Plasma Ribbon Confirms Electric Sun

page: 42
55
<< 39  40  41    43  44  45 >>

log in

join

posted on Apr, 30 2014 @ 09:07 PM
link   

originally posted by: ImaFungi
a reply to: mbkennel

So in a non atom example, but purely proton and electron. If you place them near enough one another, what will happen?
How is that a non atom example? A proton is a hydrogen atom nucleus.

Did you watch the Chladni pattern demonstration I posted a few pages back? You keep asking for visual stuff, well it's very visual and very relevant to that question.




posted on Apr, 30 2014 @ 10:04 PM
link   

originally posted by: KrzYma
a reply to: dragonridr


First there you would have difficulty you would have to have the law 1r/r(squared) be zero. For the force between two charges to be zero distance becomes infinite.This means opisit charges would rush towards each other bond and once together no force in the universe could separate them.


yes but, if you speak about a distance between charged particles, where are the points that build ends of a line between them ? at the centre, right ? Those particles especially protons are quite big in Planck's world ?
I say surface charge density and not the total charge of a particle.
One r in your equation has different value then the other r


What are you talking about this makes no sense your attempting to argue where the energy is in an electron??? Doesnt matter at what point the charge is the equations are the same. Here lets look at it this way an electron cannot have both a sharply defined position and momentum.Lets say we place electrons in a widely separated packet will go crazy here one on earth and one on the moon. The Heisenberg uncertainty principle alone does not preclude each packet from having a sharp position and momentum. So why would you try to invoke it in the atom? The funniest part of your argument is the exact reason QM was created because bonding everything told them a proton and electron should bond and form a neutron that cannot be broken unfortunately for you thats not the case good for the rest of us however. Since are very existence depends on being able to break this bond.



posted on Apr, 30 2014 @ 10:13 PM
link   
edit on 4/30/14 by dragonridr because: wrong post



posted on Apr, 30 2014 @ 10:43 PM
link   
I first apologize if this has been posted, but I have not read all 42 pages of this thread yet.

Is there any concern about what will happen to the Earth as it goes through this plasma field? I have read somewhere on here that our whole solar system is supposed to go through this plasma field, or close to it.

What is the going consensus on this?



posted on Apr, 30 2014 @ 11:19 PM
link   
a reply to: Arbitrageur

Ok but I was more wrapping my head around the fact that its the geometry of the space/fields surrounding a proton and electron that are responsible for the electron orbiting the proton.

So if you have a vacuum chamber, and a proton and electron, and line the 'guns' that fire them, so perfectly, and fire them slowly, so as they gently head towards one another, will they attract to one another? And will their attraction result in a hydrogen atom? Is that the kind of attraction that is meant, its not meant like 2 bar magnets attract (ironic example) or maybe it is. I was going to say the difference being the assumed meaning of the term attraction, when compared to the term repulsion, is one of absolutes, though it is not absolute repulsion (though in theory maybe it is as an object put in motion stays in motion) but if objects are put near one another and they repulse one another, and the term attract means the opposite, I assume it would imply bring the two parts together.

So is that what occurs, but the 'big idea' is that 'things cant actually touch', so the electron just 'freaks out' around the proton, being as it cant physically get any closer, but that is what the local energy fields are forcing it to do.



posted on Apr, 30 2014 @ 11:36 PM
link   
a reply to: MountainEnigma
If you want to worry about something, worry about a possible recurrence of this event in 1859, which would be devastating today, might even knock out a lot of satellites, and shut down some electrical power grids:

Solar storm of 1859

Nobody will die directly as a result, but I expect people could possibly die from no electricity leading to no heating or air conditioning thus heat or cold related deaths, etc. Not trying to push doom porn exactly, just being realistic. It will not be good if that happens again, and at some point it probably will but could be another thousand years for all I know. The estimated frequency for that severity is once every 500 years, but individual event time separation could be much smaller or larger than that typical value.

The plasma ribbon in the OP should be no problem for us.


a reply to: ImaFungi
Since a main topic here is plasma, that question is very relevant to the topic, so when did you start posting on topic? Just kidding I've posted a little off topic myself.

Anyway whether the proton or electron will combine in general as it relates to gas or plasma is an issue mostly of temperature. If the temperature is too high even if they combine briefly then they may soon be knocked apart again so may not stay together. At lower temperatures like we have on Earth, there are very few plasma ions in the lower atmosphere. You have to go all the way up to the ionosphere to find ions.
edit on 30-4-2014 by Arbitrageur because: clarification



posted on May, 1 2014 @ 12:33 AM
link   

originally posted by: ImaFungi
a reply to: Arbitrageur

Ok but I was more wrapping my head around the fact that its the geometry of the space/fields surrounding a proton and electron that are responsible for the electron orbiting the proton.

