Edward Green wrote:
The formal simularity of the Coriolis force and the Lorentz force law

-2w x v vs. -qB x v

suggests that the magnetic field may correspond to a local rotation of
space (inertial coordinate system) as seen by charge vs. that seen by
mass.

On the pro-side, one can easily list more hints that magentic effects
have to so with something or other rotating. On the con side, there
doesn't seem to be an obvious way in incorporate the centrifugal force
into this analogy -- for purposes of "magnetic rotation", the test
particle is always on axis.

Comments?

Here's a good link:

http://abacus.bates.edu/~msemon/Noteon.pdf

Edward Green wrote:
Tom Roberts wrote:
Not really.

Snip profound argument that if we express the Coriolis force in such a
way that there is no Coriolis force, then there is no Coriolis force

Not at all! You ignored the fact that my equations used
_physical_quantities_.


I'm well aware that the Coriolis force is a so-called fictious force.

Then you should abide by the consequences.


The suggestion was put on the table that the "the magnetic field may
correspond to a local rotation of space (inertial coordinate system) as
seen by charge vs. that seen by mass".

This does not make sense -- the rotation of a coordinate system can have
no physical effects; something _physical_ must be rotating for there to
be physical effects. Magnetism certainly has physical effects.


In other words -- I propose
simply in interesting speculation -- inertial coordinates may undergo a
kind of split on charge and mass in the presence of magnetic fields,

This, too, makes no sense. Changes ("kind of split") in the
_coordinates_ can have no physical consequences.


Besides, if this were truly a good analogy there would be an
electromagnetic analog to "centrifugal force" (which is usually much
larger than the "Coriolis force").

A stronger objection, though I anticipated it. If the idyll is not to
die an early death, than apparently effective "r" is always zero -- the
charged particle seens a spinning world, but always sees itself at the
center of that world.

Hmmm. Stranger than even quantum mechanics.... Solipsists of the world
unite!


You and Mr. Hobba may find it ultimately more constructive, not to
treat every idle speculation as an occasion for yet more satisfying
error -- as you imagine it -- bashing.

To bring this up to the level of "speculation", you need to find
something _physical_ that is rotating. Imagining effects on coordinates
is irrelevant.

If you consider my pointing out errors in your thoughts as "error
bashing", then why did you post in the first place???


Tom Roberts

Igor wrote:
Here's a good link:
http://abacus.bates.edu/~msemon/Noteon.pdf

The authors forgot to mention that the putative E field:
E = (m/q) w x (w x r) (eq. 5)
does not satisfy Maxwell's equations, because div E != 0 yet there are
no charges present.


Tom Roberts

Timo A. Nieminen:
On Sun, 8 Jul 2006, Edward Green wrote:

The formal simularity of the Coriolis force and the Lorentz force law

-2w x v vs. -qB x v

suggests that the magnetic field may correspond to a local rotation of
space (inertial coordinate system) as seen by charge vs. that seen by
mass.

Very Maxwellian. Have you read Maxwell's papers on this kind of thing?
(Although he would have said "local rotation of the (a)ether", not space.)

For some insight: one can obtain Maxwell's equations from Coulomb's law
and special relativity. What happens if you start from Newton's law of
universal gravitation and SR? Surely you must get a gravito-magnetic term.
Heaviside did this, and it's a nice exercise. It isn't necessarily easier
to follow Heaviside than to do it from scratch.

Actually, jackson devotes several pages to explaining precisely why
one _cannot_ derive maxwell's equations from special relativity and
coulomb's law, giving gravitation as a counterexample as well a second
counterexample for a particle interacting with a scalar force.
(``Classical Electrodynamics,'' Jackson, J.D., 2nd ed. section 12.2).

"Bilge" wrote in message
...
Timo A. Nieminen:
On Sun, 8 Jul 2006, Edward Green wrote:

The formal simularity of the Coriolis force and the Lorentz force
law

-2w x v vs. -qB x v

suggests that the magnetic field may correspond to a local
rotation of
space (inertial coordinate system) as seen by charge vs. that seen
by
mass.

Very Maxwellian. Have you read Maxwell's papers on this kind of
thing?
(Although he would have said "local rotation of the (a)ether", not
space.)

For some insight: one can obtain Maxwell's equations from Coulomb's
law
and special relativity. What happens if you start from Newton's law
of
universal gravitation and SR? Surely you must get a gravito-magnetic
term.
Heaviside did this, and it's a nice exercise. It isn't necessarily
easier
to follow Heaviside than to do it from scratch.

