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.

 

Physicists Finally Made The One-Poled Magnet They've Been Missing For 80 Years

page: 2
7
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 1 2014 @ 02:56 PM
link   

Phage
reply to post by ImaFungi
 


An electrical charge is a magnetic charge, an electron is a magnet, and charged particles are the only reason the idea of magnet exists.
A moving electrical charge creates a magnetic field. A magnetic field has no charge.


Yes I am agreeing, Im saying an electrical charge may as well be called an electromagnetic charge, since it creates the electric field and magnetic field, why is credence given to the word electric/al? When it is undeniably and equally linked to the phenomenon of magnetism?




posted on Feb, 1 2014 @ 03:00 PM
link   
reply to post by ImaFungi
 




m saying an electrical charge may as well be called an electromagnetic charge, since it creates the electric field and magnetic field, why is credence given to the word electric/al? When it is undeniably and equally linked to the phenomenon of magnetism?

Because they are not the same thing. Because they have different properties. Electricity is not magnetism.

Mass creates a gravitational field. Do you think mass should be considered the same thing as gravity?
edit on 2/1/2014 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 1 2014 @ 03:26 PM
link   

Phage
reply to post by ImaFungi
 




m saying an electrical charge may as well be called an electromagnetic charge, since it creates the electric field and magnetic field, why is credence given to the word electric/al? When it is undeniably and equally linked to the phenomenon of magnetism?

Because they are not the same thing. Because they have different properties. Electricity is not magnetism.

Mass creates a gravitational field. Do you think mass should be considered the same thing as gravity?
edit on 2/1/2014 by Phage because: (no reason given)


These are completely different examples. In order for your mass analogy to relate to what I was claiming, mass and the subsequent gravitational field would have to have 2 different affects, and then they would have to be named differently, which is what I am claiming occurred with electric charge particle and the field it is coupled to.

Why would it be wrong to have referred to the electric charge particle as the electromagnetic charge? If science did this from the start would they have been wrong? Mass is coupled to the gravity field, as a charged particle is coupled to the electromagnetic field.



posted on Feb, 1 2014 @ 03:30 PM
link   
reply to post by ImaFungi
 


In order for your mass analogy to relate to what I was claiming, mass and the subsequent gravitational field would have to have 2 different affects
They do. Mass has inertia. Gravity does not. Electrical particles have charges. Magnetic fields do not. Different properties. Different things. Yet one causes the other.


Why would it be wrong to have referred to the electric charge particle as the electromagnetic charge?
No problem. Call it whatever you wish. It doesn't make them the same thing.


edit on 2/1/2014 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 1 2014 @ 03:37 PM
link   

Phage
reply to post by ImaFungi
 


In order for your mass analogy to relate to what I was claiming, mass and the subsequent gravitational field would have to have 2 different affects
They do. Mass has inertia. Gravity does not. Electrical particles have charges. Magnetic fields do not.


Why would it be wrong to have referred to the electric charge particle as the electromagnetic charge?
No problem. Call it whatever you wish. It doesn't make them the same thing.

edit on 2/1/2014 by Phage because: (no reason given)


Do electric fields have charges? Magnetic fields do have charges, they are called charged particles.

You do know the electric and magnetic fields are two aspects of the same field right, that only exist due to relative motion? A charged particle being the cause of them being detectable phenomenon.



posted on Feb, 1 2014 @ 03:52 PM
link   
reply to post by ImaFungi
 


Do electric fields have charges?
A field does not have a charge. That's the point.


Magnetic fields do have charges, they are called charged particles.
A field is not composed of particles. Not a magnetic field. Not an electrical field. A field is collection of vector or scalar values (depending on your approach).


You do know the electric and magnetic fields are two aspects of the same field right, that only exist due to relative motion?
No. I do not know that. There are both electric and magnetic fields. They are different things with different properties. When a charge is in motion the electrical field does not turn into a magnetic field. The magnetic field is created in addition to the electrical field. And what do you get? An electromagnetic field. A field which, like any field, has no charge.

edit on 2/1/2014 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 1 2014 @ 04:18 PM
link   
reply to post by Phage
 


Is this like saying that the field is a description of the type of charge then while the "field" itself is always without?



posted on Feb, 1 2014 @ 04:44 PM
link   
reply to post by Brotherman
 

The field does not describe the charge. A negative electrical charge produces a field and a positive charge produces a field. The characteristics of both fields are identical.

