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.

 

Plasma Ribbon Confirms Electric Sun

page: 35
55
<< 32  33  34    36  37  38 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 24 2014 @ 01:57 PM
link   

originally posted by: ImaFungi

originally posted by: mbkennel


The fields exist everwhere but can have vacuum values in most places.


And vacuum values arent 0 right, as the whole prior 'vacuum energy' discussion?


Correct. The vacuum state need not be a mathematical 'zero'.








Not quite, the electromagnetic fields when computed in the correct quantum mechanical manner can vibrate only in certain 'modal' ways from quantum mechanics. The elementary components/basis functions of those 'modes' are photons. An analogy is a Fourier decomposition of a continuous function. The 'contniuous function' is the large amplitude E&M fields as described by Maxwell equations. You approximate this with certain quantities of elementary excitations of the fields which are permitted by QM: a certain 'number' of photons of a given momentum vector & wavelength plus some more of others etc roughly 'sum up' to the macroscopic E&M fields. The photon represents the physical fact that there is some elementary minimum that you can't go below in amplitude (and this changes with frequency), just as an atom is the smallest piece of what was originally thought to be macroscopic continuous matter.


Hm. So doesnt the term 'coupled', when referring to the electron and the EM field mean that, there exists a medium, that the electron particle is 'attached' to, and as the electron moves in this medium, the medium reacts, and the reaction is called 'EM radiation' and the reaction is called 'Photons'?


Roughly yes. In the field theory (start with QED: photons + electrons) it means there are terms in the operator which governs the interaction (remember QM: non-zero matrix elements mean 'interaction') that have charged particles and EM fields in one state before the interaction and charged particles and EM fields in a different state after the interaction. The Lagrangian or Hamiltonian in the middle which represents the structure of the presumed fields & interactions has to have terms which result in non-zero transition probabilities.



So say an electron is traveling at a steady velocity (us minding the existence of its coupling to the EM field), and then it is accelerated (which has to be done by it approaching a gravity well, or it approaching or being approached by a charged particle that is also coupled to the EM field and as they get close, the EM radiation, or Photons, that are being rippled from the electrons travels, (which brings up a question as ive always thought, or at least I know its debated whether or not an electron traveling at a steady velocity radiates), and as they approach their local radiating force fields cause them to repulse, and this repulsion is a form of changing of momentum, resulting in more radiation being created. So because the frequency of force subjected onto an electron causes it to disturb the local medium it is coupled to in lesser and greater degrees of energy and radiative repercussion, this means the EM field is an energy dense medium of sorts. But an interesting thing is how the medium always reacts and ripples/propagates at the same speed, but the energetic force or intensity depends on the energetic force and intensity of which the electron was vibrate.


Approximately yes, that's a rough classical picture. I suggest the Feynman Lectures on Physics II for classical E&M, I think they're free to read on-line.




Well thats not that weird, but maybe it is weird. Because if you think of a jump rope, if one is completely taught with an end attached to a wall and an end attached to your hand, will every vibration you make with your hand register at the wall in the same amount of time? And the only difference can be in the energy associated with the A to B event, which is in the form of the wave frequency at which you jerk your hand? But thats also interesting the higher amount of energy is in high frequency right? Ohh well its just a time thing, because I would think if you lifted your hand high above your head and then gave a might blast tug down that would be more energy then a quick little high frequency jolt...maybe... maybe it has to do with concentration of energy. But maybe it has to do with the usual high frequency having to do with a 'numbers game' of sorts, its rarely a single tiny hand jolt, it would be 100 quick hand jolts compared to the one big one, and that adds up to be higher energy for the higher frequency...maybe.


No, it means that at higher frequency the minimum possible excitation & energy packet is higher than at lower frequencies. But this quantum nature of EM is not that important in most everyday circumstances.



But yes, still plenty of problems with the nature of a field, HOW it is coupled/attached to an electron, and HOW exactly does the electrons movements step by step, mechanically, cause and effectly, touch the field it is touching, and make the field move, into the form of a 'photon'.


