Ask any question you want about Physics

a reply to: ImaFungi
You already read the simplified QED explanation and called it bunk:

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". 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?

QED is the model we have for the interaction you're asking about and yes you read the explanation of how it uses virtual photons.

Of course it's a model, and even Richard Feynman who is credited with development of QED didn't seem convinced the model was a perfect representation of reality. This passage comes from "Selected papers of Richard Feynman" pdf page 21:

Eventually QED may be replaced by a finite theory, rather than the present divergent, though renormalizable, one. (QED is already incorporated in the unified electroweak theory, one of the two parts of the Standard Model.) Feynman himself never regarded renormalized QED as complete, frequently pointing out its limitations and suggesting that it was merely what we now call an "effective field theory."

So if you're only stating the model isn't perfect, apparently even the one of the creators of the model would probably agree with you. However, calling virtual photons "bunk" doesn't get us anywhere.

You're not just asking questions. You're asking questions, getting answers about the current state of our knowledge, and then dismissing the answers with no experimental proof about why the answers should be dismissed.

Here is a link to some Precision tests of QED so you can see what it is you're calling bunk, which by the way I've seen exactly zero evidence for your claims that QED is bunk.

what would keep one from accessing the component sources of an electron's mass?

a reply to: Arbitrageur

When a magnet with S pole facing down is placed over a magnet with S pole facing up, they repulse each other.

Lets imagine this occurring in a vacuum.

No atoms between them.

If we put two rocks over each other, rocks being full of electrons, the one on top will not be repulsed and stay hovering up.

It has been inferred and more or less figured and more or less proven that it must be due to the nature of how the electrons are orientated in magnets, compared to i.e. rocks, which allow/force them to interact with one another as separate objects, through a vacuum, without their bodies touching.

Give me a few sentences expressing your understanding, of what the electrons non trivially orientated in the magnets are doing in the vacuum, which allows the magnet on top to stay at some distance away from the magnet on bottom, in vacuum.

The electrons in the magnets are orientated in a non trivial manner.

The electrons in the magnets are moving.

What are the electrons in the magnets doing, to allow the electrons and nucleus which make up magnets, to collectively as the separate objects they are, interact with one another, outside of their bodies, that is, without their bodies touching?

And how does this interaction, of the orientation of moving electrons in magnets, which effect distances beyond their immediate molecular bodies, result in that interactions, being an interaction which keeps the bodies apart, continuously?

Check.

originally posted by: ImaFungi

originally posted by: joelr


An accelerating electron can. At a constant velocity it can't. A magnetic field is a classical field. What we were talking about was particle interactions which is mediated by virtual photons and is in the quantum realm of QED.

If an electron is moving, yet staying around a nucleus, it must be accelerating. Not necessary circular, but related to this "Uniform circular motion, that is constant speed along a circular path, is an example of a body experiencing acceleration resulting in velocity of a constant magnitude but change of direction. In this case, because the direction of the object's motion is constantly changing, being tangential to the circle, the object's linear velocity vector also changes, but its speed does not."

These two facts are true: (a) an electron which accelerates in classical electromagnetism emits radiation.
(b) An electron in an atom, in a stable state, does not emit radiation. These were understood in the early 1900's and the contradiction was recognized.

The resolution was quantum mechanics. Yes, an accelerating electron does emit radiation, but only when quantum-mechanical rules permit it to do so. To be very simple: you have to have some place for the electron to go and corresponding way the photon can be made and both have to be compatible with QM. If they are, then you get radiation and loss of energy from the electron.

Electrons in ground states of atoms are not permitted to do so by laws of quantum mechanics (in contrast to classical mechanics, where they would radiate and lose energy and eventually spiral into the nucleus), therefore they don't radiate.

originally posted by: ImaFungi

What are the electrons in the magnets doing, to allow the electrons and nucleus which make up magnets, to collectively as the separate objects they are, interact with one another, outside of their bodies, that is, without their bodies touching?

Electrons are being electrons. They make magnetic fields by virtue of their existence. Why? We don't know, but they seem to have been born this way in the big bang.

In a ferromagnet, they are lined up according to their internal spin, almost all in the same direction, in contrast to regular matter which has them in random orientations. So the externally visible field is enormously strengthened and reinforced.

And how does this interaction, of the orientation of moving electrons in magnets, which effect distances beyond their immediate molecular bodies, result in that interactions, being an interaction which keeps the bodies apart, continuously?

How? There's nothing to stop it. What keeps the gravity on between Earth and Sun?

originally posted by: mbkennel

These two facts are true: (a) an electron which accelerates in classical electromagnetism emits radiation.
(b) An electron in an atom, in a stable state, does not emit radiation. These were understood in the early 1900's and the contradiction was recognized.

