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.

 

Ask any question you want about Physics

page: 88
74
<< 85  86  87    89  90  91 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 26 2015 @ 07:06 PM
link   

originally posted by: mbkennel
a reply to: Arbitrageur

Ah, so it's a paradox if one incorrectly considers the visual model of 'lines of flux" as being too close to the physical model, imagining that the "lines of flux" are physically attached like invisible mechanical objects to the ferromagnet, when they aren't. The lines are visual aids and representations of the vector field. And if the magnetic field is static in time in the frame of the detection coil, then there's no EMF.

My conception doesn't require particle physics though, just Maxwellian electromagnetism which can handle continuum dipole source terms.


Exactly remember he didn't understand magnetic field lines he assumed them to be connect. He didn't realize they weren't lines at all just showed the varying densities of the field.




posted on Mar, 26 2015 @ 07:30 PM
link   

originally posted by: mbkennel

The lines are visual aids and representations of the vector field.


What is the term used to call the substance of which the vector field is made of? What is the average energy density of the vector field at every point in space?



posted on Mar, 26 2015 @ 07:48 PM
link   

originally posted by: ImaFungi

originally posted by: mbkennel

The lines are visual aids and representations of the vector field.


What is the term used to call the substance of which the vector field is made of? What is the average energy density of the vector field at every point in space?


Ok your confused and your not getting it. so let's try this a bit diffrent fields are points In space nothing more. Energy in this point can either be caused by bosons ie matter or photons. The fluctuations in this energy is our field. So the simple answer is a field is potential energy. But you need to do something with it in other words at work to use it.

I'll try to explain it this way using our two magnets there is no energy exchange between our two magnets at all. No different than me sitting an apple on a table no work is being done. Even if we try to push our magnets together no work is being done. Well other than heat as you break into a sweat. Just like particles attracting or repeling fields have a positive and negative value. Both positive or both negative they refuse to overlap and sit on one another. There is no stuff everywhere unless you want to say energy. Energy is everywhere at all points in space. Problem is it fluctuates between positive and negative. Meaning when we average the two we get zero. In other words nothing is there. But add a magnet to space and suddenly we change how the energy at a point in space reacts. Does that make sense??



posted on Mar, 26 2015 @ 09:20 PM
link   
a reply to: dragonridr

No, I am not confused, just asking meaningful questions, you are confused.

"fields are points In space nothing more"

"Energy in this point can either be caused by bosons ie matter or photons"

Ok, whether or not there is substance or nothing at every point in space, we can make believe that there that like a 3d ruler of measurement, is composed of units, and we can call the units points, and you can say fields are these points, and you are not really saying anything. There are only ever two options, and only one of the options actually exists; the two options are; something, or nothing. Everything exists. Energy exists and cannot be created or destroyed, energy is a result of somethingness existing, energy is a result of substance existing. You cant have movement without substance to be moving, perhaps you cant have substance without movement, but movement, motion is secondary. The concept of motion is only relevant after it is comprehended that substance exists. Now you can either define energy strictly as motion itself. Or you can arbitrarily define energy as the most subtle form of substance we know of, which would be light. Light is substance, light is somethingness, light is not nothing.

Energy cannot come from nothing. Energy cannot be created from nothing.

In order for substance to exist, for substance to move in a way, and for that substance and its movement to result in the creation of other substance called Em radiation, there must be substance in between. It is not that there is substance, and nothing, and if you move the substance against the nothing, that this will produce an infinte amount of substance propagating away. That is bad thinking. You think this, you are bad, you are a bad thinker.

