The Naked Scientists

The Naked Scientists Forum

Author Topic: What is the true relationship of the electrostatic & magnetic field in a photon?  (Read 1024 times)

Offline mmfiore

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 28
  • Thanked: 2 times
    • View Profile
My question concerns what the actual construction of the photon geometry. My concern is that the current thinking on the subject of the photon is that electromagnetic radiation (the photon)  consists of electromagnetic waves, which are synchronized oscillations of electric and magnetic fields that propagate at the speed of light through a vacuum. So far I agree with this. Everyone should agree with that. Now I am told and I want to confirm this concept which is that Maxwell's equations describe the relationship between the two fields being the electrostatic and magnetic fields occur without either field causing the other, rather they simply occur together.

So I want to first confirm that what I said above is the proper understanding of the electromagnetic field. If it is agreed upon that what I said above is the correct interpretation. I then would like to discuss why I think that last statement is incorrect.
« Last Edit: 06/07/2016 20:31:13 by mmfiore »


 

Offline Colin2B

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1921
  • Thanked: 125 times
    • View Profile
That is correct in the far field.
However, it applies to more than just the photon. The electric and magnetic fields are really separate aspects or views of the same thing, like opposite sides of a coin, so it isn't possible to say one causes the other because the electromagnetic field is a single entity.

PS I moved your other thread so you have more freedom in that discussion.
 

Offline mmfiore

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 28
  • Thanked: 2 times
    • View Profile
Thanks Colin2B
Yes I agree it is not just for photons all particles appear to be electromagnetic to some degree.

"The electric and magnetic fields are really separate aspects or views of the same thing, like opposite sides of a coin."

Well that does agree with everything I read.

"so it isn't possible to say one causes the other because the electromagnetic field is a single entity"
This is the part that I believe is incorrect.

Now comes the fun part. I will now refute the statement above. So for all who are reading this please give me one example of a magnetic field that occurs with out the aid of a moving charge. It is my belief that magnetism always happens only when a electrostatic charge moves. Therefore my model of reality says that it is charge in motion that causes the magnetic field.

At first glance I appear to be almost agreeing with modern day science but there is an asymmetry that has been somewhat overlooked. There can be an instance where an electrostatic field exists and there is no magnetic field. A stationary electrostatic field does not have an associated magnetic field. So logically since we can have an electrostatic field without a magnetic field but we cannot have a magnetic field without an electrostatic field the electrostatic field must give birth to the magnetic field. Finally, as soon as we move the charge like in the case of any particle we can think of a magnetic field will appear at a orthogonal angle to the perpetually moving charge. This is a deep clue coming from nature and it has great importance. It is one of the foundational principles of my Reality Model.
« Last Edit: 08/07/2016 01:02:42 by mmfiore »
 

Offline chiralSPO

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1879
  • Thanked: 145 times
    • View Profile
please give me one example of a magnetic field that occurs with out the aid of a moving charge.

Neutrons have a magnetic field, and are electrically neutral. Additionally the magnetic field is independent of any motion of the neutron.

Photons are also neutral, and exert a(n oscillating) magnetic field.
 

Offline mmfiore

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 28
  • Thanked: 2 times
    • View Profile
Sorry about the delay responding I could not get connected to the website after the maintenance.

Hello ChiralSPO thank you for your comment. I am excited over the examples that you gave. Two excellent tries. I have given your comments a lot of thought so that I can get a good understanding of what your thinking is on this matter that I have brought up. Your reply appears to be supported by two key elements the meaning of charge and neutrality.

I will refute your examples but in order to begin the argument I have noticed that you have been influenced by a meem that has an unknown origin. In order to connect my chain of reasoning we must discuss a particular idea concerning charge and neutrality. First answer for me one simple question. How much charge does the photon have? We must come to an agreement about this.

Once this has been discussed and agreed upon then we can proceed to the rest of my argument.
 

Offline chiralSPO

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1879
  • Thanked: 145 times
    • View Profile
As I understand it, photon has no charge (0 charge, neutral).

