Ask any question you want about Physics

originally posted by: ImaFungi

originally posted by: mbkennel

In your particular case, the way to think about it is that electrons have an intrinsic interaction with external magnetic fields (as well as being intrinsic creator of fields).

I hypothesize 'external magnetic fields' = 'photons';

You hypothesize (or know) 'external magnetic fields' = ' ___________'

Provide your answer please, and allow me to further question it.

There are charges, and photons. Photons move charges. Charges move photons.

'external magnetic field' is the relationship between all charges and photons at all given space and time;

Now what else do you think there is, that is required to = magnetic field, besides charge and photon? (I ought add, I also think gravity likely plays a role)

Magnetic fields are created by moving charges, and elementary particles with intrinsic magnetic properties. Gravity plays no role.

'Photons' are a kind of quantum mechanical representation of the underlying wavefunction of the electromagnetic field. Think more like coefficients of a Fourier basis expansion of a continuous field. (if you don't understad that last sentence, then take some undergraduate math and after that it will be much more clear). It's simpler just to think about it as EM field.

originally posted by: Bedlam
She didn't go missing, she misappropriated her grant money and vamoosed back home.

Sometimes I can't tell when you're joking. Did she really? And if so how did you find out about it?

originally posted by: Fingle
Do you think the energetic-al force of the living structure of earth

I don't know what you mean by living structure of earth. The earth itself doesn't have a living structure. It's a big rock.

and every species, in its atomical mass could at all, or in any way influence the universe as an opposing/or symbiotic energy force?

Can the earth influence the universe in any way? The gravitational field from the earth has no known limit so it extends through the universe, so yes from that respect, but the earth is such a tiny part of the universe that effect doesn't amount to much. Can you even see the Earth in this view from just a few light hours away? It's only 1/8 of 1 pixel:

www.nasa.gov...

This narrow-angle color image of the Earth, dubbed 'Pale Blue Dot', is a part of the first ever 'portrait' of the solar system taken by Voyager 1. The spacecraft acquired a total of 60 frames for a mosaic of the solar system from a distance of more than 4 billion miles from Earth and about 32 degrees above the ecliptic.

From Voyager's great distance Earth is a mere point of light, less than the size of a picture element even in the narrow-angle camera. Earth was a crescent only 0.12 pixel in size. Coincidentally, Earth lies right in the center of one of the scattered light rays resulting from taking the image so close to the sun.

This blown-up image of the Earth was taken through three color filters - violet, blue and green - and recombined to produce the color image. The background features in the image are artifacts resulting from the magnification.

That's part of this larger panorama composite which shows the sun:

Voyager photo of Earth, Venus, and sun

The sun, Venus and Earth as seen from 4 billion miles away in a photo snapped by the Voyager 1 space probe. White tick marks show the planets’ locations. They are minute indeed! For more on the twin Voyager missions click here. Photo: NASA

The Earth may seem big to humans, but in the scale of the solar system, it's a speck which can hardly be seen, and we are even tinier specks on it. Our solar system is one of hundreds of billions of "specks" in the Milky way and even our galaxy is small in comparison to the universe. This video called "Cosmic Voyage" tries to put the scales in perspective but still it's hard to comprehend:

Cosmic Voyage


On the other hand if we have some alien neighbors nearby say 60 light years away, they might be receiving "I Love Lucy" TV episodes about now, transmitted by the "energy force" called "television" about 60 years ago. That's a fairly small sphere of influence given the universe is maybe 90 billion light years wide by now.

a reply to: Arbitrageur

I think the experimental results show conclusively that some sort of non-locality in some sort of "thing" is physically real and the most cognitively parsimonious explanation.

This means that quantum mechanics cannot be described fully as a local field theory with only local differential operators, unlike by contrast classical electromagnetism and classical acoustics & fluid mechanics, the canonical examples of local field theories.

I think the eventual resolution will be along the lines of the emerging results in 'holographic principles' and EP=EPR ideas, in that the entangled particles which appear somehow to communicate are in fact still 'touching' or close by in the underlying deep space (which will be utterly non-Euclidean and utterly non-intuitive) in some ways, and that the illusory appearance of classical 3+1 space as we know and experience it is a property of macroscopic decoherence, but which is nevertheless an extremely robust phenomenon in almost all cases.

My idea of a "dream resolution, Physics Anno 2100": somehow back to fully deterministic and understandable equations of motion in the deepest level, explaining apparent randomness as chaos, and entanglement and decoherence as phenomena related to the geometry of the underlying space and its interaction. Even better, explaining gravitation as a collective thermodynamic effect related to this interaction. Better still: Zefram Cochrane.

Though Bedlam would say he's already done it.

a reply to: Bedlam

I can't even figure out how that would work. The grant money doesn't go to your personal checking account, it goes to the university central office, and the grant administrators then pay it out according to some rules.

