It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
originally posted by: moebius
a reply to: ImaFungi
The electric and magnetic field are components of the same thing, the electromagnetic field. You can change the amount of electric and magnetic field you see by changing your frame of reference. The values that don't depend on the frame of reference (invariants) are B^2 - E^2 and B * E.
The electromagnetic field is physical in the sense that it has a physical effect on physical objects (matter).
Given that a field is observed by its effect on matter, you could argue that there are no fields, but just matter interacting with matter. This makes the field is a mathematical concept describing the interaction. Which is a valid point of view imho. Not sure how useful it is though.
originally posted by: moebius
a reply to: ImaFungi
The electric and magnetic field are components of the same thing, the electromagnetic field. You can change the amount of electric and magnetic field you see by changing your frame of reference. The values that don't depend on the frame of reference (invariants) are B^2 - E^2 and B * E.
The electromagnetic field is physical in the sense that it has a physical effect on physical objects (matter).
Given that a field is observed by its effect on matter, you could argue that there are no fields, but just matter interacting with matter. This makes the field is a mathematical concept describing the interaction. Which is a valid point of view imho. Not sure how useful it is though.
originally posted by: joelr
originally posted by: KrzYma
I asked you for the details, not what "they say is true"
?
Why not just look up 3-Jet Event?
en.wikipedia.org...
In particle physics, a three-jet event is an event with many particles in final state that appear to be clustered in three jets. A single jet consists of particles that fly off in roughly the same direction.
...
Since jets are ordinarily produced when quarks hadronize, and quarks are produced only in pairs, an additional particle is required to explain events containing an odd number of jets.
In particle physics, hadronization (or hadronisation) is the process of the formation of hadrons out of quarks and gluons. This occurs after high-energy collisions in a particle collider in which free quarks or gluons are created.
The QCD (Quantum Chromodynamics) of the hadronization process are not yet fully understood, but are modeled and parameterized in a number of phenomenological studies, including the Lund string model and in various long-range QCD approximation schemes.
In particle physics, the Lund string model is a phenomenological model of hadronization.
A phenomenological model (sometimes referred to as a statistical model) is a mathematical expression that relates several different empirical observations of phenomena to each other, in a way which is consistent with fundamental theory, but is not directly derived from theory. In other words, a phenomenological model is not derived from first principles.
Basically as I understand, you imply that concept of distance can only be meaningful when third point of reference is introduced, right?
Also, I did not get the dimension thing but some sort of spin that we identify with plus and minus sounds right.
originally posted by: ImaFungi
How might the frequency of a single photon be measured? You have some kind of detector, and a single photon exists and is traveling towards you, what is the essential fundamental characteristic of mode and method of possible detection to determine the frequency of that photon?
You're mixing up virtual photons which aren't independently measured with real photons which are independently measured.
originally posted by: KrzYma
A photon is just a concept, not a real thing.
A photon is some construct made up to hide the unknowingness about particle interactions.
Physicist can't explain why two electrons repeal so they call "the force" an photon interaction.
They false concluding of what whey observe and have no idea why, just can measure how much, so they call it photon interaction.
An apple, what? Sorry, you lost me with the apple. Good would be learning the difference between photons and virtual photons, bad is mixing them up.
an apple is something, we know that, but what is good or bad ?
See where you went wrong? You were supposed to forget the word "particle", not the word "virtual". You forgot the word "virtual" and this adds to your confusion.
The best way to approach this concept, I believe, is to forget you ever saw the word “particle” in the term.
So there are real particles, and there are virtual particles, learn the difference please.
If something makes a real particle, that particle can go off on its own across space. If something makes a disturbance, that disturbance will die away, or break apart, once its cause is gone. So it’s not like a particle at all, and I wish we didn’t call it that.
For example, an electron is a real particle, a ripple in the electron field; you can hold one in your hand, so to speak; you can make a beam of them and send them across a room or inside an 20th century television set (a cathode-ray tube). A photon, too, is a real particle of light, a ripple in the electromagnetic field, and you can make a beam of photons (as in a laser.)
Imafungi will object to the "zero math is not enough" statement but it's true.