This is supported by the fact that the trajectory of a photon is not altered by the presence of an electric field or of a magnetic field, both of which would deflect a moving charged particle.
 

Offline mmfiore

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 28
  • Thanked: 2 times
    • View Profile
Hopefully we can come to an agreement. There is a matter of semantics I wish to first address. It is not true that the photon has no charge. In fact the photon is completely and entirely filled with charge. Just because the sum total quantity is equal to zero does not mean that the photon has no charge which to me implies the absence of charge. The number zero in this case means a balance. We should agree that it just means that the photon is neutral and it does possess charge.

With this in mind your second example using the implication of no charge and neutrality are both negated. The photon is a moving charge that has an associated a magnetic field. The fact that it is neutral does not mean that it has no charge.

In both your examples you mention that the particles are neutral. Therefore, I think that you maybe trying to imply that since the neutron is neutrally charged that it has no charge. I disagree as the neutron is not really a fundamental particle but is in fact composed of 3 quarks. It has 1 up and 2 down quarks. The neutron once again is filled with a balanced amount of charge. Those quarks according to my calculations are moving at about 99% the speed of light. In this case we once again have a moving charge with its associated magnetic field.

You can go through the entire standard model and there is no example that will work as all particles have charge and all particles are moving. In no case that I am aware of does a magnetic field ever manifest itself without and associated moving charge.

Physics now has a bit of a conundrum it has a asymmetry that has not been addressed or explained. Static electrostatic fields exist. They are constant fields, which do not change in intensity or direction over time. Hence, static electric fields have a frequency of 0 Hz. They are not moving and in this case the magnetic field is absent. The only reasonable explanation for this is that the magnetic field is a torsional response in space to the motion of the electrostatic field. Moving charges create the magnetic field.
 
« Last Edit: 09/07/2016 03:01:52 by mmfiore »
 

Offline chiralSPO

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1879
  • Thanked: 145 times
    • View Profile
I am willing to consider a neutron as having charged components, though I think it is a stretch (just because you can break a neutron into quarks doesn't mean it contains quarks--neutrons can also break into a proton and an electron and a neutrino). But if you want to argue that a neutron is overall neutral, but only because charged components cancel out, I don't think I can argue against that too strongly.

In the case of the photon, I guess your argument is that it oscillates between being positive and negative, and cancels out over any significant length of time. This I think is more tenuous--violating conservation of charge, and also requiring some way of converting a negative charge into a positive charge. I will have to think about this more, but my suspicion (as has been mentioned previously in this thread) is that the photon is the case that absolutely disproves your proposal, being a pure singular electromagnetic phenomenon, with no components, and no complications. (we will have to circle back to this point)

I would now like to focus on this asymmetry that you mention: that magnetism cannot manifest in the absence of charge, but that charge is not reliant on magnetism.

Are there any charged particles that do not have magnetism? Sure there are nuclei such as 12C which are spin 0 and have a charge of +6, but if you want to say that a neutron contains charges that cancel out--surely you would agree that the nucleus has several component spins that just happen to cancel out (6 neutrons and 6 protons, each of which is spin 1/2, but all aligned to cancel out, just as electrons pair up into diamagnetic systems.) How, then, can a static electric field be produced without magnetism involved?

One might claim that the magnetic moments of charged particles is due to motion of the charge within the particle (it is called "spin" after all), but could it not be equally valid to claim that the particles are fundamentally magnetic, and that motion of this magnetic dipole somehow results in the apparent charge of the particle? Of course, both of these explanations are flawed. And one possible fix is to say that electric and magnetic components are inherently linked.

My best guess, if you were to try to show an asymmetry between electric and magnetic fields, is that there does not appear to be such thing as a magnetic monopole, while electrically charged particles are very obvious manifestations of electric monopoles. However, I think that this only establishes that magnetism and electricity are different (which we already knew) and does not necessarily assign any degree of primacy to electricity, as far as I can imagine.

At this point, I would like to mention that I am not a physicist, just a mere chemist, so some of my grasp of these concepts is at a lower level than those who study these things in detail.

