Difference between revisions of "O(3) Electrodynamics: A Second Reply to Hunter"
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
(Imported from text file) |
(Imported from text file) |
||
| Line 20: | Line 20: | ||
[[Category:Scientific Paper|o electrodynamics second reply hunter]] | [[Category:Scientific Paper|o electrodynamics second reply hunter]] | ||
| − | [[Category:Electrodynamics]] | + | [[Category:Electrodynamics|o electrodynamics second reply hunter]] |
Latest revision as of 19:45, 1 January 2017
| Scientific Paper | |
|---|---|
| Title | O(3) Electrodynamics: A Second Reply to Hunter |
| Read in full | Link to paper |
| Author(s) | Myron W Evans |
| Keywords | B(3), Stokes Theorem |
| Published | 2000 |
| Journal | Apeiron |
| Volume | 7 |
| Number | 1-2 |
| No. of pages | 4 |
| Pages | 29-32 |
Read the full paper here
Abstract
In O(3) symmetry electrodynamics the field tensor is governed by a non-Abelian Stokes Theorem, as in any non-Abelian gauge theory. The comments on the B(3) component of this field tensor by Hunter in this Issue address B(3) as if it were a U(1) symmetry field, governed by the ordinary Stokes Theorem, and are therefore sequentially erroneous, because there is a basic misunderstanding of the nature of O(3) electrodynamics inherent in the article.
