Opposing Mainstream Physics - Swan001 (opposition) vs ATS

Originally posted by ImaFungi

Originally posted by moebius
reply to post by ImaFungi

 

Magnetism has been very well understood for some time already. It can be derived as a relativistic effect of the electric field. Means whether there is a magnetic field or not will depend on your frame of reference. The same effect has been predicted for gravity btw called gravitomagnetism.

What is the electric field made of?

Why exactly does it have to be made of something? Like, seriously?

reply to post by swan001


Yikes physics, don't mess with physics! Don't prove it wrong! It is the most bizarre, fasinating of all the sciences. It is the foundation of sci-fi, and "what ifs" It is magic in a text books. You will absolutely take all the fun out of it for me. Ummm...if you do prove it wrong, can you at least not tell anyone...PLEASE!

Originally posted by StarsInDust
reply to post by swan001

 

Yikes physics, don't mess with physics! Don't prove it wrong! It is the most bizarre, fasinating of all the sciences. It is the foundation of sci-fi, and "what ifs" It is magic in a text books. You will absolutely take all the fun out of it for me. Ummm...if you do prove it wrong, can you at least not tell anyone...PLEASE!

a) physics is indeed bizarre and fascinating, you got this right
b) you can't really prove physics wrong, because it's never right, according to itself. It evolves.

Originally posted by buddhasystem

Originally posted by ImaFungi

Originally posted by moebius
reply to post by ImaFungi

 

Magnetism has been very well understood for some time already. It can be derived as a relativistic effect of the electric field. Means whether there is a magnetic field or not will depend on your frame of reference. The same effect has been predicted for gravity btw called gravitomagnetism.

What is the electric field made of?

Why exactly does it have to be made of something? Like, seriously?

What exists that is not made of anything?

Originally posted by ImaFungi

Originally posted by buddhasystem

Originally posted by ImaFungi

Originally posted by moebius
reply to post by ImaFungi

 

Magnetism has been very well understood for some time already. It can be derived as a relativistic effect of the electric field. Means whether there is a magnetic field or not will depend on your frame of reference. The same effect has been predicted for gravity btw called gravitomagnetism.

What is the electric field made of?

Why exactly does it have to be made of something? Like, seriously?

What exists that is not made of anything?

A lot of stuff. As far as we know, the electron is not "made" out of any material.

It's about time you gave up the habit of trying to find mechanistic and simplistic descriptions for everything that exists.

reply to post by ImaFungi

Strictly speaking a field is a mathematical construct with a set of properties. The electric field is a specific variant of a field, that matches the observed effects of the natural phenomenon called Electromagnetism.

If you want a more complete variant you have to go for the quantized em-field model, which explains some more phenomena.

Not very helpful, eh?

I think your issue is more a philosophical/metaphysical one. Can we describe/understand something from within?

Originally posted by buddhasystem

Originally posted by ImaFungi

Originally posted by buddhasystem

Originally posted by ImaFungi

Originally posted by moebius
reply to post by ImaFungi

 

Magnetism has been very well understood for some time already. It can be derived as a relativistic effect of the electric field. Means whether there is a magnetic field or not will depend on your frame of reference. The same effect has been predicted for gravity btw called gravitomagnetism.

What is the electric field made of?

Why exactly does it have to be made of something? Like, seriously?

What exists that is not made of anything?

A lot of stuff. As far as we know, the electron is not "made" out of any material.

It's about time you gave up the habit of trying to find mechanistic and simplistic descriptions for everything that exists.

The electron is itself however. The electron is made of electron, if the electron exists. The electron is something. Is the field made of electron? Is the field made of electromagnetic radiation? Is the field made of something? does the field exist?

Originally posted by moebius
reply to post by ImaFungi

 

Strictly speaking a field is a mathematical construct with a set of properties. The electric field is a specific variant of a field, that matches the observed effects of the natural phenomenon called Electromagnetism.

If you want a more complete variant you have to go for the quantized em-field model, which explains some more phenomena.

Not very helpful, eh?

I think your issue is more a philosophical/metaphysical one. Can we describe/understand something from within?

edit on 18-3-2013 by moebius because: spelling fix

Its not a philosophical/metaphysical one (it is, but not entirely). The idea and purpose of physics is to describe that which exists. That which exists is material and physical, as bizarre as some of it is, with its energyness. Well we have been trying for thousands of years, why give up now, and yes I think we have described a lot of things from within wonderfully. The field has to correlate to some physical existence in reality, the model of the field may be useful for predictions and thats great, i am not knocking that at all, please, teach it, learn it, use it, but I am curious as to the truest nature of what is going on, and in order to get any steps closer towards knowing, I need to ask a physicist, what a field is made of.

Originally posted by ImaFungi
The electron is itself however. The electron is made of electron, if the electron exists.

