Re: "4/3 Problem" Resolution (fwd), comment on

[David Rutherford <drutherford@SOFTCOM.NET>]

On Mon, 14 May 2001 17:49:02 -0700, David Rutherford
<drutherford@SOFTCOM.NET> wrote:

> On Mon, 14 May 2001 13:35:44 -0500, Jack Uretsky <jlu@HEP.ANL.GOV> wrote:
>
> > Hi all-
> >        David's calculation makes no sense to me because it makes use
> > of a special gauge for the EM field.  After discussion with David I
> > see no way to resolve our disagreement.  I would firmly reject any
> > calculation that forswears gauge invariance.  Gauge invariance merely
> > says that it is the fields that are physical, not the potentials.
> >                                Regards,
> >                                        Jack
>
> I really wish you had posted your questions _here_ so that our conversation
> could have been public. That way, other people could have seen it and given
> their views on the matter. But instead, all they see is _your_ conclusions
> on the matter, Jack. Please post the whole thing, you have my permission. I
> think I made some excellent points which you seem to have completely
> ignored.

Jack, with your permission, I'd like to post our conversations here. Please
check one.

[ ] yes, I have your permission to post the conversations

[ ] no, I don't have your permission to post the conversations

Regards,
Dave