The resolution was quantum mechanics. Yes, an accelerating electron does emit radiation, but only when quantum-mechanical rules permit it to do so. To be very simple: you have to have some place for the electron to go and corresponding way the photon can be made and both have to be compatible with QM. If they are, then you get radiation and loss of energy from the electron.

Electrons in ground states of atoms are not permitted to do so by laws of quantum mechanics (in contrast to classical mechanics, where they would radiate and lose energy and eventually spiral into the nucleus), therefore they don't radiate.

A body which changes direction is acceleration yes?

If an electron is moving about a nucleus, all the while staying in a relative proximity to the nucleus, it must be changing directions and therefore accelerating yes?

Can you please just tell me a sentence or more, as to why the electron changing directions away from a nucleus results in EM radiation, but an electron changing directions in proximity to a nucleus does not result in EM radiation.

originally posted by: ImaFungi

If an electron is moving, yet staying around a nucleus, it must be accelerating. Not necessary circular, but related to this "Uniform circular motion, that is constant speed along a circular path, is an example of a body experiencing acceleration resulting in velocity of a constant magnitude but change of direction. In this case, because the direction of the object's motion is constantly changing, being tangential to the circle, the object's linear velocity vector also changes, but its speed does not."

The classical model of an orbiting electron was thrown out in the 1920's. There is an electron cloud around the nucleus and probabilities of finding the electron at different spots. The rules are different from a classical orbit. There is Coulomb forces and the uncertainty principle keeping the electron from falling into the center where one would know it's exact position and momentum.
The irony is that you deny uncertainty as a fundamental feature of reality while being composed of things that rely on it to exist.

Indeterminism can only be faked, symbolically, via mind or mind like system. My mind can say; "I am going to eat a cookie because the moon just forced a snake to fly into a rainbow volcano which produced the gold letters that made me eat a cookie right now"...Completely illogical, unphysical, unreasonable, quanta, albeit symbolic, can truly force me to physically act. This is the only sense in which indeterminism can exist. Because I assume it is more likely that fundamental structure and substance of reality is not a mind which thinks in layers of symbols, and can think in ways which break the laws of physics, causally, I assume the concept of indeterminism is nonsense.

Chaos is another story, I dont comprehend too much about its full fundamental essence, but have thought a bit about it. As it is the polar opposite of order. If the most complete order could be imagined as all substance, packed together as densely as possible and no point of the substance would be moving at all; absolute chaos would be the absolute opposite of that. I would say that reality is substance interacting with itself in differing scales, in differing ways, in differing sections, with differing motions, with differing amounts of stability, with differing levels of chaos and order, regularity and not.

There are only probabilities to and of mind and mind like systems. Without mind and mind like systems, there is just conscious less substance obeying the causality of its interactions with the different parts of it its ultimate self.

I don't know what you are saying here at all. Reality is indeterminate because at the subatomic level one can never predict definite outcomes, only probabilities of outcomes.

Does virtual particle theory suggest that between two magnets being repulsed, there is a substance field which is being continuously and/or discretely altered via the electrons of the magnets collective movement? Or does it suggest that there is no substance field in between the magnets, but that the electrons collectively oriented and vibrating in the magnet are rubbing up against pure absolute nothing, and them rubbing up against pure absolute nothing creates 'photons' that come from nothing? And how does it explain that these photons that come from nothing, force the magnets to stay apart?

There is no "nothing" going on here at all. There is a EM field and an electron field and the virtual particles are part of each field. The fields cannot have a zero energy at any point because of uncertainty so there are constant fluctuations of virtual particles.

That is the quantum field theory approach, not the classical explanation. But greatly simplified.
The rules of what ends up being repulsed or attracted are really interesting and pretty complex but it all works out on paper and in experiment.

originally posted by: mbkennel

Electrons are being electrons. They make magnetic fields by virtue of their existence.

Do electrons make magnetic fields, or does the substance required to make magnetic field exist, and electron makes it into its local energetically quantitative and qualitative geometric way?

This aspect right here please we must focus on because this is what a lot of my efforts have been trying to clear up, so we need to be careful and patient here.

So you and I and infinitely powerful gods who have access to a pure reality which contains absolutely nothing in it in all directions etc. (which is impossible, but lets pretend its not). You take an electron, just exactly 1 electron, from our reality into the reality that is pure nothing. In the reality that is pure nothing, is your electron "creating"/"making" a magnetic field, surround it? Is the magnetic field a substantial aspect of the body of the electron? As if we had a peach, and we only referred to the pit as being an electron, but everywhere we brought the pit, the fruit which surrounds it would go with it? So is an electron a pit, with a fundamental, inherent, intrinsic, fruitful, substantial body that is undeniably attached and apart of it at all times in all realities?