If there is substance A, an electron. And we move the electron, and substance B, light, propagates away from substance A, and substance B is fundamentally different from substance A, meaning that substance B does not come directly and only from the existence of substance A, substance A is not coming apart from substance A and becoming substance B, right? An electron does not leak EM radiation out of its body right? So one must conclude, that there is a substance every where that an electron can go, so that when an electron is moved, the substance the electron is coupled to, is also moved, the moving of which is detected and termed EM radiation.



posted on Mar, 26 2015 @ 09:52 PM
link   
a reply to: ImaFungi

Energy doesn't exist in a potential form. can't see it taste it or smell it. The only thing you can do is calculate it.



posted on Mar, 26 2015 @ 10:43 PM
link   

originally posted by: RoScoLaz4
how long is a piece of string?
If you mean the string in string theory, probably smaller than you can imagine, but if you can click your mouse 17 times, click on this shockwave flash visualization link to help you try. It's so much smaller than anything we know of, they don't even know what to put in the size descriptions below the size of quarks. That link came from this site:

A Sense of Scale: String Theory

If that's not what you mean, then I don't understand how the question is about physics.


originally posted by: mbkennel
My conception doesn't require particle physics though, just Maxwellian electromagnetism which can handle continuum dipole source terms.
Correct. Like many problems, there is more than one way to solve it and while a particle description can solve it, it's not required.


originally posted by: ImaFungi
Can you give me a starter description on virtual photons
See the first two answers in this "frequently asked questions" about virtual particles. It's a decent starter description which talks about virtual photons as they relate to magnetic fields.


1. What are virtual particles?
2. How can they be responsible for attractive forces?



edit on 26-3-2015 by Arbitrageur because: clarification



posted on Mar, 27 2015 @ 01:52 AM
link   
a reply to: Arbitrageur

"An electromagnetic field wiggles in the same way when it possesses waves."

Hm, this means prior to the existence of wiggle, the electromagnetic field must exist...in order to wiggle...hmmm....hmmmmmmmmmm.

" Forces don't happen because of any sort of action at a distance, they happen because of virtual particles that spew out of things and hit other things, knocking them around. However, this is misleading. Virtual particles are really not just like classical bullets."

Virtual particles spew out of things.....hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm


"A virtual particle with momentum p corresponds to a plane wave filling all of space, with no definite position at all. It doesn't matter which way the momentum points; that just determines how the wavefronts are oriented. Since the wave is everywhere, the photon can be created by one particle and absorbed by the other, no matter where they are. If the momentum transferred by the wave points in the direction from the receiving particle to the emitting one, the effect is that of an attractive force."

That is absolute cheap BS. Garbage. False. Fail.

"Some descriptions of this phenomenon instead say that the energy of the system becomes uncertain for a short period of time, that energy is somehow "borrowed" for a brief interval. This is just another way of talking about the same mathematics. However, it obscures the fact that all this talk of virtual states is just an approximation to quantum mechanics, in which energy is conserved at all times. The way I've described it also corresponds to the usual way of talking about Feynman diagrams, in which energy is conserved, but virtual particles can carry amounts of energy not normally allowed by the laws of motion."

hmmmm

Virtual photon theory, like uncertainty theory is bunk, and not knowledge, it is pure approximation tools. It is the theory of "we dont know, but these tricks help us make tools". It is not the rigorous obsession with comprehending reality exactly as it is.

We are ignoring all the good questions I was asking.

A magnet is hovering repulsed over another magnet. What is occurring between them? Your answer is virtual photons are occurring between them? How does you saying "in certain situations which happens to be in the situation in which we dont know what and how what some people want to know what and how occurs, electrons interact with nothing, to create not normal photons, which have the special power to become a pseudo solid material so that the hovering magnet is not forced to touch the other one".

We know that this would occur in a vacuum too, so its not that it is doing something to the air. The thing that makes a magnet different than other materials, is the fact that atomically, the electrons are all aligned in a very ordered state. This is the obvious indication even though the ultimate source of the insight is that the electron itself is a dipole, which is the extra indication that it is the intrinsic way in which an electron exists and interacts with the immediately surrounding space which produces the nature of what dipole means, so many dipoles aligned, exaggerate the effect of dipole. So we must assume that it has something to do with the real nature of the electrons movement, if not a true axis rotation spin of the electron, then the exact aesthetic of electron orbital, aligned with all others, creates when looking down, a certain geometry, and when looking up at this, creates a different certain geometry, ala, S and N.



posted on Mar, 27 2015 @ 02:23 AM
link   

originally posted by: ImaFungi
Virtual photon theory, like uncertainty theory is bunk, and not knowledge, it is pure approximation tools. It is the theory of "we dont know, but these tricks help us make tools".
Approximation?

van.physics.illinois.edu...