I would also like to point out that my disagreement here is all in good spirit. This line of discussion has been one of my favorite topics on the forum recently, and certainly (in my opinion) one of the better ones in the "New Theories" section. Keep it up! :-)
 

Offline mmfiore

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 28
  • Thanked: 2 times
    • View Profile
I appreciate your arguments and I very much appreciate that they are made in good spirit. I must say that the people here at this site are all very tolerant and courteous. I find that refreshing. It is good to be able to have open discussion and disagreement without the angst that can be generated sometimes when differences of opinion occur. I for one like these discussions for several reasons.

1. It is good to test and challenge ones own reasoning to make sure it is logical and reasonable.

2. My model of Reality has been a work in progress officially now since 1993 before that I just liked reading about physics. The theory has evolved and changed over the years in part because I continue to question everything, drilling down to the foundation of every important issue. I have a website but it is out of date now and needs to be completely rewritten. I have upgraded many of the concepts and so the site needs to be updated. I don't even point people to it anymore. 

3. I also believe that it is good to understand not just your own point of view but also that of competing ideas.
4. Ultimately I believe there is only one truth that explains all things in this Universe and that truth is comprehensible. It is our duty as people of science to seek out the truth and learn.

I am not a physicist I am a student of physics and metaphysics basically so I am by definition a natural philosopher.

Now to the discussion. About the photon, I believe that the photon like all particles are configurations of space. They do not travel separate from space they travel within it. They do not displace space as they move within it. Particles cause space to transform the space that they occupy. Photons do not oscillate. Neutrinos seem to oscillate as there seems to be evidence to support that. Photons are waves that possess a wavelength and the entire wave configuration is the particle. So I agree with main stream science about that. I just am more specific and unlike QM I believe that particles exist as real physical objects with momentum and paths. Some people may think that they oscillate because they visualize using the sine wave that is used to represent the image we have of the photon. It is a crude 2 dimensional graph of a dynamic 3 dimensional object. The photon may seem to oscillate to some because as it passes by, space rotates around it as it passes by a given point.. I believe that the photon is a physical deformation of space. This deformation is a full 360 degrees of rotation. The first 2 quadrants of rotation, the first 180 degrees are the positive component. The second two quadrants of rotation are the negative portion of the photon.

This rotation of space is what charge is. There are other aspects and details I will not get into here as it would make this post huge and it is somewhat outside the scope of this discussion. The complete description will be included in the full document I am writing.

Since we sort of agree that the photon is in fact a charge-full object that has two equally sized charges that cancel we can cross out this part of the argument unless you say otherwise. We agree that the photon is a charged object in motion and it has an associated magnetic field. It supports my postulate. Remember all I said is that a magnetic field is always associated with a moving charge. You are thinking of the photon as one singular object. While it is a singular object it is also true that the photon is a composition of 2 separate and distinct field types that move in unison. Imagine if you could stop a photon The question becomes would you see the magnetic field if this could be done. In my theory if the photon's motion could truly be stopped the magnetic part of the electromagnetic object would vanish.

Further evidence of this fundamental truth is the electromagnet. If I stop the current flow through a coil of wire the magnetic field vanishes. Once again we have the flow or motion of electric charges as soon as we remove the charges in motion the magnetic field vanishes. As I always like to say if a thing looks like a duck and quacks like a duck and walks like a duck, that thing is a duck. The pattern in nature is clear and its up to us to simply make the cosmic connections.

Now for the neutrino. I do believe that most of main stream physicists will concede that the neutrino does in fact consist of three nodes of deflection when the neutron is observed using low energy scattering technique. The low energy scattering technique is more accurate technique and it gives us a truer picture of the internal structure. Why do I say low energy scattering give us a more accurate and truthful picture? The answer is simple. It is less invasive then high energy bombardment.