If you learn QED you might get a start on it, but that it's much harder to visualize and understand intuitively is certainly true.




posted on Apr, 24 2014 @ 04:35 PM
link   
Is there any theories as to why/how the EM field reacts and travels at a consistent speed, not dependent on the little or great force of the electron causing it to react?

If we take a medium of water for example, is it the same, if you have a marble attached to a real strong stick and your holding it under water horizontal, and you gently shake it up and down, will the motions caused in the area of local water that would propagate outward from the point of motion travel at the same velocity, as if you were to shake the marble separate examples, with increasing force each time? So that the energy absorbed and transported by the medium may change in value, but the rate at which the interaction/absorption and transportation take place is always a fixed rate?

And then I suppose that makes things like spatial expansion and red shift and stuff interesting, because how would those fit into the analogy, if the marble was being shaken and there was constantly more water being added to the pool, but not added from just anywhere, added from in between each water molecule?



posted on Apr, 24 2014 @ 05:58 PM
link   
a reply to: ImaFungi

I have been studying up on Electricity and i find that a man by the name Eric Dollard is the person who will have your answers. His Theoris to me are just Awesome. Watch the 3 hour video on the History and Theory of Electricty. And the fact he has had 8 labs destroyed/vandalised and equipment broken, lost and stolen leads me to believe he is on the right track.

www.youtube.com...

Push the "erase button" for the two notions : Energy is the product of mass times the velocity of light and also Electricity is the flow of electrons in wire.

Electrons have nothing to do with the flow of electricity, Elctrons are the flow at which electricity is destroyed. Electrons are the resistance.

Electricity is a "mass free" phenomena. Mass has no place in electical units.

Electricity is embodied in the aetheric state of matter, or "proto matter"
-Electricity is aether in a state of dynamic polarization.
-Magnetism is aether in motion.
-Dielectricity is aether under stress or strain
The motion and strains of the aether gives rise to electrification.

Nikola Tesla regarded Einsteins theory of relativity the greastest historical abberation of scientific thought.
Relitivity is no more than a philosophical stand point, a virus to infect a "new age"

These are some of his quotes, I really think we should pay him some more attention.

Im happy to try and answer any questions but i have only just begun to learn the true nature of electricity, but id just take a while to watch the video.



posted on Apr, 24 2014 @ 09:07 PM
link   

originally posted by: GallopingFish
a reply to: ImaFungi

I have been studying up on Electricity and i find that a man by the name Eric Dollard is the person who will have your answers. His Theoris to me are just Awesome. Watch the 3 hour video on the History and Theory of Electricty. And the fact he has had 8 labs destroyed/vandalised and equipment broken, lost and stolen leads me to believe he is on the right track.

www.youtube.com...
I already posted that video near the beginning of the thread to demonstrate the man could be lucid ling enough to explain some things about the history of electricity. But if you watch his other video posted on page 2 by ZakOlongapo, dollard is not lucid at all.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

What concerns me about anyone who has seen that video and still thinks Dollard is lucid is that the Dollard follower may have cognitive issues if they are unable to recognize the lack of lucidity in Dollard's train of thought, or absence thereof. Not only that, to say he "will have your answers" is utterly ridiculous, because what he says is nobody knows how the sun works or where it gets it's energy from but it could be from another dimension for all he knows. Well what kind of answer is that? We still have a lot to learn about the sun, but we know far more than Dollard gives us credit for.

I posted a reply about Dollard on page 2 which you might want to read (this is where I posted his video that you just reposted):

www.abovetopsecret.com...


Push the "erase button" for the two notions : Energy is the product of mass times the velocity of light and also Electricity is the flow of electrons in wire.
E=mc^2 isn't a definition of energy, it's an equivalence principle, and there's data to support it. What data do you have to reject it?

Current (an important aspect of electricity) is defined as the flow of charge, by definition, and the flow of electrons in a wire is only one form such charge movement can take:

en.wikipedia.org...

An electric current is a flow of electric charge. In electric circuits this charge is often carried by moving electrons in a wire. It can also be carried by ions in an electrolyte, or by both ions and electrons such as in a plasma.