Or, if we bring the electron into the reality of absolute nothing space; would there only be a pit, without anything surrounding it, no magnetic field. Which would suggest, that the magnetic field aspect of electrons in our reality, is a substantial quantity and quality, which exists entirely independent to the object electron. Now the term independent can be tricky, as eternally all substance is absolutely related to one another, as a part of 'all the quantity that exists, at all times'. There is a fundamental substance, energy, which is the underlying substance of reality eternally. It can be altered in all the ways it can be altered. Stable creations can be created from it which last for relative amounts of time. But the underlying root of all things that can be created, is of the same substance. So that is why it is difficult to say what is dependent and independent of what. If Electromagnetic field is purely what electrons and nothing is and does. Or if electromagnetic field is, what electrons, and this other substance are and do and interact with one another.

If we take an electron into our pure nothing space. And wiggle it around. Will photons fling off from it? You see, what I am asking is; is electromagnetic field and propagation, entirely the exact substance of electron, or is there something besides exactly what is electron, that is needed, to allow electromagnetic field and propagation to exist.

How? There's nothing to stop it. What keeps the gravity on between Earth and Sun?

I am asking the fundamental how, the mechanical how. I would suspect the existence of physical medium called the gravity field keeps the earth from stopping to follow the sun.

If you just have pure objects with defined bodies, surface areas. And then you have the data of reality. You would be forced to think the illogical and unreasonable action at a distance.

The solution to this via Einstein, in gravity, was that there must be a medium that facilitates the movement of bodies.

The same thing seemingly for field theories of Electromagnetism. There must be a medium which facilitates the movements of the bodies of magnetic objects, to cause them to interact at a distance. The interaction at a distance is an illusion, due to our not having the data via visual, of the energetic, substantial medium which exists between the bodies, which allows them to seemingly interact at a distance.

originally posted by: joelr








The classical model of an orbiting electron was thrown out in the 1920's. There is an electron cloud around the nucleus and probabilities of finding the electron at different spots. The rules are different from a classical orbit. There is Coulomb forces and the uncertainty principle keeping the electron from falling into the center where one would know it's exact position and momentum.
The irony is that you deny uncertainty as a fundamental feature of reality while being composed of things that rely on it to exist.

A body which changes direction is acceleration yes?

If an electron is moving about a nucleus (if it were not moving, there would be no 'probability of finding it in one location or another', all the while staying in a relative proximity to the nucleus, it must be changing directions and therefore accelerating yes?

Can you please just tell me a sentence or more, as to why the electron changing directions away from a nucleus results in EM radiation, but an electron changing directions in proximity to a nucleus does not result in EM radiation.

I suppose this all depends on the reality of the underlying fundamental fields of reality, because yes perhaps the trick is that, the frame rate of all particles in a reference frame are moving through time and space together, therefore the motion of the electron about the nucleus is being dampened in real time by other movements of fields and local particles, which do not result in EM radiation propagation. Pretty much the concept of mini black holes, or maybe where the idea of 'atoms are mostly empty space' comes into play. There is a lot of collective twisting and turning constantly at all levels of space. If something like this is thought to be the reason as to why an electron which admittedly must not be stationary around a nucleus, but also does not emit any radiation, then perhaps I could agree. It would have to be that in true space all electrons in a magnet are traveling a straight path at constant velocity, and collectively all the particles in the vicinity, and maybe even up to the spin of earth and the movement of earth, and the movement of solar system, and the movement of galaxy, equal at collective reference frame, which all though lots of rotating and revolving, equal in a true similar reference frame, a straight line of constant velocity, which smoothly echos down all the way to a magnet, which represents in its electron alignment the closest to the straight line arrangement of particles, and so it exhibits this clarity of power, which well... after we get through this conundrum, we still have to comprehend how what the electrons are doing in magnet A in body of magnet A effect across absolutely empty pure nothing space, the electrons in magnet B in body of magnet B which also are doing the same thing to effect magnet A.

I don't know what you are saying here at all. Reality is indeterminate because at the subatomic level one can never predict definite outcomes, only probabilities of outcomes.

I am saying, loud and clear!: Reality is indeterminate TO YOU!!!!!! Reality IS NOT indeterminate to itself.

If you dont understand, I can say it again, and it will still and always be true.