To these 3 nodes of deflection we have assigned the name of quarks and as I look at my standard model chart I see that the quarks inside of the neutron has 1 UP and 2 Down quarks. The up quark has a +2/3 electric charge and the 2 down quarks has a -1/3 electric charge. The quarks are in motion. We know this because when using the scattering techniques the quarks are found in different positions every time we look. So we have charges inside the neutron and they are moving. These moving charges have an associated magnetic field.  Therefore the neutron supports my postulate.

You also bring up more complex structures composed of multiple neutron and protons. It is certainly possible to composed many amorphic like structure. These compositions are not basic, simple particles which is part of my postulate. In the case of complex objects it is as you say. The alignment of all the components is such that their motions cancel out the magnetic component. This is not something that disproves what I have said.


« Last Edit: 10/07/2016 03:20:58 by mmfiore »
 
The following users thanked this post: imetheman

Offline jerrygg38

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 781
  • Thanked: 27 times
    • View Profile
please give me one example of a magnetic field that occurs with out the aid of a moving charge.

Neutrons have a magnetic field, and are electrically neutral. Additionally the magnetic field is independent of any motion of the neutron.

Photons are also neutral, and exert a(n oscillating) magnetic field.
Neutrons contain an equal amount of positive and negative charge. At a distance it is electrically neutral but within itself it is both positive and negative. This dipole shows up as a magnetic field.
  the same is true of the photon which has an equal amount of plus and minus charges. thus neutral is really a bad word. Balanced would be a better word.
 

Offline jerrygg38

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 781
  • Thanked: 27 times
    • View Profile
First answer for me one simple question. How much charge does the photon have? We must come to an agreement about this.

Once this has been discussed and agreed upon then we can proceed to the rest of my argument.

  Each photon has a different amount of balanced charge. The red photon (Red Fraunhofer line) has a wavelength of 0.6563 micron. Its energy is 3.0267E-19. The number of dot-waves in the red photon is 2.150E36. The number of minus dot-waves is half this amount or 1.075E36. The number of negative dot-waves in the electron is 5.815E41. Therefore the negative and also the positive charge of the red photon is :
   1 coulomb x 1.075E36/5.815E41 = 1.849E-6 coulombs
 

Offline jerrygg38

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 781
  • Thanked: 27 times
    • View Profile
They are not moving and in this case the magnetic field is absent. The only reasonable explanation for this is that the magnetic field is a torsional response in space to the motion of the electrostatic field. Moving charges create the magnetic field.

  Your ideas are excellent. But I must disagree with this statement. There is no checkerboard in space.Thus space has no properties except for the fields themselves. There is no such thing as a static electric field. Maxwell's equations are true as an approximation to reality. the same is true of Einsteins equations. They are approximations.  The electron constantly radiates negative dot-waves. What you think of as the magnetic field is merely the patterns of radiated positive and negative dot-waves (charges with mass). Thus the tiny charges in space react to a moving charge Q and you get patterns of electrical charges which is our magnetic fields. We live in a physical universe and everything has a physical explanation. We do not live in a mathematical universe. the mathematicians approximate physical reality. Maxwell did a good job. so did Einstein but they did not really understand the fundamental structure of the universe.
 
The following users thanked this post: Alex Siqueira

Offline chiralSPO

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1879
  • Thanked: 145 times
    • View Profile

Neutrinos seem to oscillate as there seems to be evidence to support that. Photons are waves that possess a wavelength and the entire wave configuration is the particle. So I agree with main stream science about that. I just am more specific and unlike QM I believe that particles exist as real physical objects with momentum and paths. Some people may think that they oscillate because they visualize using the sine wave that is used to represent the image we have of the photon. It is a crude 2 dimensional graph of a dynamic 3 dimensional object. The photon may seem to oscillate to some because as it passes by, space rotates around it as it passes by a given point.. I believe that the photon is a physical deformation of space. This deformation is a full 360 degrees of rotation. The first 2 quadrants of rotation, the first 180 degrees are the positive component. The second two quadrants of rotation are the negative portion of the photon.

This rotation of space is what charge is. There are other aspects and details I will not get into here as it would make this post huge and it is somewhat outside the scope of this discussion. The complete description will be included in the full document I am writing.