So if you have a vacuum chamber, and a proton and electron, and line the 'guns' that fire them, so perfectly, and fire them slowly, so as they gently head towards one another, will they attract to one another? And will their attraction result in a hydrogen atom? Is that the kind of attraction that is meant, its not meant like 2 bar magnets attract (ironic example) or maybe it is. I was going to say the difference being the assumed meaning of the term attraction, when compared to the term repulsion, is one of absolutes, though it is not absolute repulsion (though in theory maybe it is as an object put in motion stays in motion) but if objects are put near one another and they repulse one another, and the term attract means the opposite, I assume it would imply bring the two parts together.

So is that what occurs, but the 'big idea' is that 'things cant actually touch', so the electron just 'freaks out' around the proton, being as it cant physically get any closer, but that is what the local energy fields are forcing it to do.


If one describes atoms using only the Coulomb forces,like your example atoms couldnt exist atome would become unstable like a ball in a pinball machine. Now of course pauli principle wont allow them to be in the same place. we could go over different math here bottom line zero chance. But now why dont they just bond and stick to each other well Schrodinger equation comes in here it says When the Hamiltonian operator acts on a certain wave function Ψ, and the result is proportional to the same wave function Ψ, then Ψ is a stationary state, and the proportionality constant, E, is the energy of the state Ψ. So to decipher this this is how orbitals are created but it also will set limits for them. and we need one more thing angular momentum which will set our other limit almost like water going down a drain think of waves causing spin.. Now I suspecting your stuck on the idea of two balls colliding. You should be thinking of two waves interacting.



posted on May, 1 2014 @ 01:19 PM
link   

originally posted by: dragonridr
Wrong your trying to use the heisenberg uncertainty principle to explain the stability of matter. I told you why the pauli exclusion principle.I usually dont do this because i dont like to get people lost in science i think it should be fun but i want you to understand your way unprepared for playing in the deep end. Look im done trying to make things simple so let me tell you what science says would happen according to you.


The Pauli exclusion principle does not explain the size of the ground state of hydrogen (uncertainty principle and the mass of the electron does), but does contribute, with the dynamical laws of quantum mechanics, to the stability of multi-electron atoms.



First there you would have difficulty you would have to have the law 1r/r(squared) be zero. For the force between two charges to be zero distance becomes infinite.This means opisit charges would rush towards each other bond and once together no force in the universe could separate them. This means the matter in the universe would tend to shrink into nothing or diminish indefinitely in size.


Correct, and since that doesn't happen it's clearly not classical physics.


Without the pauli exclusion principle matter not just the atoms but matter itself would collapse into a compressed high density phase.


Yes, without the PEP the density would be higher than it is, the sizes of multi-electron electron distributions in atoms with higher atomic number than hydrogen would be much smaller than they actually are. However, as I said the PEP doesn't explain the measured size of the ground state of hydrogen and the difference between this and naive expectations of classical physics.



The assembly of just any two microscopic objects would create an atomic blast. Now whoever gave you that answer please tell them thats not how matter waves work and wave particle duality has nothing to do with an atoms stability.


But, in fact it does. Because you get that by solving the Schroedinger equation in 3-dimensions for an electron in a Coulomb potential, with no need to apply any PEP.

www.eng.fsu.edu...

The radius does, however, depend positively on the square of Planck's constant, and inversely with the electron mass.
Since you can predict the probability distribution of the ground state of hydrogen using quantum mechanics, but without the PEP (which is about multiple particle, not single particle wavefunctions anyway), the PEP isn't needed.



posted on May, 1 2014 @ 01:29 PM
link   

originally posted by: KrzYma
electrons do not have angular momentum, it can be calculated but electron is not a single point charge.
It is more like bubble of centre mass, a cloud in EM field.


Electrons do have intrinsic angular momentum (called spin), and an intrinsic magnetic dipole, sort of 'as if' they were spinning continuous charge, but the ratio is different from classical physics.

The spin of an electron is real-live angular momentum compatible with the the ordinary mechanical sort, as demonstrated by the Einstein de Haas experiment, which is less well known than it ought to be.



posted on May, 1 2014 @ 05:12 PM
link   
a reply to: mbkennel

If you were an observer in an area of vacuum (via observation apparatus), and you were observing 3 trials of electrons at arbitrary distance away from you, the difference between the trials would be that; 1st electron would be accelerated in the 'up and down' axis. The 2nd electron would be accelerated in the 'left and right' axis (these directionals are relative to your kept stationary position throughout the experiment if I must say this). And the 3rd electron would be accelerated in the 'front and back' axis.

