Re: [Phys-l] Teaching Special Relativity

[Brian Whatcott <betwys1@sbcglobal.net>]

Here we seem to meet an asymmetry - the lack of monopoles, the presence 
of both electric and magnetic components in the electromagnetic wave,  
the presence of purely static electric fields and the conservation of 
charge idea.....

Brian W

Jack Uretsky wrote:
> Strictly speaking, there is no magnetic-electric equivalence.  A field 
> that is purely magnetic in some reference frame can never be 
> transforme ( by a L-transformation into one that is purely electric, 
> and vice-versa.
>                     Regards,
>                         Jack
> in
>
>
>
>
> On Mon, 6 Jul 2009, Brian Whatcott wrote:
>
> > This mass energy equivalency idea is so clearly evoked here that one
> > immediately recalls the magnetic and electric field equivalency as
> > viewed through the prism of relative velocity.
> >
> > Brian W
> >
> > Moses Fayngold wrote:
> > > ________________________________
> > > "carmelo@pacific.net.sg" <carmelo@pacific.net.sg> (Alphonsus) wrote 
> > > onSunday, July 5, 2009 10:03:43 AM:
> > >
> > > ">>You may want to include Frank Wilczek's insight (See Below). That 
> > > is,
> > > mass of protonÿÿs mass comes from the relavististic masses of the
> > > quarks and gluons. :-)
> > >
> > >                       Frank Wilczek's Happy 100th Birthday, Special 
> > > Relativity"
> > >
> > >
> > >   Yes, and one can also find this discussion in Wilczek's pieces 
> > > "Mass without mass I, II"
> > > in Physics Today(Nov. 1999 and Jan 2000)
> > > In the closing remarks of the second one he writes:
> > >
> > >   "Most of the mass of ordinary matter, for sure, is the pure energy 
> > > of moving quarks and gluons."
> > >
> > > (Phys. Today, Jan 2000, p. 14)
> > >
> > > Moses Fayngold,
> > > NJIT