Opposing Mainstream Physics - Swan001 (opposition) vs ATS

Originally posted by Bedlam
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.

Ah, an actual answer finally. Radio waves and sound waves and water waves have frequency right? What causes the frequency of the electronic/magnetic field and what is it a frequency of, what is the frequency composed of, what type of energy or material?

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?

Its made of whatever is filling that space. If the coffee table was about 6 inches away from your feet, and the coffee table and your feet were both relatively strong magnets. And your above four feet analogy was replaced with 6 inches of the non magnetic materials of the coffee table and your feet. Would there be a difference in the distance of 'away'?

"A field is not an object, its a condition" Do the objects cause the condition? Does the condition exist? in what tangible way does the condition exist? What is the condition made of? To be considered a related condition (electromagnetic fields are related to electromagnetic fields) there must be something in common between the existence of these conditions, and the conditions must be...something.

Do you really not understand what I am attempting to ask? For items to interact with an item not touching it, it must interact with a medium, or 'radiate energy' without a medium. magnetism works in a vacuum, so it is assumed the magnetic materials radiate a kind of energy, and this is called the magnetic field. This was all I was attempting to focus on and digest. How this magnetic field is created, what the electrons use to create it.

Originally posted by ImaFungi
Do you really not understand what I am attempting to ask?

I can't speak for bedlam, but I think Phage understood what you are attempting to ask, and gave you the answer already, and you just don't like his answer:

www.abovetopsecret.com...

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.

I don't think anybody has a much better answer than that if I understand what you're trying to ask, and I think I do.

Although I'm definitely not going to participate in this thread, given the amount of falsities and pseudo-science going around on both sides, I have a quick question for ImaFungi: Are you simply playing devils advocate, and are aware of the answers or explanations to your questions, or are you actually unaware/unsure and are seeking explanation?

It's not any sort of loaded question and I would be very interested in a truthful answer.

Originally posted by Subterranean13
Although I'm definitely not going to participate in this thread, given the amount of falsities and pseudo-science going around on both sides, I have a quick question for ImaFungi: Are you simply playing devils advocate, and are aware of the answers or explanations to your questions, or are you actually unaware/unsure and are seeking explanation?

It's not any sort of loaded question and I would be very interested in a truthful answer.

I know that magnets work.

I know the idea that magnets create 'fields' and this is how and why they work is the psychics theory on how and why magents work. If you have two bar magnets in a vacuum, and they attract each other at a distance, how is that describable physically? the material of the magnets have to be doing something to make this event possible, but what are they doing exactly, and how is what they are doing, causing the other magnetic material to be brought towards it?

To answer your question about my knowledge of field theory, I am not extremely well versed but I do know a little about it. That positive and negetive charge exists. Protons are positively charged, electrons are negetively charged. That electric field lines go towards or end at electrons, and emenate outwards from positive charges (Not really sure what that means). That in a bar magnet there is a North and south pole, and the field lines exit the magnet at the poles, and wrap around, and that a North pole attracts a South pole and vice versa, and 2 same poles repel. I dont know what the proponents of this theory propose the fields are made of, or how they are created. what causes them to exist. But that is all I am attempting to hear. In every sceneario of existing when you want to interact with an object at a distance from you, you either have to disturb the medium you and the object share (for instance, knocking a ball off of a table by slamming your fist on the table, or making motions in water towards your body with your hands to get a ball in a pool to come near you that is out of reach) or you have to exert energy in some fashion which can interact with that object at a distance, examples I can think of that are relevant is someone using their arm to grab something and bring it near to them, or using their arm and energy to throw and object or block/repel an object away from them, or shooting a gun at something, sending (radiation) energy of quantity away from them to interact with something afar, or using a lasso to draw something towards them at a distance. So I am of the belief that magnetism is either, the electrons in a magnetic material sending its own energy out and repelling or attracting another magnetic material ( I dont know what the mechanism would be for it to send energy out to draw an object near) making the magnetic field some type of energy radiation of the electron. Or the electrons in a magnetic material do something to the surrounding medium which cause a magnet to be attracted or repelled. I guess also it can be a combination of both.

reply to post by ImaFungi

Duh, too bad that you seem not to understand(or ignore) the replies.