The combination of special relativity and quantum mechanics allows calculations of things that can be measured. For example, it gives a prediction for the electron gyromagnetic ratio. Experimentally, the value is 2.00231930462, with a little uncertainty in the last decimal place. "The QED prediction agrees with the experimentally measured value to more than 10 significant figures..." en.wikipedia.org...

What value does your model give?
Accuracy to 10 significant figures is not what I'd refer to as an approximation. Do you have a better model? What value does it predict?

I'm open to a better model if you or anybody else has one they can demonstrate is a more accurate model. This is how science works.
edit on 27-3-2015 by Arbitrageur because: clarification



posted on Mar, 27 2015 @ 08:31 AM
link   
What is smaller than a Planck length?



posted on Mar, 27 2015 @ 08:49 AM
link   
a reply to: Topato
It's impossible to measure anything smaller than a Planck length so it's hard to say, and it's probably impossible to measure the size of a black hole's mass from outside the event horizon, but according to general relativity the black hole is a singularity meaning a point. If that's an accurate prediction, a black hole's mass would have dimensions smaller than a Planck length, if you don't count the event horizon. However many consider that prediction to indicate a breakdown of the theory of relativity since it results in infinite density and physicists usually don't like such things. There could be a more accurate quantum description of a black hole but until we have that it's hard to say if it would still be smaller than a Planck length and even if it is, I don't see how it could be verified.


edit on 27-3-2015 by Arbitrageur because: clarification



posted on Mar, 27 2015 @ 03:23 PM
link   
a reply to: Arbitrageur

It is a tool. Not knowledge of how reality exists.

The concept of virtual photon is bunk.

Either something exists or it does not. That which exists, must be the result of that which exists. Something cannot come from nothing. Photons arent created from nothing. There must exist something, which is effected, which creates photons. Electron and absolute nothing space, cannot create photons. Electron rubbing up against nothing, does not create photons. Electrons must be wiggling something, to create photons. Calling the something which electrons must wiggle against to create photons, virtual photon space, is bunk, it implies that something does not exist. It is a trick yourself, to get around the fact that a medium of energy must physically exist, and be coupled to the electron. It is a trick, to save yourself, from the devastating fact that it may be impossible to comprehend and know what the underlying physical energy medium that is coupled to electrons, is. Electron moves, away from the electron photon is detected. The photon does not come from the body of the electron. The photon comes from beyond the body of the electron. The electron does not interact with absolute nothing to create the photon. The photon is not motion itself. The photon is something. The photon must come from something. The energetic essence of the photon must exist as an energetic essence prior to the detection of the photon.



posted on Mar, 27 2015 @ 03:58 PM
link   

originally posted by: ImaFungi
a reply to: Arbitrageur

It is a tool. Not knowledge of how reality exists.
And your different perception of how reality exists is based on what experimental evidence, exactly?


The concept of virtual photon is bunk.

...virtual photon space, is bunk, it implies that something does not exist.
QED uses virtual photons to explain magnetism, so it's implying the existence of virtual photons. Why do you say "it implies that something does not exist?". Are you talking about luminiferous aether? Have you even studied QED enough to understand it much less dismiss it, and have you looked at the experiments that led to its development?

If you want to convince scientists to give up their virtual photon model, you've got to come up with a better model they can use, backed up with experimental evidence showing why it's better. If you tell them you want them to stop using that model because it doesn't fit your intuition but you have no experiments to back up your assertions, you can't expect to be taken seriously.

I'm not saying you are right, but let's assume for a moment you are right that the virtual photon model is incorrect. The scientific method applies to this idea as much as anything else, so you need to use the tools of science to perform experiments, make observations, and use those to demonstrate how your model is better than the current QED model. If you can't back them up with evidence, your assertions about what's right and wrong have little value.