Since we sort of agree that the photon is in fact a charge-full object that has two equally sized charges that cancel we can cross out this part of the argument unless you say otherwise. We agree that the photon is a charged object in motion and it has an associated magnetic field. It supports my postulate. Remember all I said is that a magnetic field is always associated with a moving charge. You are thinking of the photon as one singular object. While it is a singular object it is also true that the photon is a composition of 2 separate and distinct field types that move in unison. Imagine if you could stop a photon The question becomes would you see the magnetic field if this could be done. In my theory if the photon's motion could truly be stopped the magnetic part of the electromagnetic object would vanish.

Further evidence of this fundamental truth is the electromagnet. If I stop the current flow through a coil of wire the magnetic field vanishes. Once again we have the flow or motion of electric charges as soon as we remove the charges in motion the magnetic field vanishes. As I always like to say if a thing looks like a duck and quacks like a duck and walks like a duck, that thing is a duck. The pattern in nature is clear and its up to us to simply make the cosmic connections.

Now for the neutrino. I do believe that most of main stream physicists will concede that the neutrino does in fact consist of three nodes of deflection when the neutron is observed using low energy scattering technique. The low energy scattering technique is more accurate technique and it gives us a truer picture of the internal structure. Why do I say low energy scattering give us a more accurate and truthful picture? The answer is simple. It is less invasive then high energy bombardment.

To these 3 nodes of deflection we have assigned the name of quarks and as I look at my standard model chart I see that the quarks inside of the neutron has 1 UP and 2 Down quarks. The up quark has a +2/3 electric charge and the 2 down quarks has a -1/3 electric charge. The quarks are in motion. We know this because when using the scattering techniques the quarks are found in different positions every time we look. So we have charges inside the neutron and they are moving. These moving charges have an associated magnetic field.  Therefore the neutron supports my postulate.

You also bring up more complex structures composed of multiple neutron and protons. It is certainly possible to composed many amorphic like structure. These compositions are not basic, simple particles which is part of my postulate. In the case of complex objects it is as you say. The alignment of all the components is such that their motions cancel out the magnetic component. This is not something that disproves what I have said.

I never mentioned neutrinos (which I don't know much about), but as far as I know they do not have any electric charge or magnetic properties, so I am not really sure how mention of neutrinos helps further this discussion (I may be missing something here...)

Unless I missed it, I don't think you have addressed my question of whether there is any example of an electric field without magnetic fields involved. I believe this is an important point, as you cannot point to the primacy of electric charge if there is no example that shows charge without magnetism.

I understand that composite systems (like nuclei) are not what you would like to discuss, but those were the simplest systems I could come up with that have a net non-zero charge and net zero magnetic field. As far as I know there are no elementary particles that have charge and no spin. Analogies to even more complex systems (like macroscopic electromagnets) might not be well-suited for explaining physics on the scale of elementary particles. As I understand it, when "no current flows" in electromagnets (and all conductors), it is not, in fact the absence of current, so much as absence of net current. Charge carriers are moving throughout the conductor all the time, they just happen to balance out perfectly such that there is no net current, and no net magnetic field (assuming there is no other reason for the material to be magnetic, like paramagnetism etc.) But even if we accept that the electromagnet is a suitable analogy, I still don't think that it establishes electric charge as primal--as one can induce a current (or at least an EMF) by moving a neutral magnet nearby, thereby using a magnetic field to produce an electric field.

As far as charge being a twist in space, I'm not sure I understand your arguments completely, I will have to think about it more, but I may have more questions on that topic...

 

Offline jerrygg38

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 781
  • Thanked: 27 times
    • View Profile
.

 Hence, static electric fields have a frequency of 0 Hz. They are not moving and in this case the magnetic field is absent. The only reasonable explanation for this is that the magnetic field is a torsional response in space to the motion of the electrostatic field. Moving charges create the magnetic field.

