Re: Jackson Question
- From: "Sue..." <suzysewnshow@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: 15 Dec 2006 09:06:54 -0800
Edward Green wrote:
Sue... wrote:
Edward Green wrote:
Sue... wrote:
<...>
To be critical about how formalism represents phenomena,
you need several several points of view. Not just rote
manipulation of symbols.
Fine mom and apple pie sentiment. Now, the question involved some
aspects of tensorial definition and manipulation in reference to
multipoles, if I understand it correctly.
You understand only a piece of it then.
No doubt... since I have not worked through the problem, and have so
far been spared the aching general insights that await those who have.
At issue is not my understanding, but yours: you implicitly allege
profound understanding, which you drop tantalizing hints of, but I have
my doubts there is anything behind the curtain.
<...>
If you don't like my references then try Timo's:
M.E. Rose, Elementary theory of angular momentum, Dover, gives a
reasonably thorough coverage of irreducible tensors and their point.
I have no doubt it too will still say:
<<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
Let's put that in context (I'll steal your quoting convention):
Snipped debatingclub material from:
http://www.aip.org/pt/vol-58/iss-11/p31.html
Oh! Your'e checking up on me!
Keep checking: :-)
http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0204034
The quoted passage however _is_ fascinating -- it's one of those "too
profound a conincidence to be altogether a coincidence, even if we
don't altogether understand what it means" things. Like the
relativisitically correct behavior of deBroglie waves. You drop a
constraint from GR, and you get EM riding along for free, as an
inevitable consequence? Wow.
You are well read in web-science, and have excellent taste in quotes.
But instead of suggesting you are answering questions, why not just
call them "Sue's web picks"? Or just present your choices as topics
for discussion -- they are all good.
OP: So can someone explain to me what the significance is with all of
these
tensor things and why there are more Cartesian multipole moments?
<< The Lorenz gauge is incomplete in the sense that there
remains a subspace of gauge transformations which preserve
the constraint. These remaining degrees of freedom correspond
to gauge functions which satisfy the wave equation... >>
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%CE%9E_gauge
Does Cartesian and Coulomb gauge and QM mean anything
to you?
Is the Tensor calculus working in a Lorenz space?
Would hidden multipole moments explain this?
http://www.esa.int/SPECIALS/GSP/SEM0L6OVGJE_0.html
Sue...
.
- References:
- Jackson Question
- From: Jason Pawloski
- Re: Jackson Question
- From: Sue...
- Re: Jackson Question
- From: Edward Green
- Re: Jackson Question
- From: Sue...
- Re: Jackson Question
- From: Edward Green
- Re: Jackson Question
- From: Sue...
- Re: Jackson Question
- From: Edward Green
- Jackson Question
- Prev by Date: "The Source of Gravitational Energy"
- Next by Date: Re: Jackson Question
- Previous by thread: Re: Jackson Question
- Next by thread: Re: Jackson Question
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