You can't give yourself a raise with it, you can only hire a grad student or postdoc and charge their salary to an account number. And they don't get any lump sum, they get a monthly paycheck at the rate set by the university as a whole. You don't even get a credit card for minor expenses.

originally posted by: stabstab
What is the deal with plasma and magnetized structures?

Plasma physics is exceedingly complicated, that's the deal.

a reply to: ErosA433Ok i'll chk out uni of alberta and glassgow, if indeed they are into classical gravity research. do you not know the case of walter gerlach? don't recall names of deans offhand , but uni of central florida, florida state uni, uni of south Carolina to name a few , jpl, los almos labs.

I think even podkletnov is kind of missing, even my Russian friends, say, that information is closed to the public.
a reply to: Arbitrageur

a reply to: Nochzwei

Walter Gerlach, yes discovered magnetic spin quantization, the rest of the information around him appears to be from rather dubious or i will call them, apocryphal sources which I will summarize as

"Dead man, did x y and z and I don't have to provide proof or evidence because, he is dead and it serves my confirmation bias. He isn't around to ask anymore, so i can attribute anything I want to him"

kind of deal... sure... probably did a bunch of research, the actual reality is likely a mix and match of what statements iv read about him before.

originally posted by: Arbitrageur

originally posted by: Bedlam
She didn't go missing, she misappropriated her grant money and vamoosed back home.

Sometimes I can't tell when you're joking. Did she really? And if so how did you find out about it?

(astounded look) Joking? Mois?

But yes. Yes, she did. The grant was for something very specific. She was supposed to use it to produce (1)one each nifty advanced plate of material with a certain characteristic, suitable for use in further experimentation. I've posted the RFQ here in the past, I could go dig it back up. BFFT might have the links handy somewhere, we discussed this not long after it happened.

Instead of doing so, she used the money to perform research on a related but separate project, and did nothing to actually fulfill the grant requirement. Basically, she seems to have decided to use the money on doing some basic research on [something], which was related to what they were trying to DO with the thing. Just before they were going to call for an accounting, she and one of her fellow researchers unassed the AO and were not seen for about a year.

I was picking up my masters in physics at UAH at the time, whilst doing full time engineering at Redstone/MSFC. So I heard the sad tale from both sides.

originally posted by: mbkennel
a reply to: Bedlam

I can't even figure out how that would work.

If I give you an 'arf million to build me a nice fiber optic laser, and you spend it on researching the nature of catastrophic fiber fusing instead, whilst submitting faked interim papers to show you WERE building a laser, but instead you use it to purchase sort of related-looking equipment and you take all the notes and data when you vanish, THAT'S misappropriation.

originally posted by: mbkennel

Magnetic fields are created by moving charges, and elementary particles with intrinsic magnetic properties.

Elementary particles with intrinsic magnetic properties, must ultimately reduce to 'charges', so that statement is redundant?

I am trying to express the absolute minimum types/groups of 'things' that are necessary to result in the reality of 'magnetic field'.

I say; Charge and Photon.

2 'fundamentally' different types of 'thing'.

'Photons' are a kind of quantum mechanical representation of the underlying wavefunction of the electromagnetic field.

This is where I have a problem; because I believe 'electromagnetic field' can be defined as purely 'photon', and I do not believe you have posed any statements which prove my thinking so invalid;

So your sentence reads;

Photons are a kind of quantum mechanical representation of the underlying wavefunction of the photons.

Now, if we want to say the EM field is not purely 'photons', I agree, it is equally necessary in existence and knowledge to state that the EM field is 'the ever dynamic spatially-temporal-energetic relationship between 'things charge' and 'things photon';

I ask my question again; what is the theory, in relation to the term 'EM field'; that posits EM field in reality, equals more than; The dynamic 4d energetic relationship between Charge and Photon.

What is the theory, as to what really exists, beyond Charge and Photon, that is contained in the term 'EM field'.

EM field = Relationship between Charge and Photon and __________? and ________? and ______?

Also, my question was in wondering about the nature of 2 standard bar magnets being brought closer together via the same pole; when thinking about the fundamentality of the physics of reality, so this example included, I do not believe it can be said that gravity plays absolutely no role;

I do not believe gravity acts upon my body and hands and the bar magnets within them, but then as I move the bar magnets same pole to same pole together, the force of gravity instantly ceases to exist. So I never claimed a particular value of how important gravity was, but just the honest statement, that it cannot be denied, that gravity, being a physical fact that exists, must play some role.

originally posted by: mbkennel
Though Bedlam would say he's already done it.

I assure you it wasn't ME. I don't even have a doctorate. I'm just a repairman.

originally posted by: Bedlam
Just before they were going to call for an accounting, she and one of her fellow researchers unassed the AO and were not seen for about a year.

Thanks. So she disappeared for a year, and then? She formed her gravity company AC Gravity, LLC on 1-23-2001? Apparently that company was awarded a grant but nothing was ever published and no more news?