No good scientist claims to have all the answers and as Feynman put it, even when we discover something new we are merely expanding our frontiers of ignorance, but there's still a lot we don't know. so go ahead and add to mankind's knowledge if you can, but you won't do it with unfounded proclamations outside the scientific method. Use the scientific method to support what you claim like all other scientists are required to do.



posted on Mar, 27 2015 @ 06:53 PM
link   
What would you be if you were attached to another object by an incline plane wrapped helically around an axis?



posted on Mar, 27 2015 @ 07:36 PM
link   

originally posted by: coomba98
What would you be if you were attached to another object by an incline plane wrapped helically around an axis?


bolted



posted on Mar, 27 2015 @ 10:35 PM
link   
a reply to: Arbitrageur

Look at my last reply to you. And then look at what you choose to quote of it.

Virtual photon theory is saying that, Electrons interact with absolutely nothing to create photons.

They are called virtual photons and not real photons, because it is assumed the reason a magnet can be repulsed by another magnet has to do with the electro magnetic nature of electrons. Because they shot themselves in the foot by assigning photon the mass value of 0, they cannot say that in between two magnets being repulsed are real photons, well...actually I dont know...why exactly....why can it not be said that in between two magnets being repulsed are real photons, and the reason magnets are repulsed is because the real photons that are ahhhhhhh, because photons cant interact with photons. Well, why can it not be that the electrons of the top magnet are creating photons, and the electrons of the bottom magnet are creating photons, and the photons pass each other and hit the opposing electrons? So like if you and I had very powerful water guns like a million of them in each hand and we aims our water guns at each other and the water passed through and hit us and kept us apart. The reason for field/aether theory, is because it is not like the electron has a storage of photons inside of itself, like we wouldnt have a storage of water inside our self to use in the water guns/hoses, field/aether theory suggests that the movement of the electron creates waves in the medium, so now this thought experiment instead of water guns we can think of fans, taking our hands, we move the air, we make waves in the air, and if you could wave the air in front of you hard enough and I was doing that too, we can imagine the waves we were creating would propagate away from ourselves and hit each other. Now if we alter the motion of our hands, we can get waves to come towards us, this is how magnets attract.



posted on Mar, 27 2015 @ 11:37 PM
link   
a reply to: ImaFungi

Well in QED photons are a force carrier you can call them whatever you like. But the reality is we know photons can be created. Because no matter how you do the math we need something to transfer energy. But you can call it whatever you like physics prefer virtual photons because it has the same properties as photons but you could call it Zaphods if you like. The point is we know energy is transfered and for that to happen it must be on some kind of packets. To say they don't exist is silly since we can see the energy they have and calculate it.



posted on Mar, 27 2015 @ 11:50 PM
link   
a reply to: ImaFungi



First, photons are made from energy. All the energy in the Universe that came from the big bang is still here and shifts into it's many forms. At the subatomic level there is sometimes leftover energy from a process, like an electron switching levels, which uses some energy in the momentum and leaves some energy that turns into a photon.

Space-time is a field of probabilities so when energy is around one of the probabilities can be realized. The probabilities are that any of the particles could exist. The probability field exists but is not made of anything physical that we can speak about.

Photons are shot one at a time in the double-slit exp. But still they do not exist as a particle until measured as a particle. It is a wave when measured as a wave. Otherwise they are neither. It is a quantum object which does not obey the strict rules classical objects do.

Also, acceleration is not relative. It is frame invariant and there is no coordinate system it is relative to.
But there is a coordinate acceleration that can be relative so the two are often confused.



posted on Mar, 28 2015 @ 12:28 AM
link   

originally posted by: ImaFungi
a reply to: Arbitrageur

Look at my last reply to you. And then look at what you choose to quote of it.

Virtual photon theory is saying that, Electrons interact with absolutely nothing to create photons.