From your point of observation, would you detect radiation in each of the trials? And if the same force was applied to the acceleration, would you detect the same amount of radiation?

This question is along the lines of me wondering how the EM field is arranged in space, like when I asked how are the lines related to one another in space, are they touching, are they stacked width ways and height ways and depth ways, you said dont worry about the lines, in a way to allude to the fact that the lines were 'measuring' something. The something the lines measure is 'what the field is', not the lines themselves, as one uses a ruler to measure something but the ruler is not that something itself.

So then, what is known about the field itself? In a vacuum is the EM field densely packed virtual photons, (which are stationary photons, that have their non 0 vacuum value?) ? Or is the EM field 'pure energy' which would mean...not particle or wave?

Does the electron move through the EM field like a marble moves through water? The water molecules representing the virtual photons/EM energy medium of the EM field?

Or is the EM field 'partless', no particles make it up, it is one pure substance...and when it is reacted with in the case of electron acceleration, that is when what 'seems like or looks like particles' is detectable, but it is really a disruption in the pure sealed tight energy domain.

The electron is accelerated in this EM field, the field at that local point is altered, in the same way the gravity field is locally altered (meaning the body has an affect on the field locally, that is novel, compared to the affect it is 'barely having' at a great arbitrary distance further away from the body in focus),

so the EM field 'changes at that point', but its not like it just tears open or becomes less dense for a moment locally and then there is just a hole in the EM field, for some reason the electron being accelerated at an area of EM field, causes the locality of that action to 'ripple on' indefinitely, until it is dampened/absorbed by an object/s.

But is the 'planeness' of this affect not intriguing? The fact that this field energy, which depending on what you answer to my above queries about the EM field being composed of pure photons/virtual photons/particles (which may create more questions like is there a special force that holds these particles together, which holds the EM field together),

because the difficulty with saying its particle like that is the 'why doesnt it behave as the particle nature of sound waving through a medium of air'... what is the conceptual difference between your hand being accelerated up and down in the particle medium of air, creating waves that do not travel in definitely in a straight line, and an electron accelerated in the '________' medium of EM field and how it is only able to be expressed as this behavior of a magnetic field creating an electric field that creates a magnetic field indefinitely?

How are the magnetic and electric fields existing around that electron just before the electron is accelerated, and how do they contain themselves into their indefinite frequency, when at all points surrounding them are EM field?



posted on May, 1 2014 @ 07:41 PM
link   
a reply to: ImaFungi
Lol, you should be a movie maker. You have the perfect recipe.
Put in everything and shake it all about.



posted on May, 1 2014 @ 08:11 PM
link   

originally posted by: ImaFungi
a reply to: mbkennel

If you were an observer in an area of vacuum (via observation apparatus), and you were observing 3 trials of electrons at arbitrary distance away from you, the difference between the trials would be that; 1st electron would be accelerated in the 'up and down' axis. The 2nd electron would be accelerated in the 'left and right' axis (these directionals are relative to your kept stationary position throughout the experiment if I must say this). And the 3rd electron would be accelerated in the 'front and back' axis.

From your point of observation, would you detect radiation in each of the trials?


The details would depend on the time series properties of the motion.

You would observe the same amount of radiation at the observation point in the first two trials, the radiation would be incoming with differing polarizations.


For the third one the amount would be different observed at that one point, I believe zero for non-relativistic charge motion, as I think dipole radiation would have a null in that direction. The total power radiated in all directions would be the same fora ll conditions.


And if the same force was applied to the acceleration, would you detect the same amount of radiation?


Yes, if the magnitude of the acceleration time series were identical in all cases, the total radiation emitted in all directions would be identical because electromagnetism is symmetric in global rotation.




This question is along the lines of me wondering how the EM field is arranged in space, like when I asked how are the lines related to one another in space, are they touching, are they stacked width ways and height ways and depth ways, you said dont worry about the lines, in a way to allude to the fact that the lines were 'measuring' something. The something the lines measure is 'what the field is', not the lines themselves, as one uses a ruler to measure something but the ruler is not that something itself.

So then, what is known about the field itself? In a vacuum is the EM field densely packed virtual photons, (which are stationary photons, that have their non 0 vacuum value?) ? Or is the EM field 'pure energy' which would mean...not particle or wave?


Now you're getting to quantum mechanics which makes things more complicated---you don't understand QM of point particles yet so it's harder to explain it on fields. Roughly the representations are a "change in basis" which is always permitted in QM.