You are confusing the reality with the model.

Reality is: Two magnets will attract/repel each other depending on distance/orientation.

Model is: They have a magnetic field, that acts upon them.

Physics is a mathematical abstraction of the reality. Nobody can tell you what that something is that makes magnets act the way they do. What you can have is an excellent mathematical model that describes how they will act.

Originally posted by ImaFungi

Originally posted by Bedlam
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.

Ah, an actual answer finally.

That one really takes the cake... So the pretty heavy sarcasm is so lost on you... That you take it for the face value, as a meaningful answer. Hmm...

Frequencies anyone?

The word "frequency" always acts like a red flag to me, as it is for some reason a word woo-woos like a lot, and throw about in absurd ways despite its having a rigid, and not especially thrilling, definition in the scientific world (three others are "energy," "vibration," and "field").

Originally posted by moebius
reply to post by ImaFungi

 

Duh, too bad that you seem not to understand(or ignore) the replies.

You are confusing the reality with the model.

Reality is: Two magnets will attract/repel each other depending on distance/orientation.

Model is: They have a magnetic field, that acts upon them.

Physics is a mathematical abstraction of the reality. Nobody can tell you what that something is that makes magnets act the way they do. What you can have is an excellent mathematical model that describes how they will act.

edit on 20-3-2013 by moebius because: (no reason given)

Why would physicists not at all care about physics? I am only asking if it is known if physicists have any Idea to what the model of a magnetic ''field' correlates to in the real physical world? I assume that since the field has meaningful values in math equitation's, that data translates over to the real world as 'something', I want to know, even if in an abstract way, what the field is thought to represent in the real physical world.

Originally posted by ImaFungi

Originally posted by Subterranean13
Although I'm definitely not going to participate in this thread, given the amount of falsities and pseudo-science going around on both sides, I have a quick question for ImaFungi: Are you simply playing devils advocate, and are aware of the answers or explanations to your questions, or are you actually unaware/unsure and are seeking explanation?

It's not any sort of loaded question and I would be very interested in a truthful answer.

I know that magnets work.

I know the idea that magnets create 'fields' and this is how and why they work is the psychics theory on how and why magents work. If you have two bar magnets in a vacuum, and they attract each other at a distance, how is that describable physically? the material of the magnets have to be doing something to make this event possible, but what are they doing exactly, and how is what they are doing, causing the other magnetic material to be brought towards it?

Read my previous explanations. Electrons create electric and magnetic fields. Electrons also react to (have force) to electric and magnetic fields. The generated fields and forces are successfully described by classical electrodynamics.

It's time to read a physics textbook and stop posting here. I previously suggested Feynman lectures on physics.

Originally posted by ImaFungi
Why would physicists not at all care about physics? I am only asking if it is known if physicists have any Idea to what the model of a magnetic ''field' correlates to in the real physical world? I assume that since the field has meaningful values in math equitation's, that data translates over to the real world as 'something', I want to know, even if in an abstract way, what the field is thought to represent in the real physical world.

It's the thing that exists everywhere in space that causes forces and torques on charged particles, and whose effects on a charged particle at a point in space can be computed from the electric & magnetic field at that same point in space.

In physics there is no real difference between "what it is" and "what it does" because physics is about "what happens". It is unprofitable to worry about the first problem instead of the second.

By contrast consider all the Christological mumbo jumbo in the early Christian church (e.g. Nicene Creed, Arianism, etc etc), about 'essential nature' of something unobsrvable.

A physicist would define a diety by unambiguously observable consequences of what a diety can do and choose the model of the internal structure which matches observations with the minimum arbitrary assumptions and free parameters.

Originally posted by ImaFungi

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?

Well, the specifics depend on the way the baseball travels, but yes it does create a electromagnetic field.

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.

Correct.

