Re: Relativistic Lagrangian and limitations of field theory
- From: "Pmb" <someone@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Fri, 24 Aug 2007 08:23:26 -0400
"harry" <harald.vanlintelButNotThis@xxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:1187945952_1209@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
"Juan R." <juanrgonzaleza@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:1187888652.056231.168640@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
On Aug 21, 7:27 pm, va...@xxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
Hello Juan G., maybe you remember me as the one opening the thread
Potential energy in Einstein's 1905 Relativity
Hi,
I put the links because maybe you have interest in them (you started
some analysis of the unique page available then).
Since you were injustly attacked by some blacklisted and since you
seem to interested on that stuff I cited that work for you.
If I am not wrong, I cited the equation (3) from Brillouin first paper
like example of the usage of potential energy in a relativistic
context. Several blacklisted were saying you that potential energy was
only applicable to Newtonian mechanics and there was not U in
relativity and some other nonsenses.
That is total nonsense. You definitely heard wrong. One of the best
mechanics books which covers relativity is "Classical Mechanics - 3rd Ed.,"
by Goldstein, Safko and Poole. It shows you exactly how potential energy
works in SR. Its usage in the analytic view of relativity comes in just as
it does in non-relativistic mechanics.
There are several ways to think about it. For this reason I wrote several
web pages, some of which have subections. See --
http://www.geocities.com/physics_world/em/relativistic_charge.htm
http://www.geocities.com/physics_world/sr/nuclear_fission.htm
http://www.geocities.com/physics_world/sr/relativistic_energy.htm
http://www.geocities.com/physics_world/sr/sr_work_energy.htm
http://www.geocities.com/physics_world/sr/work_energy.htm
http://www.geocities.com/physics_world/sr/nuclear_energy.htm
Of course potential energy does appear in relativity and must be taken
into account, but it's tricky.
Harry. **If you have the time _and_ the inclination** I would appreciate
your comments on the above web pages. I started reworking them this week and
if there are changes to be made this is the time. That goes for everybody
too.
I now had a look at Brillouin's two papers; in his second paper he
concludes that, for a specific example, "the total initial mass of the
electrons at the cathode is eleven times larger than usual". Surely that
should be fairly easy to measure (and certainly ISN'T what is measured!),
so there must be something wrong with his reasoning.
Cheers,
Harald
Best wishes
Pete
.
- Follow-Ups:
- References:
- Prev by Date: Re: Relativistic Lagrangian and limitations of field theory
- Next by Date: Re: Relativistic Lagrangian and limitations of field theory
- Previous by thread: Re: Relativistic Lagrangian and limitations of field theory
- Next by thread: Re: Relativistic Lagrangian and limitations of field theory
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