You might think that an ordinary stationary charge Q has an electric field and absolutely no magnetic field. Of course for a charge Q that decreases with time, a magnetic field does exist. This is small. There is another case to consider. You do not measure a magnetic field as any EE will observe from their instruments. this does not mean that no magnetic field is present. The charge Q is really always oscillating and thus always produces a spherical magnetic field. this is not easy to measure but an electron does have a magnetic field. where are you going to find a stationary charge Q. furthermore even if you could find a stationary charge Q, you would find that the ambient bipolar electric field in space interacts with the imaginary charge Q that is stationary to produce positive and negative magnetic fields. Thus you get a balanced north south field magnetic field from every stationary charge. Thus Maxwell's pure charge Q without a magnetic field is meaningless.
 

Offline mmfiore

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 28
  • Thanked: 2 times
    • View Profile
jerrygg38


In your description of a charge that is stationary but increasing or decreasing in field strength is in fact the same thing as a moving charge. Any charge that increases or decreases in strength is a charge in accelerated motion. It is in fact a form of absolute motion. Therefore this argument does not constitute a valid argument against what I have said.

This point is also for chiralSPO...
Allow me to clarify. Imagine that I create an electrostatic field using a van der graaf generator. I build up a voltage of 100000 volts. I hold that field at 100000 volts I do not allow current to flow from the anode to the cathode. The field will be stationary and it will not decrease or increase and there will be no current flow. In this case no magnetic field will happen as the result of the static electrostatic field.

In every case that be conceived there has never been a case where a magnetic field exists independent of a moving charge. If this detail that I have noticed is true it is an incredibly important realization.

Does anyone know of an experiment that prove this concept wrong? If so give me a link to it.

For chiralSPO

neutrinos are basically the same as photons accept that they oscillate in wavelength and charge distribution as they travel. At all times there is a magnetic field that is associated with the neutrino. It is an electromagnetic object. It conforms to my model just like the photon.

Concerning the electromagnet example. When we put a magnetic field in motion via a magnet we must realize that the magnet has magnetic field because of circling charges within the magnetic material. When we move a magnetic field across a coil of wire and create an emf or an alignment of charge within the wire this causes the electrons to move as a current. The motion of the magnetic field is not really causing charge to appear from nowhere it is causing a voltage build up and alignment of charge in the wire.

If in fact we could create a charge from just the motion of a magnet we would be able to build emf, a huge electric field in the void of space by just causing a magnet to spin in space. This does not happen. In order for Emf to happen as a result of a moving magnetic field the existence of free electrons in a conductor is a prerequisite. Therefore magnetism does not create charge.


« Last Edit: 14/07/2016 17:18:01 by mmfiore »
 

Offline chiralSPO

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1879
  • Thanked: 145 times
    • View Profile
Sorry for the delayed response, I have been very busy recently.


Allow me to clarify. Imagine that I create an electrostatic field using a van der graaf generator. I build up a voltage of 100000 volts. I hold that field at 100000 volts I do not allow current to flow from the anode to the cathode. The field will be stationary and it will not decrease or increase and there will be no current flow. In this case no magnetic field will happen as the result of the static electrostatic field.

In every case that be conceived there has never been a case where a magnetic field exists independent of a moving charge. If this detail that I have noticed is true it is an incredibly important realization.

Does anyone know of an experiment that prove this concept wrong? If so give me a link to it.

This example of the van de Graaf generator doesn't quite hold up. The generator is made of matter, which is made of electrons, protons and neutrons, all of which have magnetic fields. The generator is just organized such that the magnetic fields largely cancel out while the electric fields do not.

If you want to disqualify the neutron as an example of a neutral particle with a magnetic field because it has internal electric fields that cancel out, then I think the van de Graaf generator is disqualified for the same reason.



Concerning the electromagnet example. When we put a magnetic field in motion via a magnet we must realize that the magnet has magnetic field because of circling charges within the magnetic material. When we move a magnetic field across a coil of wire and create an emf or an alignment of charge within the wire this causes the electrons to move as a current. The motion of the magnetic field is not really causing charge to appear from nowhere it is causing a voltage build up and alignment of charge in the wire.