Actually, jackson devotes several pages to explaining precisely why
one _cannot_ derive maxwell's equations from special relativity and
coulomb's law, giving gravitation as a counterexample as well a second
counterexample for a particle interacting with a scalar force.
(``Classical Electrodynamics,'' Jackson, J.D., 2nd ed. section 12.2).

Hmm... Doesn't seem to be in the 3rd ed. Perhaps the 2nd ed. is a bit
outdated as I remember reading a paper that derives Maxwell's Equations
from Coulomb's law and SR and maybe that is why Jackson dropped it in
the 3rd ed.

Anywise, it is too bad that Maxwell gave up on his aether model as it is
the forbearer of the quantum "vacuum". As Timo points out, Maxwell
would not equate aether with space. Space has no properties. It is the
interaction of the virtual particles (fields) in the quantum "vacuum"
that seem to give space properties. Like c and hbar.

FrediFizzx

Quantum Vacuum Charge papers;
http://www.vacuum-physics.com/QVC/qu...uum_charge.pdf
or postscript
http://www.vacuum-physics.com/QVC/qu...cuum_charge.ps
http://www.arxiv.org/abs/physics/0601110
http://www.vacuum-physics.com

FrediFizzx wrote:
"Bilge" wrote in message
...
Timo A. Nieminen:
On Sun, 8 Jul 2006, Edward Green wrote:

The formal simularity of the Coriolis force and the Lorentz force
law

-2w x v vs. -qB x v

suggests that the magnetic field may correspond to a local
rotation of
space (inertial coordinate system) as seen by charge vs. that seen
by
mass.

Very Maxwellian. Have you read Maxwell's papers on this kind of
thing?
(Although he would have said "local rotation of the (a)ether", not
space.)

For some insight: one can obtain Maxwell's equations from Coulomb's
law
and special relativity. What happens if you start from Newton's law
of
universal gravitation and SR? Surely you must get a gravito-magnetic
term.
Heaviside did this, and it's a nice exercise. It isn't necessarily
easier
to follow Heaviside than to do it from scratch.

Actually, jackson devotes several pages to explaining precisely why
one _cannot_ derive maxwell's equations from special relativity and
coulomb's law, giving gravitation as a counterexample as well a second
counterexample for a particle interacting with a scalar force.
(``Classical Electrodynamics,'' Jackson, J.D., 2nd ed. section 12.2).

Hmm... Doesn't seem to be in the 3rd ed. Perhaps the 2nd ed. is a bit
outdated as I remember reading a paper that derives Maxwell's Equations
from Coulomb's law and SR and maybe that is why Jackson dropped it in
the 3rd ed.

Anywise, it is too bad that Maxwell gave up on his aether model as it is
the forbearer of the quantum "vacuum". As Timo points out, Maxwell
would not equate aether with space.

Space has no properties. It is the
interaction of the virtual particles (fields) in the quantum "vacuum"
that seem to give space properties. Like c and hbar.

Have you conjured up a particle-pair in your kitchen yet?
I am still trying but so far have only something that looks
like egg shells stuck to the walls of my microwave oven
with gooey yellow stuff.

I need to learn something about renormalization and dimensional
analysis to see if the bits might scale down to e+ and e- . ;-)

Sue...


FrediFizzx

Quantum Vacuum Charge papers;
http://www.vacuum-physics.com/QVC/qu...uum_charge.pdf
or postscript
http://www.vacuum-physics.com/QVC/qu...cuum_charge.ps
http://www.arxiv.org/abs/physics/0601110
http://www.vacuum-physics.com

Tom Roberts wrote:
Igor wrote:
Here's a good link:
http://abacus.bates.edu/~msemon/Noteon.pdf

The authors forgot to mention that the putative E field:
E = (m/q) w x (w x r) (eq. 5)
does not satisfy Maxwell's equations, because div E != 0 yet there are
no charges present.


Tom Roberts

Yeah, I can see your point. Well, nobody called it a perfect analogy.
I think the paper that was referenced and the original paper by Coisson
from 1973 were just to point out the similarities. They were both
published in the American Journal of Physics, which tends to deal with
new ways of looking at old physics more often than not. Unfortunately,
the Coisson paper does not appear to be available online, although I
know I have a copy of it somewhere.