Does the electron move through the EM field like a marble moves through water? The water molecules representing the virtual photons/EM energy medium of the EM field?


No.



Or is the EM field 'partless', no particles make it up, it is one pure substance...and when it is reacted with in the case of electron acceleration, that is when what 'seems like or looks like particles' is detectable, but it is really a disruption in the pure sealed tight energy domain.


It's very difficult to visualize in the full QM description, but for most practical situations you can consdider the EM field to be continuous.



The electron is accelerated in this EM field, the field at that local point is altered, in the same way the gravity field is locally altered (meaning the body has an affect on the field locally, that is novel, compared to the affect it is 'barely having' at a great arbitrary distance further away from the body in focus),

so the EM field 'changes at that point', but its not like it just tears open or becomes less dense for a moment locally and then there is just a hole in the EM field, for some reason the electron being accelerated at an area of EM field, causes the locality of that action to 'ripple on' indefinitely, until it is dampened/absorbed by an object/s.


Yes. There are some on-line demonstrations somewhere.

www.cco.caltech.edu...




But is the 'planeness' of this affect not intriguing?


Yes, EM supports transverse waves in a vector field and that fact means that effects like polarization are important and this is a big deal.


The fact that this field energy, which depending on what you answer to my above queries about the EM field being composed of pure photons/virtual photons/particles (which may create more questions like is there a special force that holds these particles together, which holds the EM field together),


No. EM waves propagate on their own.


because the difficulty with saying its particle like that is the 'why doesnt it behave as the particle nature of sound waving through a medium of air'... what is the conceptual difference between your hand being accelerated up and down in the particle medium of air, creating waves that do not travel in definitely in a straight line, and an electron accelerated in the '________' medium of EM field and how it is only able to be expressed as this behavior of a magnetic field creating an electric field that creates a magnetic field indefinitely?


Sound waves behave differently because a) they are on top of a secondary substance unlike EM waves; (b) there is no polarization, they are 'longitudinal' being only pressure variations.


How are the magnetic and electric fields existing around that electron just before the electron is accelerated, and how do they contain themselves into their indefinite frequency, when at all points surrounding them are EM field?


An electron at rest has a radial electric field surrounding it, meaning that there is a vector pointing "in" by convention, toward the charge, and with magnitude which is proportional to 1/r^2. Magnetic field is zero.
edit on 1-5-2014 by mbkennel because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 2 2014 @ 03:12 AM
link   

originally posted by: mbkennel



The details would depend on the time series properties of the motion.

You would observe the same amount of radiation at the observation point in the first two trials, the radiation would be incoming with differing polarizations.


So is it an appropriate question to ask, before electrons are accelerated, how does the EM field exist?

Consider the first two trials dont with electrons 1 inch away from each other, and at the same time, or something like this, to express the seeming fact that the EM field exists independent of radiation, Yet the medium of this field, can wave in very close proximity in perpendicular polarizations. I think it is hard for one to express the EM field with imagery, because its hard to make sense of it logically. I hope you know what your talking about, but I cant see how the way EM field is described could exist. And I cant imagine if I learned all the math, how I would be able to comprehend how the EM field exists and 'see it' in my head, but not even crudely draw how it exists. This fact is proof that no physicist knows what the EM field is. I really dont want to have to start a thread with my 'Hypothesis...etc. seeking a diagram' but I really want to see if in the history of modern physics at least one genius physicist has worked with one genius artist to draw what the physicist knows an EM field exists as.






It's very difficult to visualize in the full QM description, but for most practical situations you can consdider the EM field to be continuous.


I dont care about practical situations, I care about truth. Is it true that the EM field is continuous?






Sound waves behave differently because a) they are on top of a secondary substance unlike EM waves; (b) there is no polarization, they are 'longitudinal' being only pressure variations.


Isnt the secondary substance the sound waves are on top of is the gravity field? This is what causes the medium and 'pressure' to exist? A sound wave is not a thing, it is air molecules moving in a wave like matter. EM wave is not a thing, it is EM field moving in a wave like matter? So the secondary substance the EM field is on top of is also gravity field?

The fact it is only longitudinal is due to gravity right? the fact of standing on earth there being an 'up and down'. Or...what exactly does this mean... If you have 2 cymbals and you smash them together with them being perpendicular compared to your body, and then smashed them together with them being parallel to your body, the waves that emanate from them, the energy transfer, im guessing relative energy from the mass of the cymbals, being accelerated, their collision not being able to bond the materials together or cause nuclear activity, so instead the 'collective force' of both materials reflected the kinetic energy into the surrounding area, which is a medium of air, and it creates a wave instead of a singular block of energy because....Idk...some reason I cant think of right now.





