On Aug 1, 8:41=A0pm, Salmon Egg <Salmon...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> This electric field may be called the Lorentz force or something
> similar, but it seems to be something that must be added to =A0the
> equations I have already listed. This arises simply out of relativity
> where the EM field has to be a tensor and has to transform properly with
> a Lorentz transformation.
>
> Questions:
>
> 1. =A0Can this Lorentz force be derived without invoking relativity or
> another law of nature? That is, are Maxwell's equations sufficient?
I see that you've come to realize that all the faith-based physics
dogma as spewed by PBS and others simply doesn't cut it. The dogma
that says, "All electromagnetic phenomena can be "explained" by
Maxwell's Equations" is wrong. They can't even explain a simple
Faraday Generator! So, No, Maxwell's equations alone are not
sufficient. And, Yes, this is an excellent place to poke your nose!
It is the Lorentz relation that is missing. It is related to Maxwell's
equations but is not one of them! It is often taken to be the
defining relation for B. The Lorentz relation is written as:
F =3D q(E +(v X B)) And the law does not depend upon the inertial
reference frame in which the various quantities are measured. .
For more information I urge you to examine Jefimenko's expositions on
the subject, especially his derivation of the transformations of the
Lorentz force. "Electromagnetic Retardation and the Theory of
Relativity" by Oleg D. Jefimenko available from Amazon.com.
--------------
"Some people say I'm a dreamer,
But I'm not the only one!
I hope one day you'll join us,
And Electromagnetics can live as one! "
|
