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.
Phage
reply to post by ImaFungi
A moving electrical charge creates a magnetic field. A magnetic field has no charge.
An electrical charge is a magnetic charge, an electron is a magnet, and charged particles are the only reason the idea of magnet exists.
m saying an electrical charge may as well be called an electromagnetic charge, since it creates the electric field and magnetic field, why is credence given to the word electric/al? When it is undeniably and equally linked to the phenomenon of magnetism?
Phage
reply to post by ImaFungi
m saying an electrical charge may as well be called an electromagnetic charge, since it creates the electric field and magnetic field, why is credence given to the word electric/al? When it is undeniably and equally linked to the phenomenon of magnetism?
Because they are not the same thing. Because they have different properties. Electricity is not magnetism.
Mass creates a gravitational field. Do you think mass should be considered the same thing as gravity?edit on 2/1/2014 by Phage because: (no reason given)
They do. Mass has inertia. Gravity does not. Electrical particles have charges. Magnetic fields do not. Different properties. Different things. Yet one causes the other.
In order for your mass analogy to relate to what I was claiming, mass and the subsequent gravitational field would have to have 2 different affects
No problem. Call it whatever you wish. It doesn't make them the same thing.
Why would it be wrong to have referred to the electric charge particle as the electromagnetic charge?
Phage
reply to post by ImaFungi
They do. Mass has inertia. Gravity does not. Electrical particles have charges. Magnetic fields do not.
In order for your mass analogy to relate to what I was claiming, mass and the subsequent gravitational field would have to have 2 different affects
No problem. Call it whatever you wish. It doesn't make them the same thing.
Why would it be wrong to have referred to the electric charge particle as the electromagnetic charge?
edit on 2/1/2014 by Phage because: (no reason given)
A field does not have a charge. That's the point.
Do electric fields have charges?
A field is not composed of particles. Not a magnetic field. Not an electrical field. A field is collection of vector or scalar values (depending on your approach).
Magnetic fields do have charges, they are called charged particles.
No. I do not know that. There are both electric and magnetic fields. They are different things with different properties. When a charge is in motion the electrical field does not turn into a magnetic field. The magnetic field is created in addition to the electrical field. And what do you get? An electromagnetic field. A field which, like any field, has no charge.
You do know the electric and magnetic fields are two aspects of the same field right, that only exist due to relative motion?
Phage
A field is not composed of particles. Not a magnetic field. Not an electrical field. A field is collection of vector or scalar values (depending on your approach).
There are both electric and magnetic fields. They are different things with different properties. When a charge is in motion the electrical field does not turn into a magnetic field. The magnetic field is created in addition to the electrical field. And what do you get? An electromagnetic field. A field which, like any field, has no charge.
PhoenixOD
reply to post by Phage
Just what use would a magnetic monopole be? Are there any real world applications?
It means it is a force. Forces are not "physical" but they act upon "physical" objects.
What is a vector or scalar value physically made of, in space how does it physically exist as an essence with lack of component, what does this mean?
Not the forces we know of. They originate from matter.
If all the particles were removed, would the fields still exist?
Because those are questions about quantum field theory but it does not imply that fields have charge.
? How come ive heard things like, there is an electron field, or quark field, and electrons and quarks are merely excitations of the electron and quark fields?
A field is not energy but I suppose that, as gravity is a property of matter, an electrical field is a property of an electrically charged particle and a magnetic field is a property of a moving electrically charged particle.
Most importantly I want to know what a field is, that collection of values, which non symbolically is suggesting a field of physical energy, how does this exist?
Dunno, but I think you're moving into the arena of the Higgs field.
If all the fields were removed, would particles still exist?
A magnetic monopole would have a magnetic field whether or not it was in motion just as a dipole magnetic field does. I think it may have have characteristics similar to an electrical field. Can't answer the second part, dunno.
So is it suggest that if you had a monopole, and it was put in motion it would create a magnetic field, and electric field would be created in addition?
PhoenixOD
reply to post by Phage
Just what use would a magnetic monopole be? Are there any real world applications?
References
Highly recommended reading; this paper is aimed at the intellectually curious, and doesn't assume a background in theoretical physics:
hcs.harvard.edu...
Chapter 7 used extensively in the discussion of monopole cosmology:
"The Early Universe", Kolb & Turner, ISBN 0-201-62674-8
Discusses topological defects and the Kibble mechanism:
www.damtp.cam.ac.uk...
Discusses massless non-Abelian monopoles:
arxiv.org...
arxiv.org...
Discusses gravity waves from monopole-string systems:
arxiv.org...
Discusses monopole and domain wall formation in a "braneworld"
scenario:
arxiv.org...
Phage
It means it is a force. Forces are not "physical" but they act upon "physical" objects.
Gravity is a force. Is it "physical"?
Not the forces we know of. They originate from matter.
A field is not energy but I suppose that, as gravity is a property of matter, an electrical field is a property of an electrically charged particle and a magnetic field is a property of a moving electrically charged particle.
Dunno, but I think you're moving into the arena of the Higgs field.
A magnetic monopole would have a magnetic field whether or not it was in motion just as a dipole magnetic field does. I think it may have have characteristics similar to an electrical field. Can't answer the second part, dunno.
Yes. There is no contradiction. Fields represent forces, they are not matter but they are originated by matter. Gravity is not mass but it is originated by mass.
but you said fields do not have particles or are not composed of particles, now you are saying fields originate from matter and depend on matter to exist.
Your belief is not empirically supported.
As I stated above earlier in this post, I believe a charged particle has a magnetic field whether in motion or not.
Phage
Your belief is not empirically supported.
As I stated above earlier in this post, I believe a charged particle has a magnetic field whether in motion or not.
edit on 2/1/2014 by Phage because: (no reason given)
Phage
Yes. There is no contradiction. Fields represent forces, they are not matter but they are originated by matter. Gravity is not mass but it is originated by mass.
Upon what do you base that claim? Your belief?
a charged particle has a magnetic field whether in motion or not.
Upon what do you base that claim? Your belief?
The gravity field exists whether or not mass exists.
"Interrelated aspects". Yes indeed, and the magnetic aspect does not manifest without motion. A stationary charge (in a given frame of reference) does not manifest a magnetic field. A stationary charge does not have a magnetic field. Can you demonstrate otherwise?
The intrinsic magnetic moment of elementary particles is what I was referring to when I made my statement.
No. It states that gravity is a distortion of spacetime, not that spacetime is gravity. Without mass there is no distortion. Without mass there is no gravity. And, in an attempt to get somewhat back on topic, that distortion exhibits field characteristics, of which charge is not one.
This implies that the gravity field exists independently of matter, at least the matter that causes the curvature in the gravity field, implying that the gravity field is some type of energetic medium, naturally if it is capable of achieving characteristics such as curvature.
Phage
"Interrelated aspects". Yes indeed, and the magnetic aspect does not manifest without motion. A stationary charge (in a given frame of reference) does not manifest a magnetic field. A stationary charge does not have a magnetic field. Can you demonstrate otherwise?
No. It states that gravity is a distortion of spacetime, not that spacetime is gravity. Without mass there is no distortion. Without mass there is no gravity. And, in an attempt to get somewhat back on topic, that distortion exhibits field characteristics, of which charge is not one.