What is the source doing to create the local field as it is?

Nothing special. If the source is charged, then it doesn't have to do anything to create an electric field, and if it has an intrinsic magnetic moment like an electron, then it doens't need to do anything to create a magnetic field.

An elementary charged particle can never turn off its creation of E&M fields or its response to such a field.

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?

It is a something which appears to exist everywhere in space, just like an apple or a hand does. In quantum field theory, fields for 'stuff' and fields for E&M are assumed to be both equally physically real and is what is inside space.

The theory assumes that there is only one E&M field for the whole universe, and the equations are as far as we know are linear, so the response of the E&M field (why we cay its singular) is the sum of the responses of E&M fields to every individual charge in the field.

When I say "create an electric field", this is a short hand for "cause the electric field which exists everywhere in space to have a non-zero value over some area of space away from the charge". It doesn't mean "create a new electric field which has an identity tied to the original particle."

The field is not space itself. Waves of space (gravitational waves) affect all physical things inside of the space. Electromagnetic waves only affect charged particles.

Fungi. If you want to physycally experience a field, go stand in front of a high powered radar antenna.You wont need any math either

Originally posted by mbkennel

Nothing special. If the source is charged, then it doesn't have to do anything to create an electric field, and if it has an intrinsic magnetic moment like an electron, then it doens't need to do anything to create a magnetic field.

Are there any particles that do not have a charge? (even though neutrons dont have a charge they are composed of particles that are charged) I know it doesnt have to do anything, but what is happening with it and the EM field, that it is affected by it, and not the neutron? Would it be right to say, the EM field exists because negative and positive charges were separated from one another (big bang), and the EM field is how they are still linked (in some way...maybe...)? so say there is a containment of vacuum, and the walls of the vacuum are made entirely of electrons (somehow), there would be EM field lines existing all through this vacuum connecting them? and say a single electron was shot into the middle of the vacuum, this would "break or distort" the previously straight and stable field lines, and this distortion is the magnetic field of the electron?

It is a something which appears to exist everywhere in space, just like an apple or a hand does. In quantum field theory, fields for 'stuff' and fields for E&M are assumed to be both equally physically real and is what is inside space.

The theory assumes that there is only one E&M field for the whole universe, and the equations are as far as we know are linear, so the response of the E&M field (why we cay its singular) is the sum of the responses of E&M fields to every individual charge in the field.

When I say "create an electric field", this is a short hand for "cause the electric field which exists everywhere in space to have a non-zero value over some area of space away from the charge". It doesn't mean "create a new electric field which has an identity tied to the original particle."

The field is not space itself. Waves of space (gravitational waves) affect all physical things inside of the space. Electromagnetic waves only affect charged particles

Is there any theory as the what is responsible for the physical behavior of a positive charged compared to negative? The quarks have 1/3rd charges right, and some are + and some are - ... what physically is different between the + and - quarks?

so when you say electromagnetic waves only affect charged particles, you are saying the only thing they dont affect is neutrons(and other net neutral material)? Could it be that electromagnetism is a property of spatial geometry, which cause positive to act one way, and negative the other, but because neutral is negative and positive, it does both, or neither, so it is unaffected?

Originally posted by ImaFungi

Originally posted by mbkennel

Nothing special. If the source is charged, then it doesn't have to do anything to create an electric field, and if it has an intrinsic magnetic moment like an electron, then it doens't need to do anything to create a magnetic field.

Are there any particles that do not have a charge?

Elementary particles? Neutrinos, photons, gluons, Z boson and Higgs.

Originally posted by mbkennel

Originally posted by ImaFungi

Originally posted by mbkennel

Nothing special. If the source is charged, then it doesn't have to do anything to create an electric field, and if it has an intrinsic magnetic moment like an electron, then it doens't need to do anything to create a magnetic field.

Are there any particles that do not have a charge?

