion of Maxwell's Equations on
the lines seen here. He will not find any.} Lack of scrutiny of these
equations for a century, coupled with heavy censorship of dissidents,
meant that they could remain flawed at a simplistic level without anyone
noticing.)
>>
http://www.ivorcatt.com/2810.htm
The Biot-Savart law
<<This law is to magnetostatics (i.e., the study of magnetic fields
generated by steady currents) what Coulomb's law is to electrostatics
(i.e.,
the study of electric fields generated by stationary charges).
Furthermore,
it can be experimentally verified given a set of currents, a compass, a
test
wire, and a great deal of skill and patience. This justifies our earlier
assumption that the field equations (3.105) are valid for general
current
distributions (recall that we derived them by studying the fields
generated
by infinite, straight wires). Note that both Coulomb's law and the
Biot-Savart law are ``gauge independent''; i.e., they do not depend on
the
particular choice of gauge. >>
<<So, we have come full circle in our investigation of magnetic fields.
Note
that the simple result (3.155) can only be obtained from the Biot-Savart
law
after some non-trivial algebra. Examination of more complicated current
distributions using this law invariably leads to lengthy, involved, and
extremely unpleasant calculations. >>
http://farside.ph.utexas.edu/teaching/em1/lectures/node36.html
>
> > Coulombs force makes for easier math but I am not
> > sure it is a correct substitute for Lorentz force.
> > http://scienceworld.wolfram.com/physics/CoulombForce.html
> > http://scienceworld.wolfram.com/physics/LorentzForce.html
>
Ken:
> I think it's far easier to express Lorentz force as a tensor,
> especially when different frames are used,
>
> f_u = q*F_uv U^v
>
> are you familiar with that form?
I wouldn't touch it with Uncle Al's 10 ft pole!
----------------------
<< However, this apparently simple result is extremely deceptive.
Equation
(3.196) is a typical action at a distance law. If the charge density
changes
suddenly at then the potential at responds immediately. However, we
shall
see later that the full time dependent Maxwell's equations only allow
information to propagate at the speed of light (i.e., they do not
violate
relativity). How can these two statements be reconciled? The crucial
point
is that the scalar potential cannot be measured directly, it can only be
inferred from the electric field. >>
Gauge transformations
http://farside.ph.utexas.edu/teaching/em1/lectures/node40.html
The displacement current
http://farside.ph.utexas.edu/teaching/em1/lectures/node41.html
--------------------
http://mathworld.wolfram.com/LorentzGroup.html
----------------------
Sadly, the Lorentz force is related to the Lorentz tensor about the same
way Maxwell's Equations are related to Maxwell's demon.
Well... perhaps a little closer than that.
So my "quest" (since we couldn't agree that is was legitimately
a QUESTion ) was more fundamental; to probe into the formulation
of Maxwell's equations and unsnarl how the incomplete
understanding of Maxwell's displacement current leads to
equations which don't conform to the principle of relativity.
If they did, then the twins could age at the same rate and
the rest of us would all age less. LOL
It is an exhaustive read but Richard Fizpatrick tosses in
plenty of comentary about the problem in his discussion
lecture "Maxwells Equations".
http://farside.ph.utexas.edu/teaching/em1/lectures/lectures.html
Kind regards,
Sue...
Extra credit ;-)
http://world.std.com/~sweetser/quaternions/conclusions/summary/summary.h
tml
http://world.std.com/~sweetser/quaternions/qindex/qindex.html
<
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=2r0pqoF14m3lcU1%40uni-berlin.de&out
put=gplain >
- Next message: shuba: "Re: black holes and singularity Horizon Geons"
- Previous message: Mark K. Bilbo: "Re: GOD=G_uv GOD FOR DUMMYS"
- Maybe in reply to: Gauge: "Re: Is charge conserved between frames?"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|
