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.
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?
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'?
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.
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.
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'.
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.
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...
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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?
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?
Thats related to its amplitude and wavelength I suppose.
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.
Is light destroyed by local magnetic or electric fields? Not destroyed you know, but absorbed?
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.
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.
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.
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.