Elementary particles? Neutrinos, photons, gluons, Z boson and Higgs.

edit on 21-3-2013 by mbkennel because: (no reason given)

Ok but photons arent really particles, because they themselves are fields, electric and magnetic fields. so is one photon a continuously oscillating field? How can the magnetic and electric field of a photon exist far away from its charged source? This is what I kinda mean, the photon is not a particle, it is a disturbance of the EM field? So it doesnt have a charge because its not an object its a condition .

Gluons and the z boson and virtual particles are strange I would say they are also conditions or reactions/results more then fundamental physical particles. Where do gluons come from, do they just appear when quarks get close enough to one another? are gluons the result of quarks conservation of energy and charge? or are gluons things that exist on their own, and whenever 3 quarks came together, a septillion gluons quickly flocked over to the quarks to help them out for life?

The higgs field is another thing I am cautious of believing in, just like the graviton, is it theoretically possible for any type of energy or matter or form of any kind to exist in this universe that is not a particle? Or the reason things exist in particles is because whenever an object interacts with anything in the universe, at one instant or moment it is only interacting with a certain amount of anything in the universe at a given time, and that minimum and maximum interaction an object can have with a local quantity of energy or matter, is that object interacting with particles? Is there any reason why the big bang could have happened, bunch of potential and kinetic energy starting to separate, and then as time passed, as cooling took place, that energy started to experience the phenomenon of mass? why does the higgs field have to come into play, is this another mathematical model that has nothing to do with reality ( i know they almost almost almost found the higgs, but i dont believe them)? When in the big bangs history did the higgs field come into existence, does it it self have a total mass, does it have energy, its sole 'purpose' is to give particles mass or the universe was just luckily convenient in that a nice infinite field happened to spring up and give particles mass.

Maybe you guys are busy, maybe you gave up talking to me... Anyway, I will conclude, with some quotes that I believe represent my line of thinking and inquiry. Mbkennel , I did find Feynmans lecture pdfs so I will be reading them, thanks.


"It is inconceivable that inanimate brute matter should, without mediation of something else which is not matter, operate on and affect other matter without mutual contact. ... That gravity should be innate, inherent and essential to matter, so that one body may act upon another at-a-distance, through a vacuum, without the mediation of anything else by and through which their action may be conveyed from one to another, is to me so great an absurdity that I believe no man, who has in philosophical matters a competent faculty of thinking, can ever fall into it. So far I have explained the phenomena by the force of gravity, but I have not yet ascertained the cause of gravity itself. ... and I do not arbitrarily invent hypotheses. (Newton. Letter to Richard Bentley 25 Feb. 1693)"

What we observe as material bodies and forces are nothing but shapes and variations in the structure of space. Particles are just schaumkommen (appearances). The world is given to me only once, not one existing and one perceived. Subject and object are only one. The barrier between them cannot be said to have broken down as a result of recent experience in the physical sciences, for this barrier does not exist. (Erwin Schrodinger, on Quantum Theory)

Since the theory of general relativity implies the representation of physical reality by a continuous field, the concept of particles or material points cannot play a fundamental part, nor can the concept of motion. (Albert Einstein)

I wished to show that space time is not necessarily something to which one can ascribe to a separate existence, independently of the actual objects of physical reality. Physical objects are not in space, but these objects are spatially extended. In this way the concept empty space loses its meaning. (Albert Einstein)

Thus the last and most successful creation of theoretical physics, namely quantum mechanics (QM), differs fundamentally from both Newton's mechanics, and Maxwell's e-m field. For the quantities which figure in QM's laws make no claim to describe physical reality itself, but only probabilities of the occurrence of a physical reality that we have in view. (Albert Einstein, 1931)


I cannot but confess that I attach only a transitory importance to this interpretation. I still believe in the possibility of a model of reality - that is to say, of a theory which represents things themselves and not merely the probability of their occurrence. On the other hand, it seems to me certain that we must give up the idea of complete localization of the particle in a theoretical model. This seems to me the permanent upshot of Heisenberg's principle of uncertainty. (Albert Einstein, 1934)

some things that satisfy the rules of algebra can be interesting to mathematicians even though they don't always represent a real situation. (Feynman)