If in fact we could create a charge from just the motion of a magnet we would be able to build emf, a huge electric field in the void of space by just causing a magnet to spin in space. This does not happen. In order for Emf to happen as a result of a moving magnetic field the existence of free electrons in a conductor is a prerequisite. Therefore magnetism does not create charge.

You do not need matter or charges to interact with an EMF for it for be real. A single charged particle in an otherwise empty universe still has an associated electric field, even if there are no other particles to interact with. As soon as a charged particle (or imaginary test particle) is introduced, the interaction manifests. The same goes for a spinning magnet in an otherwise empty universe. If there is nothing to interact with there is still a field, which becomes apparent as soon as there is a particle that can be observed interacting with it.
 

Offline mmfiore

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 28
  • Thanked: 2 times
    • View Profile
Well it looks like we are not going to agree. I respectfully disagree with your reasoning as you not correct about the van de Graff generator. You are mixing up the frame of references. The large electrostatic field that is generated by the van de graff is completely separate and isolated from the particles that make up the van de graff generator. The atoms and particles that make up the van de graff generator are at a great distance from the field that exists between the anode and cathode. So those particles can not be causing the non existent cancelling effect that you speak of.  The fact remains that there exists a huge electrostatic field that exists between the anode and cathode of the generator. I can cause that field to be generated in the void of outer space and the result would be the same. There would be no associated or corresponding magnetic field to match up with the huge static electrostatic field. In the void of space there are no atoms, particles or molecules there to cause the cancelling effect you seem to insist exists at the point of the stationary electrostatic field. So with out a doubt my argument holds strongly in this example. I have provided an example of a stationary electrostatic field that does not generate a magnetic field.

As for the second statement you made.

"You do not need matter or charges to interact with an EMF for it for be real. A single charged particle in an otherwise empty universe still has an associated electric field, even if there are no other particles to interact with. As soon as a charged particle (or imaginary test particle) is introduced, the interaction manifests. The same goes for a spinning magnet in an otherwise empty universe. If there is nothing to interact with there is still a field, which becomes apparent as soon as there is a particle that can be observed interacting with it."

My quoting controls and editing controls are not working on this PC for some reason, so I cannot properly mark your text as a quote.

I pretty much agree with everything you say there. For you to say those things you must believe in an objective reality. That is good.

« Last Edit: 28/07/2016 00:59:13 by mmfiore »
 

Offline chiralSPO

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1879
  • Thanked: 145 times
    • View Profile
Well it looks like we are not going to agree. I respectfully disagree with your reasoning as you not correct about the van de Graff generator. You are mixing up the frame of references. The large electrostatic field that is generated by the van de graff is completely separate and isolated from the particles that make up the van de graff generator. The atoms and particles that make up the van de graff generator are at a great distance from the field that exists between the anode and cathode. So those particles can not be causing the non existent cancelling effect that you speak of.  The fact remains that there exists a huge electrostatic field that exists between the anode and cathode of the generator. I can cause that field to be generated in the void of outer space and the result would be the same. There would be no associated or corresponding magnetic field to match up with the huge static electrostatic field. In the void of space there are no atoms, particles or molecules there to cause the cancelling effect you seem to insist exists at the point of the stationary electrostatic field. So with out a doubt my argument holds strongly in this example. I have provided an example of a stationary electrostatic field that does not generate a magnetic field.

What is the source of the electric field in a van de Graaf generator? I am under the impression that it is due to an imbalance in the ratio of electrons and protons (not 1:1) in the device. If this is incorrect, perhaps you can explain the source of the electric field and point me to a source where I can read more about it.

My quoting controls and editing controls are not working on this PC for some reason, so I cannot properly mark your text as a quote.

sometimes my buttons act up as well. In a pinch, you can just use square brackets around quote author=(author name) bfore the quote, and square brackets around /quote after the quote. For instance [quate author=chiralSPO] blah blah blah [/quate] but using the word quote instead of quate, will show up as:
Quote from: chiralSPO
blah blah blah

As for the second statement you made.
Quote from: chiralSPO
"You do not need matter or charges to interact with an EMF for it for be real. A single charged particle in an otherwise empty universe still has an associated electric field, even if there are no other particles to interact with. As soon as a charged particle (or imaginary test particle) is introduced, the interaction manifests. The same goes for a spinning magnet in an otherwise empty universe. If there is nothing to interact with there is still a field, which becomes apparent as soon as there is a particle that can be observed interacting with it."