I'm sorry, but I doubt you'd find this "explanation" satisfactory yourself, if you asked me what the electron is made of. Beef stew is made of beef stew, and the can of paint sitting of my garage is made, well, of can of paint. Pretty idiotic, don't you think?

The electron is something. Is the field made of electron? Is the field made of electromagnetic radiation? Is the field made of something? does the field exist?

a) try to imagine a world where EM field does not exist. Does it check out?
b) why on Earth does the field need to be "made of electron"? Really? Does it have to be made of plum pudding? Or my traffic ticket? Or pesticides?
c) why, instead of doing problems in physics and learning this way, you keep firing off volleys of questions which seem sillier and sillier at every turn?

Get a grip.

Originally posted by buddhasystem

I'm sorry, but I doubt you'd find this "explanation" satisfactory yourself, if you asked me what the electron is made of. Beef stew is made of beef stew, and the can of paint sitting of my garage is made, well, of can of paint. Pretty idiotic, don't you think?

Electron= Electron. The electron is something. (there are about 6 quarks or so?) Quark=Quark, the quark is something. When a quark is a specific quark it is not an electron is it? A proton is made of quarks. An atom is made of quarks and electrons. The quarks are quarks. The electrons are electrons. The electron is not a banana, or an airplane, or a tennis ball. The electron is an electron. This is the idea of fundamental particle physics is it not? Getting down to the bottom of things. I was trying to determine and further comprehend the phenomenon of magnetism. As of now I now (although I think all particles have magnetic moments, yes or no?) the magnetic force in a more permanently magnetic material like a bar magnet has something to do with the electrons of that material. Just like electricity is also said to have to do with electrons.

a) try to imagine a world where EM field does not exist. Does it check out?

What is the field made of? Is it made out of radiation (like near and far field, far field being emitted photonic radiation, and the near field being the all pervading EM field you are talking about)? I honestly just want to know what physicists think causes the EM field to exist, is it the electron radiating energy to other electrons, or is it electrons movement having an effect on space? or are these things, is radiation itself an effect of space?

b) why on Earth does the field need to be "made of electron"? Really? Does it have to be made of plum pudding?
Or my traffic ticket? Or pesticides?

It doesnt. I was just asking if it was. Because I dont know these things, and you do. So I wanted to know what the EM field was made of so I asked, leading with some examples of what I thought it could possibly be made of.

c) why, instead of doing problems in physics and learning this way, you keep firing off volleys of questions which seem sillier and sillier at every turn?

Because the people who have done all the problems in physics cant answer my questions, so I dont want to become another one of them. I also am not trying to solve any problems, or innovate or use physics for practical purposes. I just want to hold the highest form of truth about reality in my mind and think about it.

Get a grip.

Thats all im trying to do.

Originally posted by ImaFungi
What is the field made of? Is it made out of radiation (like near and far field, far field being emitted photonic radiation, and the near field being the all pervading EM field you are talking about)? I honestly just want to know what physicists think causes the EM field to exist, is it the electron radiating energy to other electrons, or is it electrons movement having an effect on space? or are these things, is radiation itself an effect of space?

Scientists think the EM field exists because it is the universal and simplest explanation for observed phenomena.

The best explanation for observation is that charges have an effect on electromagnetic fields, and those fields in turn have effects on motion of other charges. And given that the field can support transfer of momentum and energy independently of the presence of nearby charges, and is subject to gravitation (confirmed by experiment), it has all properties necessary for physical existence.

In quantum field theory, in fact, the description of electromagnetic field vs electron fields are not all that different. All stuff-which-exists is described by fields. The primary differences which results in the sharp empirical differences between electrons and EM waves (photons) are

a) there are strong conservation laws for the number of fermions, like electrons, so that it is difficult and rare to create or destroy electrons except through nuclear reactions outside the normal human experience. With EM waves, it's totally not like that, they are created and absorbed all the time. No conservation law on their quantity or identity (though of course in energy & momentum there still is).

b) fermions like electrons (unlike bosons, like photons) cannot be in the same quantum state, roughly the same place at the same time. EM waves (photons) can be, and even prefer to be in the same state at the same time.

So in sum, everything is described by fields, but the specific properties of some result in what appear to be major physical differences ("stuff" vs "waves"), but deep down they are both quantum fields.

The result is that nobody disputes that "stuff" (electrons, protons and neutrons which are part of a rock you pick up from the ground) physically exists, but some people (not educated physicists) have problems believing that E&M excitations (photons) are also physically real.

It doesnt. I was just asking if it was. Because I dont know these things, and you do. So I wanted to know what the EM field was made of so I asked, leading with some examples of what I thought it could possibly be made of.