An electron at rest has a radial electric field surrounding it, meaning that there is a vector pointing "in" by convention, toward the charge, and with magnitude which is proportional to 1/r^2. Magnetic field is zero.


What does it take to get its magnetic field non zero? Once an electron is a part of an atom it has a non magnetic field, its magnetic moment?



posted on May, 2 2014 @ 09:58 AM
link   
a reply to: ImaFungi

I see EM field in this way.

Imagine a short line in space. Its ends A and B are separated by distance d
Electrical potential difference in this distance is the EM field in space.

if A is 1 and B is 3 then d/2 away it is 2, right
if B reconfigures itself to some over value like 5 for example d/2 will reconfigure to value 3

Now if you have an electron and a proton separated by some distance, the middle point between them has potential difference of 0. witch can not sustain 0 as in any direction around it potential difference is higher, the one minus charge or the other plus charge. If you follow this you will come to the attraction repulsion forces.

The beauty of this is the fact that there always will to be a potential difference as long as the distance is greater then 0 and of course charges exists.

So to answer your question, in EM vacuum the difference may be 0, but there is no such thing as EM vacuum as long as distance and charges exists.



posted on May, 2 2014 @ 01:57 PM
link   

originally posted by: ImaFungi
I dont care about practical situations, I care about truth. Is it true that the EM field is continuous?


Then the best description is that the state of the universe is a quantum mechanical state which is a function of functions, those functions being expanded in terms of elemetary excitations called photons which are like a 'basis' expansion of a continuous field roughly analogous to cavity modes and Fourier series. So in some ways it is discrete, but in other ways it is continuous.

Furthermore the state of nature on the quantum mechanical wave function need not be a "pure state" of photon number either. So, the minimum photon count for a given frequency has a certain energy h*f (the basis expansion), but the wave function may have |Psi|^2 = 0.25 probability of being in that state and 1-|Psi^2| = 0.75 prob of being in the vacuum state or something like that (not sure about the details), and as far as we know the numbers on the quantum mechanical mixing of states are continuous. (This one of the benefits of a quantum computer compared to a conventional one, it is in truth LESS quantized than Intel Inside)

Rough summary: continuous quantum mechanical wave function on a basis expansion which is in principle semi-discrete but which can approximate in practical cases continuous EM fields to high accuracy.







Sound waves behave differently because a) they are on top of a secondary substance unlike EM waves; (b) there is no polarization, they are 'longitudinal' being only pressure variations.


Isnt the secondary substance the sound waves are on top of is the gravity field?


No. If it were, you could have sound in space, which you don't.


This is what causes the medium and 'pressure' to exist? A sound wave is not a thing, it is air molecules moving in a wave like matter.


Yes, the elastic properties of matter, meaning intermolecular dynamics, mostly mediated through electromagnetism and pauli exclusion principle, form the underlying physics which permit sound.


EM wave is not a thing, it is EM field moving in a wave like matter?


It moves independently of matter, but interacts with charges in matter.


So the secondary substance the EM field is on top of is also gravity field?


No. Propagating fluctuations in space-time metric are gravitational waves.


The fact it is only longitudinal is due to gravity right?


No. Sound waves in fluids are that way because you can't shear/torque (conventional) fluids in interesting ways, only the bouncy-bouncy does anything. Sound waves in solids can have all sorts of interesting polarizations depending on the specific properties of the material, and this is very important in seismology.



the fact of standing on earth there being an 'up and down'. Or...what exactly does this mean... If you have 2 cymbals and you smash them together with them being perpendicular compared to your body, and then smashed them together with them being parallel to your body, the waves that emanate from them, the energy transfer, im guessing relative energy from the mass of the cymbals, being accelerated, their collision not being able to bond the materials together or cause nuclear activity, so instead the 'collective force' of both materials reflected the kinetic energy into the surrounding area, which is a medium of air, and it creates a wave instead of a singular block of energy because....Idk...some reason I cant think of right now.


I don't know what you mean, but it's because air bounces.





An electron at rest has a radial electric field surrounding it, meaning that there is a vector pointing "in" by convention, toward the charge, and with magnitude which is proportional to 1/r^2. Magnetic field is zero.


What does it take to get its magnetic field non zero?

Sorry, I forgot about the magnetic dipole moment. Without that, you'd need motion to create a magnetic field. For a real life electron and not a hypothetical point charge, you'd also have a small magnetic field in the direction of its spin.


