/sci/ - Science & Math

>>14533988

I'd say both of them draw from the primacy of the potentials reasoning so often justified by the Bohm-Aharonov and the Maxwell-Lodge effects. The notion of Field than becomes the second class citizen, which, changes the heirarchy of conserved quantities in the myriad of edge cases to maxwells. (for example Konopinksi notes a particles kenetic energy equality only holds in a static field, in a non-static field, the conservation exists by adding the potential energy store q psi(r). Additionally, the magnetic vector potential is least arbitrary under the conservation of conjugate momentum)

Both are keen to extend a model where charge density is permitted to fluctuate, instead of being held constant in time

Both focus on interaction energies or terms, whether through the conjugate momentum - interaction energy relationship found in Hively/Konopinski , or webbers 'coupling coefficient' .

In order for myself to find where they are earnestly different, i'd need to read further into Webber to see how high velocity, relativistic guages are handled. As it seems Hively constrained himself less to the ideal case than webbers point charge and target