Im happy to try and answer any questions but i have only just begun to learn the true nature of electricity, but id just take a while to watch the video.
Most of those quotes you said are from Dollard are nonsense, though he does say a lot of things about the history of electricity that are actually true so I can't say everything the man says is wrong. I would suggest finding a better source if you really want to learn about electricity, or better yet, learn about it where I learned, in the lab doing your own experiments. That way you don't even have to get your information from a book, you get it right from your experimental results.

edit on 24-4-2014 by Arbitrageur because: clarification



posted on Apr, 24 2014 @ 09:41 PM
link   
a reply to: GallopingFish

I just love it when people try to warp Tesla work. First Teslas problem with relativity he differed with Einstine on two points. He didnt think space itself has properties. This is why he needed an ether to create the force of gravity. Einstein said space has properties and could be curved or bent. The other thing they differed on is Einstein said there doesn't need to be an ether for light itself to propagate. According to Tesla he thought light was energy traveling through an ether he saw it as an electric wire. Light created a path through the ether for energy to flow. He was wrong on both the accounts. We in deed know space is curved we have measured it we use it dailt in things like our GPS systems. We also found light doesnt need an ether to propagate indeed it works quite well on its own.

People in the whole electric universe like to quote Tesla thinking this has somehow been suppressed by science. It wasnt Tesla wasnt radical in his thinking it was common belief at his time. Many physicists believe as he did it was the standard model they all thought there was a ether. It was Einstein that was the radical he went against common belief and told everyone they were wrong.Multiple attempts to find the ether failed everything they tried.So as it became apparent there was no ether science again took a closer at Einsteins work. Over the decades more and more experiments proved relativity over ether models. And yes that includes how electricity propagates.



posted on Apr, 24 2014 @ 10:14 PM
link   
a reply to: dragonridr

The EM field is the light ether, only the words are different, the reality the words were pointing to is the same reality, and uses the same intuition to come to the conclusion that a spatial medium must exist which is the propagator of light, call it an EM field, call it the ether, call it OXXXO, you are arguing semantics, you cant 'diss' Tesla on that point for 'using the wrong word to describe the right thing'.



posted on Apr, 25 2014 @ 12:32 AM
link   
a reply to: ImaFungi

Einstein called it a "new aether", but he wasn't claiming it was the same concept as the old concept of "luminiferous aether", rather the concept was quite different in that one could theoretically measure the Earth's movement through the luminiferous aether (if it existed), and there was no such concept under Einstein's idea.

So if you look at Einstein's language, you have it backwards, he tried to keep the same or similar term to apply to a different concept, and not the same concept with a different term as you suggest.

Eventually however other scientists did not embrace Einstein's terminology of "new aether", thankfully, because it is a different concept and the term is too easily confused with luminiferous aether, plus there were already other types of aether besides luminiferous so the term was already too confusing.



posted on Apr, 25 2014 @ 12:38 AM
link   

originally posted by: Arbitrageur
a reply to: ImaFungi

Einstein called it a "new aether", but he wasn't claiming it was the same concept as the old concept of "luminiferous aether", rather the concept was quite different in that one could theoretically measure the Earth's movement through the luminiferous aether (if it existed), and there was no such concept under Einstein's idea.

So if you look at Einstein's language, you have it backwards, he tried to keep the same or similar term to apply to a different concept, and not the same concept with a different term as you suggest.

Eventually however other scientists did not embrace Einstein's terminology of "new aether", thankfully, because it is a different concept and the term is too easily confused with luminiferous aether, plus there were already other types of aether besides luminiferous so the term was already too confusing.


Well if you look at what I wrote, you have it backwards...because I was talking about Tesla, in response to someone else talking about Tesla.

And yes I agree, there were many theories of the aether, and luminiferous aether. The general concept was correct. Just because 'the one' that was disproved by michelson morley experiment or whatever was disproven, doesnt mean the concept that a medium that exists throughout space which is/allows the propagation of light is a false concept.

I agree, we are passed this argument and it is semantics, and this I see is why you like science, as a sport or game. You just got points, they changed the name and that is progress, you are winning.