I pretty much agree with everything you say there. For you to say those things you must believe in an objective reality. That is good.

:-) I think you will find we agree on many things.
 

Offline mmfiore

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 28
  • Thanked: 2 times
    • View Profile
Yes, you have it right as to the source of the electrostatic field. There is an imbalance of negative ions (electrons) on the small electrode and positive charged ions on the big dome side electrode. We agree on that aspect. What is in between those two charges is what I am talking about. That field is an electrostatic field. In that field there is no particles just the lines of force that Faraday described. Of course there really are not lines of force as that description was used just for visualization purpose. The electrostatic field is essentially captured in space between the two electrodes. This field is where the action is and where the mystery is. This field is stationary and very large. Still in this day and time physicists really cannot say what this field really is. Just like they cannot say what a magnetic field really is or how it works. Modern day science still does not know how action at a distance works and what these fields are made of. That my friend is where the action is. Its not just the particles that are important. Its what is going on in between them that is what is of critical importance.

So the electrostatic field in between the electrodes is static and not in motion and there is no associated magnetic field until electrons jump across the electrodes then as soon as that happens a current is established and a magnetic field appears. Do you see the pattern?
 

Offline vacuum

  • First timers
  • *
  • Posts: 2
    • View Profile
Hi. This is my first participation. I value the forum, so it offers and the attitude of the members. Thank you very much for letting me be a member.

Get the most simple case, a plane electromagnetic wave in vacuum. In this case, wave equation suppots three solutions, two real and one complex. Electric and magnetics fields only admits real solutions. Is there any field that complies the complex solution ? The answer is yes. Displacement in vacuum complies the complex solution, wich have exponential form. In electromagnetic theory, displacement is defined as the vectorial sum of two components. One is the polarization. Other is the electric field multiplied by epsilon zero. De Moivre's identity shows that an exponential function with complex exponent is equal to the sum of a cosine function plus a sine function multiplied by the imaginary unity, i . We note that electric field multiplied by epsilon zero is the imaginary part of De Moivre's identity, wich is sinusoidal and transverse. The real part is polarization, wich is a simmetric colineal field, constituted by pairs of vectors with same module and opposed directions placed on same straight line. So, polarization must be longitudinal and have non zero divergence. This means the presence of linked charges in vacuum polarization. Each pair of linked charges occupies a wavelength. No charge movement in the spread direction. Just in each point of vacuum the electric charge varies harmonically and periodically, producing something similar to the effect of a bright sign, where the brightness of each point varies according to an order, giving the feeling of movement. Nothing moves but the effect is equivalent to a movement. Similarly, at each point of vacuum, electric charge it varies tidily, giving a result equivalent to pairs of opposite charges moving in the spread direction. This phenomenon invites us to make a thorough review of the spread in the vacuum and the properties of the photon.
« Last Edit: 15/08/2016 14:40:01 by vacuum »
 

Offline jerrygg38

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 781
  • Thanked: 27 times
    • View Profile
   The static generator has a huge electric field and a very small magnetic field. All the stored electrons are moving constantly and producing magnetic fields. Magnetic fields are the product of moving charges and charges are always moving. Thus it is impossible to have a pure electric field. Mathematically we can say such things but in reality it is not possible. What can be said is that the generator has a zero DC net electric field and a spectrum of AC fields. In effect the AC fields look like noise but they exist.
   As I see it, within the photon we have balanced condition in which the plus and minus charges pass through each other producing a zero charge but still producing a magnetic field.
  We then have three different types of charged particles. Positive, negative, and bipolar. Photons are bipolar.
 

The Naked Scientists Forum


 

SMF 2.0.10 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines
SMFAds for Free Forums