Once an electron is a part of an atom it has a non magnetic field, its magnetic moment?


There's two parts. The 'orbital' motion of the electron can in some cases create a magnetic field. The intrinsic magnetic moment is a different thing. An electron is not just a charge, it is also a permanent magnet---that is a particular property of real world electrons, it's a package deal not expected from classical physics.

Totally hypothetically ignoring more advanced problems with particle theory you could imagine a point charge which has no intrinsic structure and no intrinsic dipole---it would create magnetic fields from 'orbital' motion but contribute nothing at rest.
edit on 2-5-2014 by mbkennel because: (no reason given)
edit on 2-5-2014 by mbkennel because: (no reason given)
edit on 2-5-2014 by mbkennel because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 2 2014 @ 02:07 PM
link   

originally posted by: KrzYma

I see EM field in this way.

Imagine a short line in space. Its ends A and B are separated by distance d
Electrical potential difference in this distance is the EM field in space.


You already lost me. So in a vacuum, there exists many of these 'short lines'? But yes, we will focus on one of these short lines to be logically thorough. So is the line physically/materially/energetically 'made of something'?

Electrical potential difference 'is the line itself'?




if A is 1 and B is 3 then d/2 away it is 2, right
if B reconfigures itself to some over value like 5 for example d/2 will reconfigure to value 3


I have no clue what your talking about.



Now if you have an electron and a proton separated by some distance, the middle point between them has potential difference of 0. witch can not sustain 0 as in any direction around it potential difference is higher, the one minus charge or the other plus charge. If you follow this you will come to the attraction repulsion forces.


hm, maybe. So A-----3-----2-----1-----0-----1-----2-----3-----B ?

Any direction around its potential difference is higher?

With my questions im not looking for superficiality or convinent models to build a space ship with, im only interested in 'What exactly a field is, and how exactly it really exists'. What energy is and appears as at its most fundamental level. This is the question I want to comprehend its answer to, the fact that it cannot be expressed in imagery does not make me want to learn the math, it makes me skeptical the math is sufficient enough to comprehending how the EM field really exists and what it really is.



The beauty of this is the fact that there always will to be a potential difference as long as the distance is greater then 0 and of course charges exists.


And its physically impossible for there to be a distance of 0 right? As seen in, of what ive seen so for from answers it appears the electron cannot touch the proton, so it seems there cant even be a 0.0045363 distance or nearing 0 distances, even with attractive forces, because under those circumstances such as in a hydrogen atom, the attractive charges of electron and proton do not force one another to touch and stay touching, but 'lock in' at a forced position, and this is the hydrogen atom. Though yes the electron is dancing around the middle, it cannot by its own energy 'up and leave' nor can either of the particles like I said, force one another to touch and stick. I wonder if that may have to do with the fact the proton is a composite particle and has -1/3rd charge, or if its just the natural way of energy fields that there is a 'close enough' distance at which two particles can get to one another.


I came across this picture and was wondering if a similar effect may occur with the bugs feet, surface tension, as the reason for the immediate local activity the electron has on the EM field, to create its own surrounding field that is, only of course the EM medium is 3d all around, so its not a surface example, so is the field the electron has around it spherical? Its a cool picture none the less. cdn.themetapicture.com...



posted on May, 2 2014 @ 02:11 PM
link   

originally posted by: ImaFungi
I have no clue what your talking about.


Enough now. It's time for you to do some work on your own.

www.khanacademy.org...

www.feynmanlectures.info...

www.google.com...



posted on May, 2 2014 @ 02:34 PM
link   

originally posted by: mbkennel

Then the best description is that the state of the universe is a quantum mechanical state which is a function of functions, those functions being expanded in terms of elemetary excitations called photons which are like a 'basis' expansion of a continuous field roughly analogous to cavity modes and Fourier series. So in some ways it is discrete, but in other ways it is continuous.


Is it theoretically possible to imagine any reality purely discrete or purely continuous? Or once the fundamental nature of reality is what it is, absolutely everything (top down bottom up) about that reality will follow suit, so if the fundamental nature is discrete, then it would be impossible to create continuum, if the fundamental nature is continuous, it would be impossible to create discrete? When I say 'create' I guess I am thinking in terms of human mimicry, or invention, computer or simulation. Can we create truly pure continuous 'things', material, data, simulation? Can we create purely discrete?

Or, is something I have thought before, and like you are alluding to in your answer, is it possible or likely, as you say it is, that there is no such thing as pure either of them, that they are two separate words and concepts, that describe an inevitable ying yang, two sides of the same coin situation, in which; That which is continuous, will have about it discreteness, and that which is discreteness will have about it continuity? And this is how and why we get particle/wave theory?

