Do we need Mach's Principle? May 8, 2012

Overview
JW: The existence of transient mass fluctuations in objects subjected to large accelerations and rapid changes in acceleration depends upon "Mach's principle" and some peculiarities of "radiation reaction" forces. Mach's principle is the assertion that the physical origin of all inertial reaction forces is an interaction of the object with chiefly the most distant matter in the universe. (Inertial reaction forces are those things that push back on you when you push on stuff.)
JS: I do not think you need Mach’s Principle or Wheeler-Feynman advanced influences to explain Newton’s 3rd law of equal and opposite action-reaction. This is a purely local phenomenon from universal local translation symmetry Noether’s theorem implying conservation of total linear momentum.
"Noether's (first) theorem states that any differentiable symmetry of the action of a physical system has a corresponding conservation law. The theorem was proved by German mathematician Emmy Noether in 1915 and published in 1918.[1] The action of a physical system is the integral over time of a Lagrangian function (which may or may not be an integral over space of a Lagrangian density function), from which the system's behavior can be determined by the principle of least action.
Noether's theorem has become a fundamental tool of modern theoretical physics and the calculus of variations. A generalization of the seminal formulations on constants of motion in Lagrangian and Hamiltonian mechanics (developed in 1788 and 1833, respectively), it does not apply to systems that cannot be modeled with a Lagrangian alone (e.g. systems with a Rayleigh dissipation function). In particular, dissipative systems with continuous symmetries need not have a corresponding conservation law."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noether's_theorem#Example_2:_Conservation_of_center_of_momentum
JW: Radiation reaction forces are experienced by charged objects as they "launch" energy in the form of radiation when they are accelerated by external forces. (These are recoil forces, like those experienced when "launching" bullets out of a gun in your hand.) When examined, the origin of inertia and radiation reaction turn out to have some very strange consequences, notwithstanding that no "new physics" is involved. These ideas are explored in the following material.
JS: It is true that when a real electron emits a real photon that there is a recoil on the electron in order to obey Newton’s 3rd law. However, that is not the same as the radiation reaction force that depends on the time derivative of the acceleration of the electron.
Abraham–Lorentz force
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
"In the physics of electromagnetism, the Abraham–Lorentz force is the recoil force on an accelerating charged particle caused by the particle emitting electromagnetic radiation. It is also called the radiation reaction force.
The formula is in the domain of classical physics, not quantum physics, and therefore, may not be valid at distances of roughly the Compton wavelength (λC ≈ 2.43 pm) or below.[1] There is, however, an analogue of the formula which is both fully quantum and relativistic, called the "Abraham-Lorentz-Dirac-Langevin equation". See Johnson and Hu.[2]
The force is proportional to the square of the object's charge, times the so-called "jerk" (rate of change of acceleration) that it is experiencing. The force points in the direction of the jerk. For example, in a cyclotron, where the jerk points opposite to the velocity, the radiation reaction is directed opposite to the velocity of the particle, providing a braking action.
It was thought that the solution of the Abraham–Lorentz force problem predicts that signals from the future affect the present, thus challenging intuition of cause and effect. For example, there are pathological solutions using the Abraham–Lorentz-Dirac equation in which a particle accelerates in advance of the application of a force, so-called preacceleration solutions! One resolution of this problem was discussed by Yaghjian,[3] and is further discussed by Rohrlich,[4] Medina.,[5] and Ribari? and Šušterši?.[6] "
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abraham–Lorentz_force
JS: Another is Wheeler-Feynman --> Hoyle-Narlikar --> Cramer transaction.
However ordinary forces depend on acceleration and even velocity not jerk.
On the other hand, we can try to say semi-classically for the source charge: 3-vectors in BOLD font.
Ffinal_electron = dPfinal_electron/dt = (inertia)(acceleration) + (velocity)d(inertia)/dt + (coefficient)d(acceleration)dt
with
Pinitial_electron = Pfinal_electron + Pphoton
d/dt[Pfinal_electron + Pphoton] = 0  Newton’s local 3rd law
ABOVE IS ONLY VALID IN AN INERTIAL FRAME WITHOUT UNIVERSAL FICTITIOUS FORCES OF CORIOLIS, CENTRIFUGAL, EULER AND NEWTON’S “GRAVITY” (PRE-EINSTEIN GR).
So the Wheeler-Feynman nonlocal retrocausal “jerk” is only ONE term in the balance of action-reaction forces.
Of course the problem really must be done quantum mechanically if its only one photon. You can do it classically using EM Poynting vector ~ ExB.
TO BE CONTINUED