. the more you see how strangely Nature behaves, the harder it is to make a model that explains how even the simplest phenomena actually work. So theoretical physics has given up on that. (Feynman)

For many years after Newton, partial reflection by two surfaces was happily explained by a theory of waves,* but when experiments were made with very weak light hitting photomultipliers, the wave theory collapsed: as the light got dimmer and dimmer, the photomultipliers kept making full sized clicks - there were just fewer of them. Light behaves as particles. 
* This idea made use of the fact that waves can combine or cancel out, and the calculations based on this model matched the results of Newton's experiments, as well as those done for hundreds of years afterwards. But when experiments were developed that were sensitive enough to detect a single photon, the wave theory predicted that the clicks of a photomultiplier would get softer and softer, whereas they stayed at full strength - they just occurred less and less often. No reasonable model could explain this fact. 
This state of confusion was called the wave - particle duality of light. (Feynman, 1985)

Special relativity is founded on the basis of the law of the constancy of the velocity of light. But the general theory of relativity cannot retain this law. On the contrary, we arrived at the result that according to this latter theory the velocity of light must always depend on the coordinates when a gravitational field is present.

Physical objects are not in space, but these objects are spatially extended (as fields). In this way the concept 'empty space' loses its meaning. ... The field thus becomes an irreducible element of physical description, irreducible in the same sense as the concept of matter (particles) in the theory of Newton. ... The physical reality of space is represented by a field whose components are continuous functions of four independent variables - the co-ordinates of space and time. Since the theory of general relativity implies the representation of physical reality by a continuous field, the concept of particles or material points cannot play a fundamental part, nor can the concept of motion. The particle can only appear as a limited region in space in which the field strength or the energy density are particularly high. (Albert Einstein, Metaphysics of Relativity, 1950)


When forced to summarize the general theory of relativity in one sentence:
Time and space and gravitation have no separate existence from matter.
(Albert Einstein)

The special and general theories of relativity, which, though based entirely on ideas connected with the field-theory, have so far been unable to avoid the independent introduction of material points, … the continuous field thus appeared side by side with the material point as the representative of physical reality. This dualism remains even today disturbing as it must be to every orderly mind. (Albert Einstein, 1954)

All these fifty years of conscious brooding have brought me no nearer to the answer to the question, 'What are light quanta?' Nowadays every Tom, Dick and Harry thinks he knows it, but he is mistaken. … I consider it quite possible that physics cannot be based on the field concept, i.e., on continuous structures. In that case, nothing remains of my entire castle in the air, gravitation theory included, [and of] the rest of modern physics. (Albert Einstein, 1954)

physics constitutes a logical system of thought which is in a state of evolution, whose basis (principles) cannot be distilled, as it were, from experience by an inductive method, but can only be arrived at by free invention. The justification (truth content) of the system rests in the verification of the derived propositions (a priori/logical truths) by sense experiences (a posteriori/empirical truths). ... Evolution is proceeding in the direction of increasing simplicity of the logical basis (principles). .. We must always be ready to change these notions - that is to say, the axiomatic basis of physics - in order to do justice to perceived facts in the most perfect way logically. (Albert Einstein, Physics and Reality, 1936)


the supreme task of the physicist is to arrive at those universal elementary laws from which the cosmos can be built up by pure deduction. There is no logical path to these laws; only intuition, resting on sympathetic understanding of experience, can reach them. (Albert Einstein, 1918)


I fully agree with you about the significance and educational value of methodology as well as history and philosophy of science. So many people today - and even professional scientists - seem to me like somebody who has seen thousands of trees but has never seen a forest. A knowledge of the historic and philosophical background gives that kind of independence from prejudices of his generation from which most scientists are suffering. This independence created by philosophical insight is - in my opinion - the mark of distinction between a mere artisan or specialist and a real seeker after truth. 
(Albert Einstein to Robert A. Thornton, 7 December 1944, EA 61-574)