To really understand this you need a small amount of math, but zero math is unfortunately not enough. It is better, I think, for the layperson to understand that the electromagnetic field is disturbed in some way, ignore the term “virtual photons” which actually is more confusing than enlightening, and trust that a calculation has to be done to figure out how the disturbance produced by the two electrons leads to their being repelled from one another
If an equation can predict the results of future observations or experiments, that means something. Specifically it means that it's a tool which helps us understand the universe and to predict what will happen.
originally posted by: operayt
SO, if we in the matrix of this quantum mechanics matriarch. What makes one think that any equation is correct for the scheme of things ? IT is ALL just a theory. Maybe in some other reality 1 plus 1 equals 3. ALL mathematics is , is an equation to fit the place of existence where one is at , at the time.
originally posted by: KrzYma
a reply to: greenreflections
Basically as I understand, you imply that concept of distance can only be meaningful when third point of reference is introduced, right?
Also, I did not get the dimension thing but some sort of spin that we identify with plus and minus sounds right.
Distance is a concept, it is the measurement of something with something.
If the universe was just 2 points and nothing else, there would be no distance at all.
Even with 3 points it's still nothing. Points are infinitely !!
To describe a charge one need at least 3 points or I call dimensions.
So the point becomes not infinite. It gets value of charge
Now, when I talk about dimensions, I don't talk about coordinate systems we are taught.
Not something on a piece of paper like point is first dimension, line the second and cube the third... NO
First dimension is infinite. I will call it dA now.
Two dA makes the second dimension.. dB, and it can be "from infinite big to infinite small" or "infinite small to infinite big"
dBÝ or dBß, but this in still not the end.
The third dimension is needed for the charge to be present. dC¥
IF I would use a peace of paper to describe it, which is silly...
dA is the middle of the circle with radius dBÝ or radius dBß, charge is dC¥ the "clockwise" or "anticlockwise" , dBÝ and dBß is the spacial periphery of those and dC¥ the manifested charge.
dC¥ in relation to dBÝ or dBß is what we call the "charge", plus or minus.
but still... two charge "particles" still do not "know" where they are in relation to each other.
now... an universe with just 2 dC would be infinite big if both ¥ is the same or infinite small if ¥ is opposite.
In our universe there is of course infinite number of those dC and the relation between them is what makes electrons and protons.
Electron an proton can "combine" to what we call a neutron.
Regarding the electric field, +1 charge and -1 charge end up in 2 field density and 0 charge outside the interaction distance.
originally posted by: KrzYma
A photon is just a concept, not a real thing.
A photon is some construct made up to hide the unknowingness about particle interactions.
Physicist can't explain why two electrons repeal so they call "the force" an photon interaction.
They false concluding of what whey observe and have no idea why, just can measure how much, so they call it photon interaction.
photon is an mathematical "size" of "energy"
a construct in a theory and nothing real !!
an apple is something, we know that, but what is good or bad ?
Can you see what it is?
Some word to cover something they can't explain
originally posted by: ErosA433
a reply to: joelr
Could always use one of these beasts too en.wikipedia.org...
originally posted by: ImaFungi
And so I ask something like; before electrons move where is the light?
And then the word energy is invented and described, and then light is said to not be matter, not to be something that always exists, but energy, something that can be created, or transformed... to try to skirt my question;
And then it is said that light is an E field and an H field, oscillating; Do the E and H field exist in a not oscillating state at any planck length of the universe?
Or E and H field do not exist anywhere in the universe, unless an electron moves, then a real E and H field come into existence out of nowhere surrounding the electron that moved, and oscilate at a precise speed everytime, but varying frequency some how?
If the E and H field are real physical things, they must in some sense have rest mass or rest energy, and if they can exist without ocsilating, then that would be light at 0 frequency, and the universe might be full of that, real field... or not, because I am skeptical about saying the universe is full of any 'field.
originally posted by: KrzYma
originally posted by: joelr
originally posted by: KrzYma
I asked you for the details, not what "they say is true"
?
Why not just look up 3-Jet Event?
en.wikipedia.org...
In particle physics, a three-jet event is an event with many particles in final state that appear to be clustered in three jets. A single jet consists of particles that fly off in roughly the same direction.
...
Since jets are ordinarily produced when quarks hadronize, and quarks are produced only in pairs, an additional particle is required to explain events containing an odd number of jets.
when quarks hadronize,...
In particle physics, hadronization (or hadronisation) is the process of the formation of hadrons out of quarks and gluons. This occurs after high-energy collisions in a particle collider in which free quarks or gluons are created.
so... jets are ordinarily produced when quarks hadronize,
but hadronisation is just a theory or better said comes from the theory itself
what if something else is happening ??
using theory A to explain theory A is just ridiculous
especially that...
