In article
<6139b393-0fa0-469e-a9fc-844d3da890c3@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>,
Benj <bjacoby@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> > Questions:
> >
> > 1. Can 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 = 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.
Wow! You really have a chip on your shoulder.
I never doubted that Maxwell's equations are correct. Whether or not
they are, the theory of relativity will hold. That is sufficient in my
mind to explain how the Faraday disk works. The Lorentz force you
describe is a way to understand relativity on the cheap without having
to invoke four-dimensional tensors. Engineers have come up with such
devices over the years. One example is the Mohr circle for understanding
stress and strain without resorting to tensors.
I have always heard that the Maxwell equations are relativistically
invariant but have never seen a proof--certainly not a simple proof. If
so, do these equations somehow hide the transformation of the
electromagnetic tensor that combines electric and magnetic fields into
one unified field?
I already realize that I need F = q E to define the electric field for
use in Maxwell's equations. What is the equivalent definition for B? Is
it F = q(E +(v X B)) ? What is the history of that?
Bill
|