The only way reality can be indeterminate to itself, is if it is fake, if it is a computer program which uses symbols and code to bypass the real laws of physics. You know, like how we can create video games and dreams which by pass the law of physics by symbolically representing the real reality.

There is no "nothing" going on here at all. There is a EM field and an electron field and the virtual particles are part of each field. The fields cannot have a zero energy at any point because of uncertainty so there are constant fluctuations of virtual particles.

That is the quantum field theory approach, not the classical explanation. But greatly simplified.
The rules of what ends up being repulsed or attracted are really interesting and pretty complex but it all works out on paper and in experiment.

Ok you say there is an EM field and an electron field. Lets forget about the electrons and the electron field for a moment. Can you state in a sentence or so generally, how the EM field exists, what its existence is substantially composed of?

I've always wondered is it possible to use sound frequencies and/or the earths magnetism to make an aircraft lighter

Another question, i read that a small magnet in outer space would have the power to create a force field or shield around a space craft and block out most radiation. Is this theoretically possible ?

a reply to: ImaFungi

On a mostly unrelated subject, I have to give you a shout out for the 162 word sentence.
Back on topic.
Does your perfect empty plane of reality have any measurable quanta of inherent energy, of any sort?
Just spitballing here, but without anything else to influence it, I'd imagine that the electron would settle into the ground state and assume a temperature as close to absolute zero as possible.
But, if I understand the question correctly, if the electron was accelerated by, and I hate to use this term, some magical force, if all physical laws remain constant it would emit photons at a certain energy level.
And before it becomes a point of contention, I say a magical force because it would have to exist outside of any classical or quantum sense, and only to accelerate the electron.
Actually, your hypothetical electron experiment presents some further possibilities that are really rather fun to ponder. What would happen if the electron were accelerated to a high enough energy to emit x-ray photons? In theory, two high enough energy photons could collide and form an electron/positron pair. This would self-destruct, producing another photon pair. But if the pair still contained sufficient energy and the original electron was still emitting high-energy photons, the new pair could collide with an additional photon and create apositron and 2 electrons. You then have the chance of a cascade reaction resulting in an electron universe. Assuming that the magical accelerator continues acting on the original electron and all new ones created, indefinitely.
Just a weird train of thought your scenario brought to my mind. Anyhow, carry on.
Oh, and I would think that an electron in normal motion around an atom would not be emitting a field because of the charge being cancelled out by the protons in the atom.

originally posted by: rebellion7
I've always wondered is it possible to use sound frequencies and/or the earths magnetism to make an aircraft lighter

I never researched this so I'll take a stab with some educated guesses, but will gladly be corrected if someone has some actual research.

Near the Earth's poles the field lines come nearly straight out of the ground, so if you had ultra strong, ultra light magnets and only cared about flying near the pole I suppose in concept there might be a chance of some magnetic "lift", but weight is supremely important in aircraft so I think in reality you might find the magnetic effect of adding magnets typically would be smaller than the extra weight of the magnets. If you could develop very lightweight magnets it might have a chance, but I don't know of any that light and strong and besides, who wants to fly only near the poles?

Also the Earth's magnetic field is relatively weak so that's another main reason you wouldn't get much magnetic effect.

I've seen the experiments where sound levitated small objects but I don't see how you could use that on aircraft.

The ion-propelled aircraft makes for a good science fair project, but it doesn't seem very practical.

We know the leading edge of the B2 bomber wing is electrified, but we don't know if the reason is to reduce drag or to increase its stealth capability. Both reasons have been suggested as possible but the true reason remains classified. Reducing drag is almost as good as adding lift, if it actually does that.

originally posted by: rebellion7
Another question, i read that a small magnet in outer space would have the power to create a force field or shield around a space craft and block out most radiation. Is this theoretically possible ?

It's always been theoretically possible to block some of it, but whether it's economically feasible is another question which is a topic of research:

Magnetic shield could protect spacecraft

The idea of shielding spacecraft from harmful cosmic radiation using artificially-generated magnetic fields was once dismissed as unrealistically expensive. But new experiments carried out in the UK show that the technology could be made compact enough, and therefore cheap enough, to protect astronauts on flights to the Moon and Mars.

...even if the technology works it will not provide complete protection. For one thing, it could not shield astronauts against very high energy intergalactic cosmic rays.

Those cosmic rays are very difficult to stop, but such a shield might be helpful if the spaceship was hit with a CME (where the particles don't have as much energy as the more powerful cosmic rays), something we were gambling wouldn't happen on a short trip to the moon, but the odds of that happening go way up on a long trip to Mars.

originally posted by: pfishy
This would self-destruct, producing another photon pair. But if the pair still contained sufficient energy and the original electron was still emitting high-energy photons, the new pair could collide with an additional photon and create apositron and 2 electrons.