There were some questions I posted on this thread recently that havent been answered. You and Dragonrider have just appeared to bring up this banal superficiality to reclaim your stake in being right at something or knowing something, to distract from the more pertinent questions brought up.
edit on 25-4-2014 by ImaFungi because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 25 2014 @ 01:07 AM
link   
a reply to: ImaFungi

To be honest, some of your questions I don't even understand, like when you talk about a marble bobbing in water compared to red shift and expansion of the universe. A paper has shown that the cosmological red shift of galaxies at great distances isn't any kind of doppler effect so there's no analogy I can find with your marble example if I understand your question which I probably don't. In addition it also seemed more appropriate to reply to the dollard comments regarding electricity, electron flow etc as it's a lot closer to being the actual topic of this thread, but again maybe your marble question is somehow on topic and I just don't understand how since I admitted I don't understand the question.

I do concur with mbkennel's suggestion to try free courses which can be found online:

"I suggest the Feynman Lectures on Physics II for classical E&M, I think they're free to read on-line."

As for Tesla, in his younger years he was considered a brilliant engineer. In his later years his forays into physics showed he was not a brilliant physicist, and that's putting it kindly. (He was wrong a lot).



posted on Apr, 25 2014 @ 02:04 AM
link   
a reply to: ImaFungi


Well i have supplied answers to your questions but you keep doubling back. Like the whole magnetic field being some form of either when i just finished telling you a couple of posts ago photon is responsible for the magnetic field. That was when i was explaining gauge bosons if you didnt understand ask but dont ignore it and ask a question in a different way. And then some of the stuff youve been writing just didnt make a lot of sense really and im deep in the lab lately we had a major breakthrough in our research and maybe thats why im not understanding you because i have to do fly bys lately. So i just dont have the time to interpret. I know you want to say space is filled with fields that matter acts on but its only part of the story and your misunderstanding fields and what they are in say particle physics there are different types.

But the point your really not getting is there vectors its assigned values for space.To put it simply its math we use to represent a physical property. and there are multiple types depending on what were dealing with you can have vector or scalar or spinor and of course tensor. The field itself is space literally a point in space with energy. I keep trying to tell you space has several inherent properties in and of itself. The either your looking for is the energy contained in empty space. Like my ball analogy energy is everywhere throughout the universe how this energy interacts wuiath a particle depends on what particle it is.



posted on Apr, 25 2014 @ 12:52 PM
link   
a reply to: Arbitrageur


Are there any theories as to why/how the EM field reacts and travels at a consistent speed? (not why its exactly the value it is, speed of light, but why it is an exact fixed value at all)

Ok, and I will concede that the water analogy may be wrong, and it is wrong because, a vibration in the middle of a volume of water, will hardly propagate throughout the volume of water 'forever' until it is 'dampened/killed/absorbed' by an object, right?

That is why the nature of light and its medium of propagation is so interesting and mysterious. It really doesnt make sense, its as if there are densely packed 2d sheets of Light field, and they have all the possible tracks...its as if its a fake digital simulation. Because the smartest physicists cant explain what the light field is and how it works, and what light is, and how it propagates indefinitely at a constant speed, I dont want to think the universe is fake or a complicated technological construction, I dont want to think anything about it, just know...but the explanations I hear about light and the light field just make it sound like some digital 'affect', like a set reaction to a program. The whole non existent magnetic field creating electric field indeffinitly, with no charge between them...WHAT????!?! WHAT>>>!>!>!!>?!>?!> How....whatthahthathtahat WHATTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTT?????? WHAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAATTTT?>??????????

Where are the fields, what do they look like, what do they appear as to themselves, if one could see and feel and observe everything that exists, what does the EM field appear as, and how does it work, step by step, planck length by planck length and planck time by planck time.... how long is a light Electric field until it turns into a magnetic field, and how long is it a magnetic field till it turns to electric field? Thats related to its amplitude and wavelength I suppose. Is light destroyed by local magnetic or electric fields? Not destroyed you know, but absorbed?

Light traveling through empty space...Imagine there is one star in the middle of galactic space. Its electrons are vibrating like mad, radiation is radiating out from the star. Why cant quantum mechanics draw a clear picture of this, I know there would be quintriquillion electrons to draw, and then lots of detail work connecting each electron to the field that they dont know what it looks like, but reality is 'doing this', ok, reality is 'happening', so there is a way it is. Why cant this be modeled, why havent every one of your arguments been quickly settled with a rendering of the physical reality model?

