While I didn't check the math of Cross's paper explicitly, I did skim through it and it has the "ring" of a proper resolution to the apparent paradox. I would be amazed/astounded if a manifestly covariant force law combined with Maxwell's equations written covariantly could possibly come up with a paradox when viewed from two different inertial frames of reference.
_________________________
Joel Rauber, Ph.D
Professor and Head of Physics
Department of Physics
South Dakota State University
Brookings, SD 57007
Joel.Rauber@sdstate.edu
605.688.5428 (w)
605.688.5878 (fax)
| -----Original Message-----
| From: phys-l-bounces@mail.phys-l.org [mailto:phys-l-bounces@mail.phys-
| l.org] On Behalf Of Donald Polvani
| Sent: Friday, June 08, 2012 4:36 PM
| To: Phys-L@Phys-L.org
| Subject: Re: [Phys-L] Lorentz Force = wrong
|
| Thanks to Jack Uretsky who wrote:
|
| > The author's name is Mansuripur.
| >If you google his name, you will get Cross's reolution of an apparent
| paradox. The Cross paper is, apparently, posted on the arXiV.
|
| The Cross reference is located at:
|
| http://arxiv.org/abs/1205.5451
|
| I'm relieved and glad to see that the Lorentz force law is alive and
| well,
| at least, in the eyes of some who are current in the relevant physics.
| I've been away from graduate level EM and tensor math too long to be
| able to
| reliably check both papers myself. Do others (more astute and recently
| trained than I) agree that Cross has successfully answered Mansuripur's
| paradox?
|
| Don
|
| Dr. Donald Polvani
| Adjunct Faculty, Physics
| Anne Arundel Community College
| Arnold, MD 21012
|
| _______________________________________________
| Forum for Physics Educators
| Phys-l@mail.phys-l.org
| http://www.phys-l.org/mailman/listinfo/phys-l