Igor wrote:
Tom Roberts wrote:
Igor wrote:
Here's a good link:
http://abacus.bates.edu/~msemon/Noteon.pdf

The authors forgot to mention that the putative E field:
E = (m/q) w x (w x r) (eq. 5)
does not satisfy Maxwell's equations, because div E != 0 yet there are
no charges present.


Tom Roberts

Yeah, I can see your point. Well, nobody called it a perfect analogy.
I think the paper that was referenced and the original paper by Coisson
from 1973 were just to point out the similarities. They were both
published in the American Journal of Physics, which tends to deal with
new ways of looking at old physics more often than not. Unfortunately,
the Coisson paper does not appear to be available online, although I
know I have a copy of it somewhere.


American Journal of Physics is run by an imbecile (Jan Tobochnick) and
has as charter the publication of "no new reserach" (see the web page).

AmJPhys publishes regurgitations (as you well pointed out) of old
stuff, basically reinterpretations of older papers. Another junk
journal.

On Tue, 10 Jul 2006, dda1 wrote:

American Journal of Physics is run by an imbecile (Jan Tobochnick) and
has as charter the publication of "no new reserach" (see the web page).

AmJPhys publishes regurgitations (as you well pointed out) of old
stuff, basically reinterpretations of older papers. Another junk
journal.

AJP is a physics _education_ journal, not a _physics_ journal. Why should
they publish new physics research? They do publish new physics _education_
research.

AJP is far from being a junk journal; I find that I'm more likely to get
long term value out of an AJP paper that a paper in the physics research
journals (because so many research papers are out of my field, are badly
written, present research that's been salami-sliced into as many papers as
possible, are wrong, age rapidly, etc). It's not what you read to keep up
with cutting-edge research, but it isn't junk. All of the top 3 physics
education journals have lots of good stuff in them, and even if you're not
interested in teaching or teaching well, some of it is good physics,
explained well.

Your anonymous accusation of imbecility reflects badly on your character.

--
Timo Nieminen - Home page: http://www.physics.uq.edu.au/people/nieminen/
E-prints: http://eprint.uq.edu.au/view/person/...,_Timo_A..html
Shrine to Spirits: http://www.users.bigpond.com/timo_nieminen/spirits.html

On Mon, 10 Jul 2006, Bilge wrote:

Timo A. Nieminen:
On Sun, 8 Jul 2006, Edward Green wrote:

The formal simularity of the Coriolis force and the Lorentz force law

-2w x v vs. -qB x v

suggests that the magnetic field may correspond to a local rotation of
space (inertial coordinate system) as seen by charge vs. that seen by
mass.

Very Maxwellian. Have you read Maxwell's papers on this kind of thing?
(Although he would have said "local rotation of the (a)ether", not space.)

For some insight: one can obtain Maxwell's equations from Coulomb's law
and special relativity. What happens if you start from Newton's law of
universal gravitation and SR? Surely you must get a gravito-magnetic term.
Heaviside did this, and it's a nice exercise. It isn't necessarily easier
to follow Heaviside than to do it from scratch.

Actually, jackson devotes several pages to explaining precisely why
one _cannot_ derive maxwell's equations from special relativity and
coulomb's law, giving gravitation as a counterexample as well a second
counterexample for a particle interacting with a scalar force.
(``Classical Electrodynamics,'' Jackson, J.D., 2nd ed. section 12.2).

Jackson states that one cannot derive Maxwell's equations from Coulomb and
SR without additional assumptions, the chief additional assumption being
that the source of the EM field is the charge-current 4-vector. There are
quite a few other usually-unstated assumptions as well. So what? It can be
done, Maxwell from Coulomb + SR, and has been done. Jackson even cites a
source where it is done in the very section you say he writes it
"_cannot_" be done.

The gravitational "counterexample" is useful to note, since the source is
a rank-2 tensor, whereas the Heaviside approach is to assume the source is
a mass-flow 4-vector. So what? The point is an exercise to help understand
the relationship between magnetism and SR and the constitutive relations,
not to come up with a useful Lorentz-invariant gravitational theory.

--
Timo Nieminen - Home page: http://www.physics.uq.edu.au/people/nieminen/
E-prints: http://eprint.uq.edu.au/view/person/...,_Timo_A..html
Shrine to Spirits: http://www.users.bigpond.com/timo_nieminen/spirits.html