home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search
/ NetNews Usenet Archive 1992 #27 / NN_1992_27.iso / spool / sci / physics / 19034 < prev    next >
Encoding:
Internet Message Format  |  1992-11-17  |  984 b 
  1. Path: sparky!uunet!charon.amdahl.com!pacbell.com!sgiblab!munnari.oz.au!yoyo.aarnet.edu.au!news.adelaide.edu.au!hoconnel
  2. From: hoconnel@iti.org (Heath O'Connell)
  3. Newsgroups: sci.physics
  4. Subject: Re: No Spin in 2 Dimensions?
  5. Date: 17 Nov 1992 02:58:20 GMT
  6. Organization: The University of Adelaide
  7. Lines: 12
  8. Message-ID: <1e9n4cINNq40@huon.itd.adelaide.edu.au>
  9. References: <92315.002515CCB104@psuvm.psu.edu> <1ds8itINN7g7@smaug.West.Sun.COM> <ZOWIE.92Nov11230652@daedalus.stanford.edu>
  10. NNTP-Posting-Host: adelphi.itd.adelaide.edu.au
  11.  
  12. zowie@daedalus.stanford.edu (Craig "Powderkeg" DeForest) writes:
  13.  
  14.  
  15. >It doesn't point at all: only one of the three components of (the 3-D) RxV
  16. >is ever nonzero (in 2-D), so it's best to think of it as a scalar...
  17. >(though in 2-D relativity it probably isn't _really_ a scalar quantity;
  18. >but then QM doesn't work too well with SR anyway...)
  19.  
  20.     QM and SR work quite well together. GR is another story, though.
  21.  
  22. --
  23.         hoconnel@adelphi.physics.adelaide.edu.au
  24.