Only when two (or more) fields interact can a difference be seen. That is, the way fields of two similar charges interact with each other is different from the way the fields of dissimilar charges interact. That difference is in the "direction" of the forces of the field (the correct term is vector). Without the interaction there is no vector (that is what a scalar value is, a directionless value).

You can see how that vector would change depending on the circumstances and how it can't be considered a "charge". With two similar charges the vectors go in one direction ("repelling") and with opposite charges the vectors go in the other direction ("attracting"). So, has the "charge" of the fields changed? Nope. It doesn't make sense to talk about the "charge" of a field.

edit on 2/1/2014 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 1 2014 @ 07:59 PM
link   

Phage

A field is not composed of particles. Not a magnetic field. Not an electrical field. A field is collection of vector or scalar values (depending on your approach).


What is a vector or scalar value physically made of, in space how does it physically exist as an essence with lack of component, what does this mean? If all the particles were removed, would the fields still exist? If all the fields were removed, would particles still exist? How come ive heard things like, there is an electron field, or quark field, and electrons and quarks are merely excitations of the electron and quark fields? Or graviton is supposed excitation of gravity field, and photon is the excitation of EM field? Most importantly I want to know what a field is, that collection of values, which non symbolically is suggesting a field of physical energy, how does this exist?



There are both electric and magnetic fields. They are different things with different properties. When a charge is in motion the electrical field does not turn into a magnetic field. The magnetic field is created in addition to the electrical field. And what do you get? An electromagnetic field. A field which, like any field, has no charge.


So is it suggest that if you had a monopole, and it was put in motion it would create a magnetic field, and electric field would be created in addition?



posted on Feb, 1 2014 @ 08:06 PM
link   

PhoenixOD
reply to post by Phage
 


Just what use would a magnetic monopole be? Are there any real world applications?


Well, the fields from a monopole fall off in a linear fashion rather than square of the distance, so you could make some wowser monopolar electric motors if you could make monopole permanent magnets.



posted on Feb, 1 2014 @ 08:09 PM
link   
reply to post by ImaFungi
 


What is a vector or scalar value physically made of, in space how does it physically exist as an essence with lack of component, what does this mean?
It means it is a force. Forces are not "physical" but they act upon "physical" objects.
Gravity is a force. Is it "physical"?


If all the particles were removed, would the fields still exist?
Not the forces we know of. They originate from matter.


? How come ive heard things like, there is an electron field, or quark field, and electrons and quarks are merely excitations of the electron and quark fields?
Because those are questions about quantum field theory but it does not imply that fields have charge.


Most importantly I want to know what a field is, that collection of values, which non symbolically is suggesting a field of physical energy, how does this exist?
A field is not energy but I suppose that, as gravity is a property of matter, an electrical field is a property of an electrically charged particle and a magnetic field is a property of a moving electrically charged particle.


If all the fields were removed, would particles still exist?
Dunno, but I think you're moving into the arena of the Higgs field.


So is it suggest that if you had a monopole, and it was put in motion it would create a magnetic field, and electric field would be created in addition?
A magnetic monopole would have a magnetic field whether or not it was in motion just as a dipole magnetic field does. I think it may have have characteristics similar to an electrical field. Can't answer the second part, dunno.

edit on 2/1/2014 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 1 2014 @ 08:10 PM
link   

PhoenixOD
reply to post by Phage
 


Just what use would a magnetic monopole be? Are there any real world applications?


EDIT: the answer to your question would require several textbooks worth of typing to answer. it's a whole crate of cases of cans of worms. so the best way to answer you is to send you to this website i will link to below


i will show you a website that is based in great part on what can be done with monopoles. the site (with a couple of exceptions that have nothing to do with monopole) only allows stuff based on real science papers which are often cited which allows you to go to primary sources. the site's pages on monopole technology are truly amazing:

www.orionsarm.com...

and especially:

www.orionsarm.com...

in case you think it BS because it's on a fiction site look down at the bottom of the monopole page and see this:




References
Highly recommended reading; this paper is aimed at the intellectually curious, and doesn't assume a background in theoretical physics:
hcs.harvard.edu...