It's surprising she could get another grant if she misappropriated the previous one unless I don't have the right time line.

originally posted by: Arbitrageur

originally posted by: Bedlam
Just before they were going to call for an accounting, she and one of her fellow researchers unassed the AO and were not seen for about a year.

Thanks. So she disappeared for a year, and then? She formed her gravity company AC Gravity, LLC on 1-23-2001? Apparently that company was awarded a grant but nothing was ever published and no more news?

It's surprising she could get another grant if she misappropriated the previous one unless I don't have the right time line.

AC Gravity was the company awarded the grant. The reason nothing was published was that Ning Li and friends took the data, and vamoosed.

No one knew where she went, provoking some ruminations that she'd actually hit the jackpot on effects and been sent to meet the elephant. In the end, though, she popped up with friends in another country, one whom we'd be happy not to be doing basic research in the field. As far as I know.

Here's the original funding abstract:

Technical objective of this effort including the technology areas in which the project was conducted:
Approximately 10 years ago Dr. Ning Li, then a research physicist at the University of Alabama in Huntsville, began working on a theoretical model of forces generated by type-II superconductors and the possibility of generating and controlling significant gravitational forces via this new theory. The basic idea of Dr Li’s is that a superconducting disk will produce a significant gravitational field if a certain type of magnetic field is externally applied. This Other Transaction will represent the first attempt to experimentally confirm some of the theoretical predictions of this theory. It is hoped that providing experimental confirmation of the theory to the scientific community will validate the theory and allow the securing of further funding to develop a practical application of this technology.

Extent to which the cooperative agreement or other transaction has contributed to a broadening of the Technology and industrial base available for meeting Department of Defense needs:
This Other Transaction will allow the principal researcher (Dr. Li) to attempt experimental confirmation of a theoretical model of forces generated by type II semiconductors and the possibility of generating and controlling significant gravitational forces via this new theory. If successful, the payoffs would be enormous. i.e., the ability to generate gravitational forces artificially would allow for new forms of propulsion, new ways of controlling missiles and gun-launched munitions, the lowering of weight of heavy vehicles (i.e., making a 70 ton tank appear to weight much less), and the potential of deflecting or countering the guidance systems of missiles which rely on inertial guidance (like theater or intercontinental ballistic missiles). If unsuccessful, this avenue can be eliminated from future efforts, and would put to rest the controversy surrounding these theories.

Extent to which the cooperative agreement or other transaction has fostered within the technology and industrial base new relationships and practices that support the national security of the USA:
The company AC Gravity Inc., owned by Dr. Li, is considered to be a non-traditional contractor in that this company has not previously had any Government contracts or assistance instruments, such as grants or cooperative agreements. The potential of the cutting edge technology that is hoped to result from the confirmation of the experiment being conducted under this effort is of primary interest to the Government. The use of an OT is viewed as an appropriate means of attracting this company in its initial endeavor to do business with the Government because it eases much of the “red tape” that AC Gravity and other contractors associate with doing Government business. The success of this experiment would be of enormous value to DOD weapons and weapon systems.

Basically, she got a OT grant from Redstone to produce a disk of type II superconductor for research in Podkletnov-style inertia reduction. Between you and me, there were specs on size, thickness and characteristics that she was supposed to also meet, and the 'characteristics' part was what was worth spending the 'arf million on. She stated that she and her friend who was the other half of ACG had the ability to make a superconducting disk with some interesting structural characteristics, not mentioned here, that was sure to make the demo a very interesting one. So it's not like she was out making a plate of jelly bean niobium-tin to do fun magnet demos at Grissom High.

"Other transaction" or "other funding" is a fun, creative way to lay out some bucks for projects "in the interest of national defense", basically it's like an SBIR with no bid or competition. You can get them up to $100k from a LTC or better, 500K takes a few of them working their funding magic in concert. I've seen Boeing get some major "OT" funding to magic up metamaterial coatings for range testing out at the Arsenal. In a way, it's sort of a way of funding "classified-lite" things that you don't want to pay for the onus of SCIFs and people with firearms. Or you want something done you don't want showing on the books for various reasons.

originally posted by: Bedlam
So it's not like she was out making a plate of jelly bean niobium-tin to do fun magnet demos at Grissom High.

Thanks for the details, that's an interesting way of putting it.

From what I recall her claim was more conservative than Podkletnovs, something like she observed a small effect but she couldn't rule out that it was experimental error or I think I read something like that somewhere. Reading about the experimental conditions for those experiments it seems like there are a lot more things to account for than in Nochzwei's alleged antigravity video, and I'm thinking of specifically anything dealing with superconductivity can have potential errors related to the the low temperature conditions required for superconductors to operate.

What bloody confirmation bias are you on about mate? Know ye not that, An engineer is seldom wrong
a reply to: ErosA433

What is the difference between Hyperdimensional Physics and Newtonian physics?

originally posted by: Nochzwei
What bloody confirmation bias are you on about mate?

This:

Know ye not that, An engineer is seldom wrong

a reply to: GetHyped

Wait. You mean engineers can mess up?