Re: Extension of the Equivalence Principle to include the EM Field

On Nov 22, 1:49 pm, "Sue..." <suzysewns...@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Nov 22, 4:12 pm, "Ken S. Tucker" <dynam...@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:



<< I ref'd from Weinberg's textbook. >>

If you have Weinberg's textbook you might
see if he elaborates further about this point.

<<A Lorentz transformation or any other coordinate
transformation will convert electric or magnetic
fields into mixtures of electric and magnetic fields,
but no transformation mixes them with the
gravitational field. >>http://www.aip.org/pt/vol-58/iss-11/p31.html

I've demo'd from Weinberg's text a g-field
exists, based on GR, no prob, although
technically involved.

I'm currently assigned to build a proto-
type, it's a bit of a yawner, so I try to
grab a smoke and a shot of Vodka and take
a break to study your and everyones
exquisite posts, so sometimes I'm not
responsive.

He seems to have an understanding how
this limits the use of Maxwell fields for
inertial effects that is lacking in
many papers that barge forward on the
assumption that clocks and energy tell
the whole story.

That involves Planck's constant, and
then dovetails neatly with QT.
L8R
Ken

<< The stress-energy tensor for an electromagnetic
field in a dielectric medium is less well understood
and is the subject of the unresolved Abraham-Minkowski
controversy. >>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electromagnetic_stress-energy_tensorhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stress-energy_tensor

"The force on a moving charge"http://farside.ph.utexas.edu/teaching/em/lectures/node127.html

Sue...

Ken S. Tucker- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

.

Relevant Pages
Quantcast