Show me a diagram or gif, of what the smartest physicists in the world think it looks like for an electron to be accelerated, and then subsequent, EM radiation to be propagated from that point, and the most detailed showing, of how that EM radiation propagates from the electron, what it appears as.

Because I know we cant see it as it propagates, we only see and detect when we finally end the propagation of EM radiation, but if they are claiming to know how it behaves, what it is, how it works... Please... find me that diagram.

It should be the simplest thing to find. Hundred years of knowing physics,I feel this isnt much to ask for. I dont care if you answer anything else in this reply or of me ever again. Thats all I want you to read of this post, the 'show me a diagram' sentence right above. Physicistspeed.



posted on Apr, 25 2014 @ 01:03 PM
link   
a reply to: dragonridr

I dont care about the word ether. You say there are fields everywhere in space. Energy everywhere in space. To me, that is what the word ether implied. The battle then was between ether (meaning energy value at all areas of the universe) and space being pure nothingness. I recognize the word has been changed and expanded upon and I am thrilled, the ether concept turned out to be correct. Not that important of a footnote, this argument of semantics.

When I am talking about reality and the universe, I am never talking about models or your math. I only care about your models and math if they are an EXACT replica/copy of the universe. If they are useful tools and nothing more, then I do not care, I am not interested in physics to use tools to do stuff, I only am interested in physics because I am interested in truth. Some people like crossword puzzles, others like romantic comedies, some like to work on cars, I have an obsession with holding in my mind the truth, that is my hobby.

So what is a field, is it energy/quanta that exists at every planck length of space? Or is there oreo sandwichs of field/nothing/field...Is there pockets of true, pure nothing in space.

Or is the entirety of the universe, pure energy. Pure physicality (I mean physical to mean, non nothing). This is a simple yes or no answer in truth.

Either there is 1 (or more) planck length or larger, pockets of TRUE PURE nothingness. Or there is not.

IF THERE IS NOT, THEN that means there is no area at all, in the universe of true, pure nothingness.

THEN THAT MEANS, ALL AREAS OF THE UNIVERSE ARE SOMETHING. A PURE CONTINUOUS SUBSTANCE OF ENERGY.

You may be thinking to your self... "There are pockets of true pure nothingness, but we detect some particles occasionally in them...so does that mean their something?" ..... I DONT KNOW, DOES IT?

Or does it mean, that those pockets, every planck length of them, are pure something, pure 'field', pure energy, substance, material, field, not nothing.

IS THE LOWEST ENERGY STATE OF THE UNIVERSE STILL ALWAYS SOMETHINGNESS...is mainly what im asking.



posted on Apr, 25 2014 @ 01:18 PM
link   

originally posted by: ImaFungi
Is there any theories as to why/how the EM field reacts and travels at a consistent speed, not dependent on the little or great force of the electron causing it to react?

If we take a medium of water for example, is it the same, if you have a marble attached to a real strong stick and your holding it under water horizontal, and you gently shake it up and down, will the motions caused in the area of local water that would propagate outward from the point of motion travel at the same velocity, as if you were to shake the marble separate examples, with increasing force each time?


Yes up to a point. The motions propagate at the speed of sound in the medium, and for fairly small energies (i.e. below shock waves) the propagation speed (group velocity) is not amplitude dependent---this is a property of a linear differential equation. Now, in real materials there can be more complex nonlinear effects.

Linear waves will obey superposition---nonlinear systems won't. To very high accuracy light does not directly interact with other light (until you get sufficiently high energies to create virtual positrons + electrons which then interact). If it did, then you'd get different frequencies out than when you put in at times without interacting with matter, but that doesn't happen to any significant degree.

In particular, light propagating through real materials can result in atomic responses which are nonlinear and then you get more complex and interesting effects which can be technologically useful.



So that the energy absorbed and transported by the medium may change in value, but the rate at which the interaction/absorption and transportation take place is always a fixed rate?


Yes if the physics is described by a linear system, which appears to be true always for vacuum electromagnetism, and tends to be true for small amplitudes for other physical systems. (Think taylor expansion---first term is lienar).