Chapter 7 used extensively in the discussion of monopole cosmology:
"The Early Universe", Kolb & Turner, ISBN 0-201-62674-8

Discusses topological defects and the Kibble mechanism:
www.damtp.cam.ac.uk...

Discusses massless non-Abelian monopoles:
arxiv.org...
arxiv.org...

Discusses gravity waves from monopole-string systems:
arxiv.org...

Discusses monopole and domain wall formation in a "braneworld"
scenario:
arxiv.org...





edit on 1-2-2014 by stormbringer1701 because: (no reason given)

edit on 1-2-2014 by stormbringer1701 because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 1 2014 @ 10:02 PM
link   

Phage
It means it is a force. Forces are not "physical" but they act upon "physical" objects.
Gravity is a force. Is it "physical"?


Of course it is! Semantics are meaningless (or at least not as important as the content of non word and 'feelings' towards those words, reality), the term physical and our perceptions of its definitions are not whats important, the fact that everything that exists and can affect things that exists...exist! And that which exists is in some sense "physical". Yes!

" If all the particles were removed, would the fields still exist? "

Not the forces we know of. They originate from matter.


but you said fields do not have particles or are not composed of particles, now you are saying fields originate from matter and depend on matter to exist...

"Most importantly I want to know what a field is, that collection of values, which non symbolically is suggesting a field of physical energy, how does this exist? "


A field is not energy but I suppose that, as gravity is a property of matter, an electrical field is a property of an electrically charged particle and a magnetic field is a property of a moving electrically charged particle.


Magnetic field is also a property of a non moving electrically charged particle (though I suppose all particles are always moving in some manner, as the intrinsic magnetic moment of charged particles may be associated to the particles spin).

"If all the fields were removed, would particles still exist?"

Dunno, but I think you're moving into the arena of the Higgs field.


I was trying to move into the arena of wondering about the relationship between particles and fields, for I have heard that fields are what are fundamental, and somehow and somewhy particles are merely excitation (somemeaning?) of the fields. So I was wondering if you took away fields would you take away the ability for particles to exist, and vice versa, if you took away all particles (as you alluded to, force fields only existing, not having any energy of their own, only existing via the felt forces of particles motions) would all fields cease to exist as well.

"So is it suggest that if you had a monopole, and it was put in motion it would create a magnetic field, and electric field would be created in addition?"

A magnetic monopole would have a magnetic field whether or not it was in motion just as a dipole magnetic field does. I think it may have have characteristics similar to an electrical field. Can't answer the second part, dunno.


As I stated above earlier in this post, I believe a charged particle has a magnetic field whether in motion or not. Which is why I started this whole motion of questioning the concept of monopole, seeing as I couldnt imagine or get it explained how it would be possible to exist, and if it could, how it would have different characteristics then what is called 'charged' particle, seeing as this particle is already the particle of the EM field.
edit on 1-2-2014 by ImaFungi because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 1 2014 @ 10:05 PM
link   
reply to post by ImaFungi
 


but you said fields do not have particles or are not composed of particles, now you are saying fields originate from matter and depend on matter to exist.
Yes. There is no contradiction. Fields represent forces, they are not matter but they are originated by matter. Gravity is not mass but it is originated by mass.


As I stated above earlier in this post, I believe a charged particle has a magnetic field whether in motion or not.
Your belief is not empirically supported.

edit on 2/1/2014 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 1 2014 @ 10:10 PM
link   

Phage


As I stated above earlier in this post, I believe a charged particle has a magnetic field whether in motion or not.
Your belief is not empirically supported.

edit on 2/1/2014 by Phage because: (no reason given)


Yes it is... a charged particle has a magnetic field whether in motion or not. A charged particle is a magnet. Many charged particles aligned the same way, are a magnet.



posted on Feb, 1 2014 @ 10:12 PM
link   

Phage
Yes. There is no contradiction. Fields represent forces, they are not matter but they are originated by matter. Gravity is not mass but it is originated by mass.



