Re: [Phys-l] bound vectors ... or not

[brian whatcott <betwys1@sbcglobal.net>]

 When I searched Google scholar for [bound vector] it was important to 
select 'exact phrase' in the search options, and explicitly exclude 
'upper lower', else cites with   ' lower or upper  bound..vector' 
occured too often.
Of the 206 cites remaining, this concept is still mixed with other 
concepts: but still,   it seems that it is  folks working in optics who  
are more apt to use the concept in connection with electromagnetics.
 Schrodinger, the  soliton and the super-heavy flavor show up.  And 
engineering texts, of course.

Brian W

On 9/6/2010 8:14 AM, treborsci@verizon.net wrote:
> One might say that a vector field (e.g. the electric field E(r,t) ) defines
> a vector (E) associated with, "located at", (or "bound to") each space-time
> point.
> It seems that Faraday extended this view to reification.
>
> Bob Sciamanda
> Physics, Edinboro Univ of PA (EM)
> treborsci@verizon.net
> http://mysite.verizon.net/res12merh/
>
> --------------------------------------------------
> From: "John Denker"<jsd@av8n.com>
> Sent: Sunday, September 05, 2010 1:04 PM
> To: "Forum for Physics Educators"<phys-l@carnot.physics.buffalo.edu>
> Subject: [Phys-l] bound vectors ... or not
>
> > In the wikipedia article on "the vectors mainly used in physics
> > and engineering" it talks about "free vectors" and "bound vectors".
> >   http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Euclidean_vector
> >
> > This came as a surprise to me.  I am 99.99% certain the
> > notion of "bound vector" does not appear in any of my math
> > books.  I don't recall seeing it in any of my physics books.
> > I don't recall hearing any physicist utter the term or use
> > the concept.
> > . . .