The QCD (Quantum Chromodynamics) of the hadronization process are not yet fully understood, but are modeled and parameterized in a number of phenomenological studies, including the Lund string model and in various long-range QCD approximation schemes.
Lund string model...
In particle physics, the Lund string model is a phenomenological model of hadronization.
phenomenological model !
A phenomenological model (sometimes referred to as a statistical model) is a mathematical expression that relates several different empirical observations of phenomena to each other, in a way which is consistent with fundamental theory, but is not directly derived from theory. In other words, a phenomenological model is not derived from first principles.
this fundamental theory is particle physics.
A first principle is a basic, foundational proposition or assumption that cannot be deduced from any other proposition or assumption.
In other words, this theory is using itself to explain itself.
Circular theory based on assumptions, corrections and SHUT UP YOU KNOW NOTHING treatment of opponents !!!
originally posted by: Arbitrageur
So there are real particles, and there are virtual particles, learn the difference please.
If something makes a real particle, that particle can go off on its own across space. If something makes a disturbance, that disturbance will die away, or break apart, once its cause is gone. So it’s not like a particle at all, and I wish we didn’t call it that.
For example, an electron is a real particle, a ripple in the electron field; you can hold one in your hand, so to speak; you can make a beam of them and send them across a room or inside an 20th century television set (a cathode-ray tube). A photon, too, is a real particle of light, a ripple in the electromagnetic field, and you can make a beam of photons (as in a laser.)
One of the objections Eros noted regarding the MOND modified gravity approach to dark matter is that it seemed to vary by "place of existence", so you look at one galaxy and need one set of parameters and look at another galaxy and need another set of parameters, which makes the idea seem not universally applicable without location specific "fudge factors". Since many other observations suggest the laws of physics we observe here seem to apply elsewhere in the universe, we prefer explanations which are consistent with these observations, so that solutions which apply at one place should apply in another place if the laws of physics in our universe are the same everywhere.
originally posted by: dragonridr
a reply to: joelr
Easiest way to explain fieldsome is they are properties of objects. You can detect them with sensors or for that matter your eyes since we can see EM radiation. Fields are not stuff they exist in mathematics as know properties of particles. We could get into why these particles have these properties by discussing things like Higgs boson. But trying to figure out what fields are is useless since it's nothing more than energy at a particular point in space at a particular time. Fields will fluctuate with velocity even temprature. What causes this energy.
Here is an example of a field most people wouldn't consider we have a wind current. I can map out speed and direction of the wind at different altitudes and positions on the earth. This is a field in its simplest form. Mapping temprature in a room again a field I can pick points in the room and show how the further I get from the fireplace the less heat there is. Point is temprature is a thing when mapped in a field it it's a physical description of a property of thermal dynamics.
Fields exist to describe interactions in detail we could have called them anything but what they tell is is the amount of energy between two objects and what will happen as a result of that.
Yes of course we know the Earth orbits the sun at over 100,000 kph.
originally posted by: ImaFungi
Semi related question;
Has all human light experimentation and detection been while relatively moving?
Refer to the famous Michelson–Morley experiment and subsequent more accurate similar experiments.
If yes, how can it be known the energetic/speed of light detected, is not in part related to this relative motion?
Although it would be possible, in theory, for the Earth's motion to match that of the aether at one moment in time, it was not possible for the Earth to remain at rest with respect to the aether at all times, because of the variation in both the direction and the speed of the motion. At any given point on the Earth's surface, the magnitude and direction of the wind would vary with time of day and season. By analyzing the return speed of light in different directions at various different times, it was thought to be possible to measure the motion of the Earth relative to the aether.
originally posted by: Arbitrageur
Yes of course we know the Earth orbits the sun at over 100,000 kph.
originally posted by: ImaFungi
Semi related question;
Has all human light experimentation and detection been while relatively moving?
Refer to the famous Michelson–Morley experiment and subsequent more accurate similar experiments.
If yes, how can it be known the energetic/speed of light detected, is not in part related to this relative motion?
Although it would be possible, in theory, for the Earth's motion to match that of the aether at one moment in time, it was not possible for the Earth to remain at rest with respect to the aether at all times, because of the variation in both the direction and the speed of the motion. At any given point on the Earth's surface, the magnitude and direction of the wind would vary with time of day and season. By analyzing the return speed of light in different directions at various different times, it was thought to be possible to measure the motion of the Earth relative to the aether.