How does it happen that a properly endowed natural scientist comes to concern himself with epistemology? Is there no more valuable work in his specialty? I hear many of my colleagues saying, and I sense it from many more, that they feel this way. I cannot share this sentiment. ... Concepts that have proven useful in ordering things easily achieve such an authority over us that we forget their earthly origins and accept them as unalterable givens. Thus they come to be stamped as 'necessities of thought,' 'a priori givens,' etc. The path of scientific advance is often made impassable for a long time through such errors. For that reason, it is by no means an idle game if we become practiced in analyzing the long common place concepts and exhibiting those circumstances upon which their justification and usefulness depend, how they have grown up, individually, out of the givens of experience. By this means, their all-too-great authority will be broken. (Albert Einstein.


Today's scientists have substituted mathematics for experiments, and they wander off through equation after equation, and eventually build a structure which has no relation to reality. (Nikola Tesla)

Originally posted by ImaFungi

the more you see how strangely Nature behaves, the harder it is to make a model that explains how even the simplest phenomena actually work. So theoretical physics has given up on that. (Feynman)

You've been here how long and you still don't know how to quote something?

You're supposed to use EX tags but even people who haven't figured that out at least try to use quotation marks on quotes.

Anyway, regarding Feynman's quote above, I wouldn't necessarily agree that anybody has "given up", but it is fair to say we haven't come up with an answer everyone can agree on. I think physicists are still trying and haven't given up, and see evidence of this in some papers.

As one physicist said (on physics forums, I don't remember their pseudonym):

Observations are the one thing we can all agree on.

Exactly what underlies the models we have to explain quantum mechanics observations is not known.

Probably the reason you stopped getting replies is you're asking questions about situations where we've made enough observations to know what will happen observationally in those situations, so it's not accomplishing anything to answer those questions. Feynman's lectures would be a good start, as previously suggested.

reply to post by ImaFungi


It's still moderately amusing that you keep asking questions (e.g. about gluons) for which answers are readily available from many sources. Do you expect to hear something radically different from what modern physics has to say about it? Well tough.

Originally posted by buddhasystem
reply to post by ImaFungi

 

It's still moderately amusing that you keep asking questions (e.g. about gluons) for which answers are readily available from many sources. Do you expect to hear something radically different from what modern physics has to say about it? Well tough.

No I dont. Ive looked up general things about modern physics, so I have come across gluons and know a tiny bit about them. I have told you this before, I come to this site to chat with people who may have knowledge about this subject and/or want to discuss these topics. I dont see it being a crime asking about gluons. They are an interesting concept in the standard model, and I dont understand them that well. I do believe particle physicists may have observed these things, and specific bits of energy certainly come out in the math, but if a supreme particle physicist as your self cant even take me on in a back and forth conversation regarding the potential rational and logical and physical validity about the scripture you have studied, and what these models might say in general and exactness about the reality we exist in and exist of, I dont know, its kind of a let down. In short, I am interested in the nature of nature. Some people on this site have great supposed knowledge about the nature of nature. I just want to talk to them about it. Please ignore what I just wrote if it means you will answer this next question; what aspects of nature are you must curious about, what fascinates you, what do you think is worth questioning (in physics, or philosophy of physics),? Ok so you know the universe is made of all the particles its made of and they all interact how they do and everything we know of happens because of that, how does the manner in which the universe exists, 'strike' you? Do you think there is no informational context that can be gathered, no greater meaning or purpose concerning the universe as a whole? I know it may be difficult or impossible to know what that may be, but im only asking if you think there can be one, or the universe is exactly as it is because its exactly as it is because its exactly as it is because it was exactly as it is? Is it impossible or improbable that there are grander reasons that the universe is exactly as it is? made from the stuff it is, in the quantity it contains, that can do the things it does. What are your personal thoughts on the universe? Do gluons exist in and of themselves, or are they only results/effects of quarks being near each other?Yea, i see how that would make sense, the term gluon then would just imply the exchange of energy between the quarks in a proton and nuetron, similar to how the photon is the exchange of energy between electrons.