EM fields appear to be fundamental parts of the universe as are electrons, no substructure or composite nature has ever been observed. Note that this is not a trivial or obvious fact---by contrast, acoustic waves in air are not physically fundamental, as they can be shown by experiment to rest upon a deeper layer of physics (kinetic theory of atoms) and the equations of motion for acoustics can hence become invalid in certain regimes. This fact cannot be deduced by mathematics, it is experimental and arbitrary.

Originally posted by ImaFungi

Originally posted by buddhasystem

I'm sorry, but I doubt you'd find this "explanation" satisfactory yourself, if you asked me what the electron is made of. Beef stew is made of beef stew, and the can of paint sitting of my garage is made, well, of can of paint. Pretty idiotic, don't you think?

Electron= Electron. The electron is something.

What is it?

Originally posted by ImaFungi

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by ImaFungi

 

So the smartest people on this planet have no idea how magnetism physically works?

Oh, it's known how it works. Just not why.
Sort of like gravity. How it works is very well known. Exactly why, not so much. Just be glad it does. Magnetism too.

edit on 3/16/2013 by Phage because: (no reason given)

Ok, How is it thought to work? How is the same as why in this instance, how it physically works is why it physically works, if you describe how sufficiently enough.

At sufficiently high field strengths (not quantum mechanics), it is well described by a combination of Maxwell's equations (which show how E&M fields are generated and propagate), the Lorentz force (which show how E&M fields affect charged particles), Einstenian equations of mechanical motion and field transformation in new frames, and some "constitutive equations" which are classical, macroscopic approximations, valid for many useful regimes (though not all), of the collective behavior of atoms and their response to (and creation of) electric and magnetic fields.

So what are the ideas on why/how magnetism works? How do physicists think the electrons behavior in one material (magnetic) can cause another material (magnetic), to come towards one another? What is going on, how does this phenomenon physically work?

I explained it before. Electrons create magnetic and electric fields. These fields are spread in locations far away from the original electrons. Other, distant, electrons have forces on them that depend on their charge, their velocity, their magnetic moment and the value of the electric and magnetic fields where they happen to be.

At this point, you need to read the Feynman Lectures on Physics. It contains some of the best "physical intution" for explaining what's going on.

Originally posted by mbkennel

Scientists think the EM field exists because it is the universal and simplest explanation for observed phenomena.

The best explanation for observation is that charges have an effect on electromagnetic fields, and those fields in turn have effects on motion of other charges. And given that the field can support transfer of momentum and energy independently of the presence of nearby charges, and is subject to gravitation (confirmed by experiment), it has all properties necessary for physical existence.

In quantum field theory, in fact, the description of electromagnetic field vs electron fields are not all that different. All stuff-which-exists is described by fields. The primary differences which results in the sharp empirical differences between electrons and EM waves (photons) are

a) there are strong conservation laws for the number of fermions, like electrons, so that it is difficult and rare to create or destroy electrons except through nuclear reactions outside the normal human experience. With EM waves, it's totally not like that, they are created and absorbed all the time. No conservation law on their quantity or identity (though of course in energy & momentum there still is).

b) fermions like electrons (unlike bosons, like photons) cannot be in the same quantum state, roughly the same place at the same time. EM waves (photons) can be, and even prefer to be in the same state at the same time.

So in sum, everything is described by fields, but the specific properties of some result in what appear to be major physical differences ("stuff" vs "waves"), but deep down they are both quantum fields.

The result is that nobody disputes that "stuff" (electrons, protons and neutrons which are part of a rock you pick up from the ground) physically exists, but some people (not educated physicists) have problems believing that E&M excitations (photons) are also physically real.

It doesnt. I was just asking if it was. Because I dont know these things, and you do. So I wanted to know what the EM field was made of so I asked, leading with some examples of what I thought it could possibly be made of.

EM fields appear to be fundamental parts of the universe as are electrons, no substructure or composite nature has ever been observed. Note that this is not a trivial or obvious fact---by contrast, acoustic waves in air are not physically fundamental, as they can be shown by experiment to rest upon a deeper layer of physics (kinetic theory of atoms) and the equations of motion for acoustics can hence become invalid in certain regimes. This fact cannot be deduced by mathematics, it is experimental and arbitrary.

edit on 18-3-2013 by mbkennel because: (no reason given)

edit on 18-3-2013 by mbkennel because: (no reason given)

edit on 18-3-2013 by mbkennel because: (no reason given)

edit on 18-3-2013 by mbkennel because: (no reason given)

Thank you very much. Still my only problem is you say; EM fields exist everywhere, they are fundamental. But you never say what they are. Proton, neutron, and electron can be described by their differences, you can say an electron is like a particle and/or a wave, but can you say what an EM field is like, an electron has mass, does the field, or mass implies potential energy, the field has no mass because its energy is constantly kinetic? but how does the field receive its energy, from all the particles motions in relation to one another imparts energy somehow in the surrounding space, and that energy in the intermediary space between charged particles is the field?