The gravity field exists whether or not mass exists. You are suggesting the other fields which have their associated matter particles coupled to them which provide forces, do not exist without matter, that they are not an energy field like that of the gravity field.



posted on Feb, 1 2014 @ 10:21 PM
link   
reply to post by ImaFungi
 


a charged particle has a magnetic field whether in motion or not.
Upon what do you base that claim? Your belief?



The gravity field exists whether or not mass exists.
Upon what do you base that claim? Your belief?



posted on Feb, 1 2014 @ 11:39 PM
link   
reply to post by Phage
 


Wiki- "Magnetic fields are produced by moving electric charges and the intrinsic magnetic moments of elementary particles associated with a fundamental quantum property, their spin." The intrinsic magnetic moment of elementary particles is what I was referring to when I made my statement.

" In special relativity, electric and magnetic fields are two interrelated aspects of a single object, called the electromagnetic tensor; the split of this tensor into electric and magnetic fields depends on the relative velocity of the observer and charge. In quantum physics, the electromagnetic field is quantized and electromagnetic interactions result from the exchange of photons."

And on gravity;

"In physics, a gravitational field is a model used to explain the influence that a massive body extends into the space around itself, producing a force on another massive body. Thus, a gravitational field is used to explain gravitational phenomena, and is measured in newtons per kilogram (N/kg). In its original concept, gravity was a force between point masses. Following Newton, Laplace attempted to model gravity as some kind of radiation field or fluid, and since the 19th century explanations for gravity have usually been sought in terms of a field model, rather than a point attraction.

In a field model, rather than two particles attracting each other, the particles distort spacetime via their mass, and this distortion is what is perceived and measured as a "force". In such a model one states that matter moves in certain ways in response to the curvature of spacetime,[1] and that there is either no gravitational force,[2] or that gravity is a fictitious force."

This implies that the gravity field exists independently of matter, at least the matter that causes the curvature in the gravity field, implying that the gravity field is some type of energetic medium, naturally if it is capable of achieving characteristics such as curvature.



posted on Feb, 2 2014 @ 12:29 AM
link   
reply to post by ImaFungi
 


The intrinsic magnetic moment of elementary particles is what I was referring to when I made my statement.
"Interrelated aspects". Yes indeed, and the magnetic aspect does not manifest without motion. A stationary charge (in a given frame of reference) does not manifest a magnetic field. A stationary charge does not have a magnetic field. Can you demonstrate otherwise?



This implies that the gravity field exists independently of matter, at least the matter that causes the curvature in the gravity field, implying that the gravity field is some type of energetic medium, naturally if it is capable of achieving characteristics such as curvature.
No. It states that gravity is a distortion of spacetime, not that spacetime is gravity. Without mass there is no distortion. Without mass there is no gravity. And, in an attempt to get somewhat back on topic, that distortion exhibits field characteristics, of which charge is not one.

edit on 2/2/2014 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 2 2014 @ 08:51 AM
link   

Phage
"Interrelated aspects". Yes indeed, and the magnetic aspect does not manifest without motion. A stationary charge (in a given frame of reference) does not manifest a magnetic field. A stationary charge does not have a magnetic field. Can you demonstrate otherwise?


Perhaps that is correct. Would that mean that the magnetic field is nothing other then the electric field experienced relatively? A charge is still the source of the magnetic fields, the magnetic field still exists even when a charge is not moving. Its not like absolute nothingness exists surrounding a charge, and then the charge moves and a wild magnetic field appears out of nowhere out from nothing, field theory suggests that the fields, electric and magnetic/electromagnetic exist everywhere at all times.

"The electric charge is a fundamental conserved property of some subatomic particles, which determines their electromagnetic interaction. Electrically charged matter is influenced by, and produces, electromagnetic fields."


No. It states that gravity is a distortion of spacetime, not that spacetime is gravity. Without mass there is no distortion. Without mass there is no gravity. And, in an attempt to get somewhat back on topic, that distortion exhibits field characteristics, of which charge is not one.


Ok I see what you did there, more semantic games... Yes gravity is the word used to describe the specific phenomenon/action of a mass compelling another mass toward it do to the spacetime the mass distorted. But the spacetime the mass was able to distort, is the gravity field that exists independently of the mass distorting it, it has to, if it is able to be distorted by mass.



new topics

top topics



 
7
<< 1   >>

log in

join