And then I suppose that makes things like spatial expansion and red shift and stuff interesting, because how would those fit into the analogy, if the marble was being shaken and there was constantly more water being added to the pool, but not added from just anywhere, added from in between each water molecule?


No that's not it---it would be more like the "springy force' of pressure waves didn't have a simple F=k*displacement formula but additional powers/fucntions of displacement, and that would happen with more complex molecular interactions.
edit on 25-4-2014 by mbkennel because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 25 2014 @ 01:25 PM
link   

originally posted by: ImaFungi
Where are the fields, what do they look like, what do they appear as to themselves, if one could see and feel and observe everything that exists, what does the EM field appear as, and how does it work, step by step, planck length by planck length and planck time by planck time.... how long is a light Electric field until it turns into a magnetic field, and how long is it a magnetic field till it turns to electric field?


That's what the Maxwell equations are for: they tell you exactly how this part works. As I recommended previously, please read the Feynman Lectures to educate yourself.


Thats related to its amplitude and wavelength I suppose.


Amplitude, no. Wavelength sort-of, as the Maxwell equations relate space and time derivatives of fields to one another and an oscillation with a given wavelength has spatial gradients in the field.


Is light destroyed by local magnetic or electric fields? Not destroyed you know, but absorbed?


No, not with EM fields alone, as there is perfect superposition. In a mirror what's happening is that the light moves the mobile electrons on the surface and that motion creates EM waves which cancels out the the incoming wave on the backside (remember superposition---add up waves to make zero) and result in outgoing waves (the reflection).




Light traveling through empty space...Imagine there is one star in the middle of galactic space. Its electrons are vibrating like mad, radiation is radiating out from the star. Why cant quantum mechanics draw a clear picture of this, I know there would be quintriquillion electrons to draw, and then lots of detail work connecting each electron to the field that they dont know what it looks like, but reality is 'doing this', ok, reality is 'happening', so there is a way it is. Why cant this be modeled, why havent every one of your arguments been quickly settled with a rendering of the physical reality model?

Show me a diagram or gif, of what the smartest physicists in the world think it looks like for an electron to be accelerated, and then subsequent, EM radiation to be propagated from that point, and the most detailed showing, of how that EM radiation propagates from the electron, what it appears as.

Because I know we cant see it as it propagates, we only see and detect when we finally end the propagation of EM radiation, but if they are claiming to know how it behaves, what it is, how it works... Please... find me that diagram.

It should be the simplest thing to find. Hundred years of knowing physics,I feel this isnt much to ask for. I dont care if you answer anything else in this reply or of me ever again. Thats all I want you to read of this post, the 'show me a diagram' sentence right above. Physicistspeed.






posted on Apr, 25 2014 @ 01:33 PM
link   
a reply to: ImaFungi
I already posted the diagram for you in another thread, which came right from the wiki on EM that you said you already read 50 times, but you were unimpressed. Anyway, here it is again and this is how I visualize the model:

en.wikipedia.org...


I think that's a pretty good visualization and it comes out of Maxwell's equations without aether being required. If the EM radiation is light or higher frequencies, I think of quantized packets of energy, photons given off when electrons drop to a lower energy orbit for example, where the photons propagate in wave packets resembling the animation (except usually not polarized). In the case of radio waves with lower frequencies, it's less useful to think about photons and I think more about electrons in a metal wiggling back and forth in sync with those fields in the GIF, causing the EM field in transmitting antennae and receiving the EM field in receiving antennae. The electrons also wiggle back and forth in the wire in power transmission lines.


Is light destroyed by local magnetic or electric fields? Not destroyed you know, but absorbed?
Not destroyed, not even bent. Gravity can bend light but I've seen no evidence other EM fields bend or affect light, with the possible exception of a theoretical photon-photon interaction which is predicted to be so rare that it's never been observed, so for all practical purposes we usually say that such interactions don't happen despite the rare theoretical possibility.