Ever hear of Charge conservation?

charge conservation is the principle that electric charge can neither be created nor destroyed. The net quantity of electric charge, the amount of positive charge minus the amount of negative charge in the universe, is always conserved.

a reply to: Arbitrageur

I'm well aware that the scenario is far from plausible. It was just an entertaining tangent.
But, if that 'magical' accelerator worked on all particles in the system evenly, and was producing photons in the extremely high x-ray/gamma range, could it not be possible for an electron-positron pair to be created?
Then again, the empty universe doesn't have the magnetic containment, specifically targeted lasers or the holraum necessary for the proposed experiment.
I sometimes think that the universe would be a bit more fun if it were governed by my grasp of QM.
Or, at least even more entertaining.

a reply to: pfishy
I didn't quote the part of your scenario where you said a positron and electron were created, since sure that can happen and it is consistent with charge conservation. I quoted the part which said: "positron and 2 electrons". That would violate charge conservation because it would be creating net negative charge out of photons which have no charge.

I would think that an electron in normal motion around an atom would not be emitting a field because of the charge being cancelled out by the protons in the atom.

The electron has up to two magnetic fields, one from "spin" and one from its angular momentum which result in the electron magnetic dipole moment, but we don't really understand exactly how either field is created in any classical sense because the motions aren't like classical spin and classical orbits. joelr touched on that a bit in his preceding reply.

We initially tried to apply "as above, so below" to electron orbits initially as joelr said, but it was a complete failure which quantum mechanics fixed.

It sounds like you were referring to the electric field which from a distance, is electrically neutral for say a hydrogen atom. However in close proximity, the electrons and protons charges of say two hydrogen atoms don't appear completely neutral to each other, which is how the H2 covalent bonds form from two separate hydrogen atoms.

a reply to: Arbitrageur

Ah, gotcha. The electron /positron imbalance makes sense. I misunderstood your first response.

Yes, I was referring to electric fields. Fungi had mentioned setting aside magnetics momentarily and just defining the reason a free electron creates a field and an 'orbiting' electron doesn't.
But, once again, my understanding is incomplete.

originally posted by: pfishy
Oh, and I would think that an electron in normal motion around an atom would not be emitting a field because of the charge being cancelled out by the protons in the atom.

It always emits a field. So do the protons. What you end up with is a dipole.

originally posted by: ImaFungi

originally posted by: mbkennel

Electrons are being electrons. They make magnetic fields by virtue of their existence.

Do electrons make magnetic fields, or does the substance required to make magnetic field exist, and electron makes it into its local energetically quantitative and qualitative geometric way?

Both. An electron has an intrinsic magnetic dipole, plus a charge. It's a two-fer. Textbooks tend to talk about elementary dipoles and elementary charges, but actually observed charged particles tend to have both simultaneously and they are not the same thing.

The dipole part of the electron (intrinsic spin) on its own makes a magnetic field. The charge, when moved (in classical physics) also makes a another magnetic field==-well technically there is only one magnetic field, so this effect adds to the magnetic field.

Both of these are modified appropriately with quantum mechanics and the same principle applies.

Electrons and other particles have 'spin', which in quantum mechanics is the name for its intrinsic angular momentum. If it were a classical macroscopic particle, you would get it from spinning, so in analogy this name is extended to the intrinsic angular momentum.

Charged particles, elementary and composite, often have magnetic fields created by spin. The ratio between the spin & the created magnetic dipole strength is called the gyromagnetic ratio. This number can be computed for electrons with QED from theory. For more complicated things like nuclei which are too hard to compute accurately, it is measured experimentally. This turns out to be technologically useful in NMR.

a reply to: mbkennel

You are not attempting to consider the nature of my questions.

a reply to: ImaFungi
We already told you:
1. QED model. If you don't think that model matches reality and perhaps it doesn't exactly:
2. We don't know.
Those are the best two answers we can give you I think.

The classical model works in many cases but it breaks down in certain situations where you need QED, but aside from those I'm not aware of other models that match observation.

If you're looking for more than what's above, I suggest asking in the Philosophy forum where I'm sure someone can make something up for you that will be unconfirmed in any experiment but is philosophically pleasing.

I posted a video in the OP like that, where the presenter denies quantum mechanics and says everything is really classical. Mainstream science doesn't happen to agree with him because his model doesn't match experiment, but if that's the answer you want then just watch the "Russ Blake Spring Theory" video. You'll love his denial of the uncertainty principle and virtually all of quantum mechanics, I think.