Chronology Current Month Current Thread Current Date
[Year List] [Month List (current year)] [Date Index] [Thread Index] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Date Prev] [Date Next]

Re: [Phys-l] g...



At 10:24 -0500 11/20/06, Bob LaMontagne wrote:

Then consider the magnetic interaction. How do you fit the velocity
dependence on the "field susceptible property" (- i.e., the moving charge}
into this algorithm?

I agree that its a bit of a stretch to assert that this is a "universal" property of fields. But I think that it can be construed in much the same sense as is "potential theory," where we posit mathematical interactions of the gravitational and electric sort and abstract from them a generic theory that applies to any field that obeys certain properties, such as gravity or electricity, where only the values of the constants change, depending on which one you are talking about.

And, of course, whether it applies to all fields or not, is an empirical matter, just as in potential theory, which requires an inverse square interaction to be applicable, since it incorporates such things as Gauss's law.

As for magnetism, the problem there, as I see it is the lack of objects that behave in the "usual" manner, i.e., magnetic monopoles. If such objects exist, it is reasonable to expect that they would obey the same generic relationship as to those in gravitational or electric environments.

Hugh
--

************************************************************
Hugh Haskell
<mailto:haskell@ncssm.edu>
<mailto:hhaskell@mindspring.com>

(919) 467-7610

When you are arguing with a stupid person, it is a good idea to make sure that
person isn't doing the same thing.
Anonymous