Because if we imagine a sphere, of pure substance, not particles. Pure continuous, one fundamental reality, that hypothetically if we were to measure would be massive in terms of distance and depth etc.

(ok. Lets say in this example, there is no such thing as time, all of reality, is this one substance in a sphere, that never changes, or moves, or ripples, or vibrates, or anything, for eternity, time eternity...you see there is no point in thinking of time, because not ever happens, nothing will ever happen, its impossible for anything to happen...in this example something exists, its always existed, it has never changed, it will always exist and never change)

Is that reality continuous or discrete? Maybe one would say continuous, because there would appear to be no parts, though maybe logic would tell us it would have to be connect to itself somehow, we would certainly be curious about the nature of its material and how it physically takes up space from one arbitrary invention of measuremental increment to the next.

Ok now lets imagine that a similar example. But this time movement is allowed, change, vibration, ripple, all of which then equal time. Now that if we were to look at this sphere of substance, and see that different areas of it were behaving in different ways, and different areas have different influences on different areas, and are moving faster then others, and some areas are spinning. Then time exists, because then each 'grouping of area' is its own relative clock to compare with other groupings of area, how they move and spin and 'break up their areaness' (meaning the energy of that system observed transforms) 'over time'.

Ok so now even if that is one pure substance, with no parts, but somehow different areas of the substance are 'violently' shaking and twisting and forming and stretching and rippling and vibrating and colliding and creating and etc. To an observer this reality is automatically discrete as well. One because there are a discrete amount of events, which there must be, there always bust be finintude in quantity (though time is infinite in duration...meaning there is a finite quantity of things, that will bounce around and interact an infinite number of times... like there are a finite number of letters but the combinations they can be placed in are infinite when considering 9794974 F's can be typed and then a T and an R etc.)

But of course this example I think would beg the question, is true 'continuity' even possible, to escape discreteness, or as I have suggested, are they both fated to be attached, or is discrete more likely the king most likelihood and continuity can only be achieved as a greater or lesser illusion. One can bring up the technology for example, that which is considered analog is used as an opposite of digital which is considered discrete right? Well if magnetic tape is considered continuous it obviously also must be considered discrete if all of its data is coming from photons which are considered discrete.

Is water a continuum or discrete? I know its made of discrete parts, but is it said to form a continuum, and is that all that is needed to form the grounds of a continuum? If discrete parts form a continuum the continuum is still considered continuous?



posted on May, 2 2014 @ 03:03 PM
link   
a reply to: ImaFungi

Ok you seem to be spinning in circles your trying to understand the big picture on what is the universe. First let me say science is struggling with these same questions.As far as fields stick to the basics this is a reaction from a particle being in motion. Ultimately there are 3 things that control the universe energy(mostly in the form of em waves),gravity and time. We understand energy for the most part through experiments we see the effects of gravity and very good at describing them though the cause is unknown,and time we see its effects again we can describe them but we only have a glimpse at what it truly is.

The basis of the universe is the properties of spacetime and the effect it has on particles in it. As ive said space has properties all of its own when we truly understand these properties we will understand gravity and why fields are created. Were on the right track using cern were trying to see into this world of particle interactions. Its not something were our logic naturally applies as we are discovering behind the curtain things operate in strange and amazing ways.

Now lets talk about fields ill try to make this simple. They are energy created in the beginning of the universe this is what we see in CMBR for example. Its everywhere it is the universe this energy formed everything we see and defined the rules for interactions. If we took two particles a proton and electron and could somehow get outside of our universe they wouldnt interact at all (well maybe gravity were not sure how that works). Because there isnt the background energy to assist the interaction .

So lets talk about what this energy is as i said it formed matter and everything we see but most importantly it spread out energy we have named this vacuum energy. Now the entire basis for vacuum energy is we realized you can never have exactly zero energy but the universe is attempting to do exactly that. Everything in the universe is trying to get to its lowest energy state but theres a catch if it exists than it cant be zero right?

Now i could go into what vaccuum energy is but im not going to try if you keep spinning your wheels on fields theres no point until you stop looking at fields as physical and realize they are a product of interactions.



posted on May, 2 2014 @ 03:06 PM
link   

originally posted by: mbkennel



No. If it were, you could have sound in space, which you don't.


This was answered to me asking if the medium air or sound exists on is also the gravity medium. Me wondering if gravity is the cause of the creation of the atmospheric medium that allows sound to take place? Though Im quite sure gasses exist and form as sort of gasses regions in space away from solids...maybe? So there can theoretically be an atmosphere just floating, and sound would behave in (not to the same degree, but) in the same way as it does in our atmosphere?