However, I don't really have a good answer about why the speed of light is what it is, and in fact for most constants, we don't really know why they have the values they do. Obviously there's something very fundamental about c, as seen in the formula E=mc^2

edit on 25-4-2014 by Arbitrageur because: clarification



posted on Apr, 25 2014 @ 01:59 PM
link   

originally posted by: mbkennel


Yes up to a point. The motions propagate at the speed of sound in the medium, and for fairly small energies (i.e. below shock waves) the propagation speed (group velocity) is not amplitude dependent---this is a property of a linear differential equation. Now, in real materials there can be more complex nonlinear effects.

Linear waves will obey superposition---nonlinear systems won't. To very high accuracy light does not directly interact with other light (until you get sufficiently high energies to create virtual positrons + electrons which then interact). If it did, then you'd get different frequencies out than when you put in at times without interacting with matter, but that doesn't happen to any significant degree.


So if you had a vacuum tube of say 1000 feet long, that only had a diameter of a cm. At the same exact moment you can send infinitely coherent frequencies down it? Or is that what you mean by the high energies, its like lights own physical depth/girth of existence is so slim, that it can always find spatial regions to wave into, or, is it possible that light confined to a small area,with lots of different frequencies does react to one another, but in a subtle way?

Could it be that the 'vacuum/field' the light is propagating 'through/in/on/with' reacts like air to a sound wave. Well what im trying to think I guess is conservation, but how there is the conservation of the potentially highly detailed information of a light wave. How in sound wave it will dampen eventually and die out. (I know this path of thought brought up questions of tired light), but its as if the vacuum/fields cannot absorb the light, so no matter how many frequencies put together in an area of space, they will avoid contacting one another, but not in a destructive manner to the other light waves.

As you mentioned novel effects appear at high enough energies, which am I correct to posit this also entails small enough spaces? So when there is not enough space to cushion the light wave into keeping its expected path and wavelength, then they must interfere with each other...or something.

How is it explained that they dont affect one another, I know you say linear and non linear. But if you had a region of space that was the exact 'size' of a wave of light, and you sent two headed at one another, would they pass through each other like ghosts? Or would their local spatial regions always 'make room' for the other to pass'...until of course high enough energies, when there is no room to make.

And does that not imply something of their electro magnetic field nature being the cause of their inability to interact, in a seemingly repulsive manner, if only subtly and slightly?







No that's not it---it would be more like the "springy force' of pressure waves didn't have a simple F=k*displacement formula but additional powers/fucntions of displacement, and that would happen with more complex molecular interactions.


But where would the functions of displacement be coming from, what would be their cause, because in the universe, there is 'something' or somethings, that are causing the spatial expansion. I think its scary and unsafe thinking that, the function of displacement or function space existing is an inherent mathematical value to reality, and assume it has no cause, is coming from nowhere (another way of saying is caused by nothing). Because that literally cannot be true. It does allow one to not consider where and how it may be working, and coming from, which I can imagine is nice though.
edit on 25-4-2014 by ImaFungi because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 25 2014 @ 02:03 PM
link   
a reply to: Arbitrageur

That is a crap diagram. 100 years of modern physics and one of the most fundamental aspects of our reality, and thats the best your ilk can do?



posted on Apr, 25 2014 @ 02:09 PM
link   
a reply to: ImaFungi
I'm not sure why you don't like it, it works for me.

If you find a better one, post it.



posted on Apr, 25 2014 @ 04:44 PM
link   

originally posted by: Arbitrageur
a reply to: ImaFungi
I'm not sure why you don't like it, it works for me.

If you find a better one, post it.


Haha! I have not been able to find a better one, that is why im questioning your science. I am not answering, I am questioning. Your answer, that diagram, is not sufficient enough to answer my questions.

I dont like it because it is very bare and not detailed enough. I dont know where those waves are coming from, I dont see whats causing their creation, and I dont see what keeps them the exact amplitude they are, why they dont just fall apart, I dont get what they are composed of, how thick/girthful/depthful it is.

I suppose I can see what a photon may be referred to, and that may be exactly 1 movement of the electron, up or down, if one motion from a rest point, down, creates 1 burst of wave, I suppose I can see how that can be considered 'the particle of light'

It doesnt show how the field exists. The field is not the electron right, the field exists all around the electron, when an electron is accelerated does one direction of light wave 'jut' out like that diagram, or does radiation radiate all around its vertical axis? I dont think it radiates in all spherical directions right.