They are called virtual photons and not real photons, because it is assumed the reason a magnet can be repulsed by another magnet has to do with the electro magnetic nature of electrons. Because they shot themselves in the foot by assigning photon the mass value of 0, they cannot say that in between two magnets being repulsed are real photons, well...actually I dont know...why exactly....why can it not be said that in between two magnets being repulsed are real photons, and the reason magnets are repulsed is because the real photons that are ahhhhhhh, because photons cant interact with photons. Well, why can it not be that the electrons of the top magnet are creating photons, and the electrons of the bottom magnet are creating photons, and the photons pass each other and hit the opposing electrons? So like if you and I had very powerful water guns like a million of them in each hand and we aims our water guns at each other and the water passed through and hit us and kept us apart. The reason for field/aether theory, is because it is not like the electron has a storage of photons inside of itself, like we wouldnt have a storage of water inside our self to use in the water guns/hoses, field/aether theory suggests that the movement of the electron creates waves in the medium, so now this thought experiment instead of water guns we can think of fans, taking our hands, we move the air, we make waves in the air, and if you could wave the air in front of you hard enough and I was doing that too, we can imagine the waves we were creating would propagate away from ourselves and hit each other. Now if we alter the motion of our hands, we can get waves to come towards us, this is how magnets attract.



No no no. It doesn't work at all with "real" photons, there is energy conservation and all sorts of problems with saying the electrons are emitting photons there.
First you would need to understand perturbation theory and the states that energies are allowed to have while traveling from one place to another. The middle stages allow for strange rule-breaking "virtual" states. PT was used in creating quantum electrodynamics.
Because of this plus TWO versions of the uncertainty principle (time/space and position/momentum) the virtual particle model works. QED works to a degree more accurate than any other theory created by man, ever.
Only Q chromodynamics comes close.

Why don't you just read up on QED and then formulate some questions? No one is going to "logic" through a theory accurate to 1 part in a trillion!?



posted on Mar, 28 2015 @ 12:31 AM
link   

originally posted by: joelr
a reply to: ImaFungi



First, photons are made from energy.


Did I say they werent? Define energy.




All the energy in the Universe that came from the big bang is still here and shifts into it's many forms.


All the energy in/of the universe existed before the big bang. Energy cannot be created or destroyed, an exact finite quantity of energy has always existed and always will.




At the subatomic level there is sometimes leftover energy from a process, like an electron switching levels, which uses some energy in the momentum and leaves some energy that turns into a photon.


I will wait till you define 'energy' before responding to this.



Space-time is a field of probabilities so when energy is around one of the probabilities can be realized. The probabilities are that any of the particles could exist. The probability field exists but is not made of anything physical that we can speak about.


Depends how you define 'physical'. My definition of physical is 'that which is not pure nothingness'. The only purely abstract but real quality is movement, and the purely empty distance between substance.




Also, acceleration is not relative. It is frame invariant and there is no coordinate system it is relative to.
But there is a coordinate acceleration that can be relative so the two are often confused.



I never said it was relative, but to an observer measuring it can be. Objectively to the ultimate truthful reference frame there is no relativity, only pure truth, objects that are in exact positions with exact momentum at all times. To observers moving every which way depending on interpreting collective light in space and time, theres a whole lot of relativity to consider.



posted on Mar, 28 2015 @ 12:34 AM
link   

originally posted by: joelr


No no no. It doesn't work at all with "real" photons, there is energy conservation and all sorts of problems with saying the electrons are emitting photons there.


Are the electrons in magnets stationary? No? Well then they are 'emitting' photons.



First you would need to understand perturbation theory and the states that energies are allowed to have while traveling from one place to another. The middle stages allow for strange rule-breaking "virtual" states. PT was used in creating quantum electrodynamics.
Because of this plus TWO versions of the uncertainty principle (time/space and position/momentum) the virtual particle model works. QED works to a degree more accurate than any other theory created by man, ever.
Only Q chromodynamics comes close.


I dont doubt that the model works. I doubt that the model and those who understand the model, understand reality as it exists in an of itself. The model is a tool, an application, to play with reality, it is not attempting to fundamentally comprehend reality, partly because so far we cant. Uncertainty principle and virtual photons are models that both say "we cant know vital information about reality but if we consider all possibilities and approximate it is useful".



new topics




 
74
<< 85  86  87    89  90  91 >>

log in

join