It moves independently of matter, but interacts with charges in matter.


So if an area of air, can wave, as an area of water can wave. An area of free space, which contains EM field, can wave?
But its just in a vastly different way.

The majority of my questioning this topic, is wanting to know in what way the EM field exists in free space, to better understand why its wave is such a weird wave.

If you admit the EM field, the medium which the electron can non locally disturb (as you can non locally disturb a tennis ball at the far end of your pool by splashing where you are), exists throughout space, then you are admitting that the 'self propagating wave', is either a very very very weird (not like confused double slit observer weird unintuitive quantum mechanic things) mechanical thing, like how is that explained that at every area of space exists these 2 switches, which if provoked will carry out an automatic zipper type action, or snaps, or magnets, like dominoes. This is the mechanics aspect of quantum mechanics is it not. I can let it slide that the universe may be like that, if thats its foundation, its bedrock, is this 2 switch system that exists at all points in space. But now I have been asking how those 2 switches exist at all points in space, what do they appear as, how small are they, and densely packed in are they, are they homogeneously stacked on top of each other and side by side, it appears so, they must have 0 spin or charge, or something.






No. Propagating fluctuations in space-time metric are gravitational waves.


How does the EM field and gravity field exist in relation to one another, next to each other at all points in space? Entwined? Or holographically overlapping?





No. Sound waves in fluids are that way because you can't shear/torque (conventional) fluids in interesting ways, only the bouncy-bouncy does anything. Sound waves in solids can have all sorts of interesting polarizations depending on the specific properties of the material, and this is very important in seismology.


Hm ok, those polarizations have to do with the inherent movements of the atoms and electrons of the material, which at each point of the solid, would either give and take, 'messing the original wave up'. What you mean about the intriguing nature of light polarization is the EM field is so pure that it itself as a medium does not 'mess up the original wave'.

So when EM radiation is created why doesnt the other area of EM fields locally to that self propagating wave react to it? This is because, oh and this is why you say light doesnt mess with light, because EM fields cant effect EM fields? A magnetic field cannot create more magnetic field, even though magnetic field, as EM field exists everywhere? A magnetic or electric field cannot make the EM field wave.

Now is there a good reason why that doesnt happen? Could it be that 'where there is not self propagating EM wave', the EM medium acts like a solid, in that it is entirely 'stable' and secure, so the relatively 'tiny' areas when compared to the greater EM field, are being 'smothered out' by the totality of surrounding EM field, so the EM wave, cannot escape north or south or dampen or leak into the surrounding space, because the surrounding space (that is the space perpendicular to its propagation) is 'keeping it in check', is this a proper way to look at why it has the properties it does?

I have a feeling you will respond, No. Its just a self propagating wave. The electric field creates a magnetic field, the magnetic field creates an electric field.







I don't know what you mean, but it's because air bounces.


Well it kind related to a first question I asked in that reply you didnt answer, but its not your fault it was worded badly on my part.

It had to do with the trials, being separate. And how the EM field is organized in such a way as to allow, according to direction of electron acceleration, EM waves in all conceivable directions.

I was wondering on the two trials you would observe radiation but the waves would be oppositely polarized, if i understand the terms and concepts correctly (if even superficially..I know I know, thats the problem) the 'up and down' and the 'side to side' would yield opposite polarity? So what occurs to the EM field if at the same time, these trials were to occur, with decreasing distance amongst the 2 test electrons with each try? Do you see I am wondering how the EM field exist before the electron is accelerated, and then how it locally reacts to two electrons in oppositely polarized acceleration? So there is enough EM field packed in there, so that even very close the field can wave 'both ways' at the same time, in close proximity, and they have no affect on one another immediately at the local point of electron acceleration?





An electron at rest has a radial electric field surrounding it, meaning that there is a vector pointing "in" by convention, toward the charge, and with magnitude which is proportional to 1/r^2. Magnetic field is zero.


Sorry, I forgot about the magnetic dipole moment. Without that, you'd need motion to create a magnetic field. For a real life electron and not a hypothetical point charge, you'd also have a small magnetic field in the direction of its spin.


I posted this picture in another reply above, but am wondering if it is even a distant analogy to what is meant by 'at rest has radial field surrounding it, 'vector pointing in' (though you say by convention makes me think there is nothing inward about it? Would the gravity vector around a massive body also be pointing in?) cdn.themetapicture.com...





new topics

top topics



 
55
<< 39  40  41    43  44  45 >>

log in

join