Here is a crappy analogy. An electron is said to be like a particle or a wave. So lets imagine an electron as a baseball. And as a wave lets imagine the electron, or baseball can also exist as a rope, it wouldnt make sense to call a waving rope that is a single object a particle. So regardless of the way this baseball travels it somehow causes an electromagnetic "force field?" around itself? and in certain circumstances this force field can exist relatively very far away from the electron or electrons, for example a charged particle coming within inches of a magnet may be affect. If those particles or waves are real, and in their local positions, in what manner, do they create a force field around them, which can interact with other material, that is distant from the source of the force field. What is the source doing to create the local field as it is? what is the field made of? Does the field exist in or on space like an apple or your hand does, or is the field space itself?

reply to post by ImaFungi

But how does physics describe this something that exists? Using mathematics, right? Thus from my point of view physics and science in general is a mathematical abstraction of what we call reality. And electrons or other terms used in physics are just names invented by man to be able to designate certain observable phenomena and the mathematical models describing them. (Jeez, hope this won't drift into a semantics argument...)

So claiming that a field is something objectively real is misleading. The field is just a (very exact) mathematical description of that something that is real.

There are of course scientists and mathematicians who will disagree with this view. There is even the inverse to it called Mathematical Universe Hypothesis, claiming physical reality being a mathematical structure.

This is why I see your questions as being philosophical.

Originally posted by moebius
reply to post by ImaFungi

 

But how does physics describe this something that exists? Using mathematics, right?

Yes. There are both mathematical implications (this is interior to mathematics) physical implications---saying something is "real" is an assertion and prediction about what will be observed in future experimental situations. The second is what distinguishes physics from mathematics.

Thus from my point of view physics and science in general is a mathematical abstraction of what we call reality. And electrons or other terms used in physics are just names invented by man to be able to designate certain observable phenomena and the mathematical models describing them. (Jeez, hope this won't drift into a semantics argument...)

So claiming that a field is something objectively real is misleading. The field is just a (very exact) mathematical description of that something that is real.

The world "field" refers to both the physical thing and the mathematical structure.

Physicists talk about the "electric field" as a physical concept and when they write down equations of motion they associate a mathematical field with the physical property because that's what physics is about.

Quantum field theorists often hypothesize fields (in the mathematical sense) which may or may not be physically real (because of lack of conclusive physical evidence). There's a zillion quantum field theories of various forms. They're definitely mathematical fields, and hypothesized physical fields, but not really known to be 'real' physical fields. E&M is considered to be authentic because the experimental evidence is vast and conclusive.

There are of course scientists and mathematicians who will disagree with this view. There is even the inverse to it called Mathematical Universe Hypothesis, claiming physical reality being a mathematical structure.

This is why I see your questions as being philosophical.

From the physics point of view the question is whether something results in potentially different experimentally observable physical outcomes. After that, most physicists are not philosophical, they use whatever conceptual methods are most practically useful for the situation at hand.

Originally posted by moebius
reply to post by ImaFungi

 

But how does physics describe this something that exists? Using mathematics, right? Thus from my point of view physics and science in general is a mathematical abstraction of what we call reality. And electrons or other terms used in physics are just names invented by man to be able to designate certain observable phenomena and the mathematical models describing them. (Jeez, hope this won't drift into a semantics argument...)

So claiming that a field is something objectively real is misleading. The field is just a (very exact) mathematical description of that something that is real.

There are of course scientists and mathematicians who will disagree with this view. There is even the inverse to it called Mathematical Universe Hypothesis, claiming physical reality being a mathematical structure.

This is why I see your questions as being philosophical.

2 bar magnets can attract one another or repel one another. It is thought that this phenomenon is due to the electrons in the bar magnets behavior. If you put the magnets close enough to one another they will experience a force. The electrons are in the magnet. How is there force on the outsides of the magnet? The electrons produce a 'field'. How do the electrons produce a field? what is the field made of?

reply to post by ImaFungi


A field is not an object, it's a condition.

Asking what a field is made of is like asking what distance is made of. I understand the coffee table is about four feet away from my feet, but what is 'away' made of?

Originally posted by Bedlam
reply to post by ImaFungi

 

A field is not an object, it's a condition.

Asking what a field is made of is like asking what distance is made of. I understand the coffee table is about four feet away from my feet, but what is 'away' made of?

If you keep talking like this, I won't have a choice but to throw two quarts of world peace at you.

reply to post by buddhasystem


Well, if I revealed that electric fields are made of marshmallow fluff, I'd lose my Federal Shill license.

So I'll just say they're made out of frequency.