In/of the EM field, how are the Magnetic field and Electric field components of the field, 'nestled'? Is it an EM fabric, knit like. There is not good detailing of how the total field exists, and how the electrons interaction in the locality of the total field, produces the manner and means in which physicists know what light is and how it propagates.



posted on Apr, 25 2014 @ 07:51 PM
link   

originally posted by: ImaFungi

originally posted by: Arbitrageur
a reply to: ImaFungi
I'm not sure why you don't like it, it works for me.

If you find a better one, post it.


Haha! I have not been able to find a better one, that is why im questioning your science. I am not answering, I am questioning. Your answer, that diagram, is not sufficient enough to answer my questions.

I dont like it because it is very bare and not detailed enough. I dont know where those waves are coming from, I dont see whats causing their creation, and I dont see what keeps them the exact amplitude they are, why they dont just fall apart, I dont get what they are composed of, how thick/girthful/depthful it is.

I suppose I can see what a photon may be referred to, and that may be exactly 1 movement of the electron, up or down, if one motion from a rest point, down, creates 1 burst of wave, I suppose I can see how that can be considered 'the particle of light'

It doesnt show how the field exists. The field is not the electron right, the field exists all around the electron, when an electron is accelerated does one direction of light wave 'jut' out like that diagram, or does radiation radiate all around its vertical axis? I dont think it radiates in all spherical directions right.

In/of the EM field, how are the Magnetic field and Electric field components of the field, 'nestled'? Is it an EM fabric, knit like. There is not good detailing of how the total field exists, and how the electrons interaction in the locality of the total field, produces the manner and means in which physicists know what light is and how it propagates.


Well to answer your question involves a crash course in Quantum mechanics. Photons are little units of light -- they are the original "quanta" of quantum mechanics. Their existence was hypothesized to explain the details of the photoelectric effect.Which means they have the ability to knock electrons out of there orbit. The classical model of electricity and magnetism makes use of the ideas of electric and magnetic fields. Maxwell’s equations describe how these fields behave, and the Lorentz force equation, which describes how the fields push and pull charged particles and magnets.Then it was discovered that light is in fact waves. These waves were identified with light by the experiments of Hertz and others. We therefore have two very different ideas for how light works -- as waves in the electric and magnetic fields, and as motion of particles aka photons.This is called "wave-particle duality" and is a recurring theme of quantum mechanics.

Now the strange part static electric and magnetic fields also exhibit wave-particle duality. The collision of a charged particle with another (repulsive or attractive) can be modeled as the exchange of photons and you get the same answer as if you had calculated everything with just the classical fields (in the limit that the classical calculation applies -- slow incoming particles).We found calculations involving the exchange of photons is more accurate in describing actual collisions at higher energies. So we know photons travel in straight lines at the speed of light right? So why doesn’t the electric field of a charged object just zoom away at the speed of light? It turns out that the photons which make up a static electric or magnetic field are "virtual" -- their energy and momentum doesn’t satisfy the relationship for "real" photons which is E=p*c (E is energy, p=momentum, and c is the speed of light).The virtual photons are constantly emitted and reabsorbed. A charged object with an electric (and possibly also a magnetic) field is surrounded by an entourage of photons, constantly being emitted and reabsorbed.

Photons, real and virtual, are emitted and absorbed by charged particles, even though they are not charged themselves. They only interact with charged particles, and not with each other.Well there may be one exception to this i wont go into right now but lets say its remote or at least never been observed yet. Any way energy is transferred by the creation and absorption of these virtual particles.The photon carries information as to the charge sign of its source. Hence the electron receiving the photon can decide whether to be attracted or repelled. Ill see if i can find a diagram for you that i like i found two but both are confusing for me even. Now in QM we call photons force carriers because they propagate the electromagnetic field. Ill stop here for a moment but ill add this to give you an idea what QM shows as interactions.





edit on 4/25/14 by dragonridr because: (no reason given)







 
55
<< 32  33  34    36  37  38 >>

log in

join