| 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] |
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
_______________________________________________
Forum for Physics Educators
Phys-l@carnot.physics.buffalo.edu
https://carnot.physics.buffalo.edu/mailman/listinfo/phys-l