Re: Energy density; the correct one

[David Rutherford <drutherford@SOFTCOM.NET>]

David Rutherford wrote:
> Bob LaMontagne wrote:
> > I'm only half way through reading the paper - it's fairly
> > conventional physics except for the work claim.
>
> You haven't got to the good part yet :-). I haven't included the work
> part, yet. I just thought of it last week during my posts, here. I'm
> working on a new section that deals with it. Some things you might need
> to know about my paper; pay close attention to my warning in the
> introduction about not assuming that my definitions are the same as
> conventional physics. People have misinterpreted alot of things because
> of a misunderstanding of the definitions. For example, the partial
> squared in equation (12.7) is the same as in (4.22); it's not the
> D'Alembertian operator. This makes (12.7) a four-dimensional Poisson's
> equation, not a wave equation. If J=0 (the field has a current density,
> but it can be zero if the positive and negative densities cancel)

Sorry, I think I need to clarify this a little bit. The field has a
current density _everywhere_ (unless the densities cancel there), not
just at the location of the source as in Maxwell's equations. You can
see this by taking the four-dimensional Laplacian of the vector
potential in (11.6).

---
Dave Rutherford
"New Transformation Equations and the Electric Field Four-vector"
http://www.softcom.net/users/der555/newtransform.pdf

Applications:
"4/3 Problem Resolution"
http://www.softcom.net/users/der555/elecmass.pdf
"Action-reaction Paradox Resolution"
http://www.softcom.net/users/der555/actreact.pdf

This posting is the position of the writer, not that of SUNY-BSC, NAU or the AAPT.