Re: experimental verification of electromagnetic mass
From: Monitek (monitek_at_aol.com)
Date: 10/10/04
- Next message: Eugene Stefanovich: "Re: Download a new book on quantum mechanics and relativity."
- Previous message: N:dlzc D:aol T:com \(dlzc\): "Re: How to tell if a theory is a good one"
- In reply to: Paul Draper: "Re: experimental verification of electromagnetic mass"
- Next in thread: Paul Draper: "Re: experimental verification of electromagnetic mass"
- Reply: Paul Draper: "Re: experimental verification of electromagnetic mass"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: 10 Oct 2004 09:45:12 GMT
>From: pdraper@yahoo.com (Paul Draper)
>Date: 08/10/2004 17:33 GMT Daylight Time
>Message-id: <74768d2d.0410080833.7fba006f@posting.google.com>
>
>monitek@aol.com (Monitek) wrote in message
>news:<20041007144054.03232.00001453@mb-m19.aol.com>...
>> >From: pdraper@yahoo.com (Paul Draper)
>> >Date: 07/10/2004 15:55 GMT Daylight Time
>> >Message-id: <74768d2d.0410070655.1fa7b4d3@posting.google.com>
>> >
>> >No. You are dead wrong. A changing magnetic field can produce an
>> >electric field all by itself, without charged particles being the
>> >mediator at all. One way to DETECT the induced electric field is by
>> >placing charged particles in the electric field and watching them
>> >deflect, but putting them in there is not a requirement for the
>> >creation of the field. Reread the chapter on induced electric fields.
>> >
>> >>
>> >> > And
>> >> >when the electric field changes, a magnetic field is induced.
>> >>
>> >> Yes.
>> >
>> > And no charged particles need to be present (no actual current
>> >required) for this to happen. Reread the chapter on displacement
>> >"current". Search out the end-of-chapter problems that specifically
>> >point to cases where there is no charge present in the region of
>> >interest.
>> >
I did not write this:
http://maxwell.byu.edu/~spencerr/websumm122/node72.html
Whenever you see the word ether in the above article substitute Dirac sea of
electron positron pairs. Maxwells equations were spectacularly successful in
defining EMR mathematically. The killer fact is that he predicted the speed of
EMR from first principles. Therefore, as the theory is based on a dielectric
medium, and the predictions of the theory are in line with experiment we must
inevitably conclude that the vacuum is a polarisable dielectric medium and not
a region devoid of all substance.
>>
>> The electric field IS charged particles.
As Fredifizzx says you ignored this.
>
>I'm sorry, Monitek, this is not true, and I don't know who would have
>taught you that. You might have been trained reasonably well as an
>electrician, but your training in basic E&M was atrocious. You have
>not done enough of the basic experiments and you have not cranked
>through the math of the theory. I would suggest that learning it will
>make you a better electrician.
>
Your proof that my assertion that the electric field IS charged particles
is not true is:…………………..
You also forgot to mention the Faraday experiment which proved that the energy
in the capacitor was in the dielectric. Namely he stripped the capacitor and
showed that the energy on the plates had disappeared. Have you ever wondered
what changes in the dielectric medium between the plates of a capacitor when it
is charged. The as a capacitor as you have pointed out works in a vacuum then
the vacuum is also a dielectric medium. Originally it was thought that matter
was the dielectric medium with the atoms polarising to become the dielectric
energy store. Maxwells equations were based on the polarised matter dielectric
assumption. However if the same theory applies to a vacuum then the vacuum must
be a dielectric medium. If this is so then matter modifies the vacuum
dielectric medium not matter being different types of dielectric viz a viz the
dielectric constant. Who taught me that the electric field IS charged
particles? Nobody I had to figure that one out for myself. The work of Dirac
predicting the positron was the primary factor which enabled me to come to the
conclusion that the Dirac sea of virtual particles was the mysterious
dielectric of the vacuum.
Yes my grounding in E & M was atrocious. So was yours and so was everybody
else's. I did it three times. At the age of eleven I studied basic magnetism
and electrostatics. I did it again at the age of 17 and again at 19 as part of
different courses. After the third hearing that the dielectric has no
measurable change, that charged particles create electric currents when they
move, moving currents create magnetic fields, changing magnetic fields cause
charge to move. You start to realise that the system is symbiotic, you can't
have one without the other.
I am not an electrician.
>Let's do a basic experiment. Go to a freshman physics lab and obtain a
>gold-leaf electroscope and put it on the table. Now rub a glass rod
>with silk, applying a net charge to the rod. Hold the rod NEAR but do
>not touch the ball of the electroscope. You can confirm for yourself
>that the leaves of the electroscope will spread, indicating the
>presence of an electric field in the region of the electroscope, which
>the glass rod is NOT INSIDE. In fact, there is an electric field in
>all space AROUND the glass rod, though the charge is ON the rod. Note
>there is no net charge in the region between the rod and the
>electroscope, even though there is a field there. Lest you think the
>air provides the charge, repeat the experiment in an evacuated bell
>jar, which will produce the same results.
>
>I'll give you another example in a minute.
>
Ok so the glass rod will have its electrons stripped by the silk leaving the
glass rod positively charged. (I would get more satisfaction in making an
electroscope.) When the glass rod is charged it polarises the vacuum e-p
pairs, the negative end of the pair pointing towards the glass rod, and so on
until the distance between the glass rod and the top of the electroscope is
bridged. The positive ends of the e-p pairs will now be adjacent to the
electrons in the electroscope metal top, this will drive the electrons from the
top and make the gold leaf negatively charged. ( or aluminium foil if I had
made it, I cant afford gold leaf). As both sides of the gold leaf are at the
same charge the e-p pairs in between are polarised in such a way that like
charges have to occupy the same space. The effect which gives rise to the Pauli
exclusion principle comes into play and to restore equilibrium the leaves have
to separate.
Your explanation is:……………………
>>
>> >>
>> >> If I read this correctly you are saying that you can have an electric
>field
>> >> with
>> >> no charge being present. I say it is impossible for an electric field to
>> exist
>> >> without there being an associated charged particle to create the field.
>> >
>> >And you are wrong. Experiment shows it to be true. Sorry, but you're
>> >wrong.
>> >
>>
>> Which one of the many experiments was that?
>
>Again, to to a freshman physics lab and acquire an electromagnet,
>preferably a solenoid, though a toroid (like a ring inductor) will do.
>Apply a DC power source so there is a magnetic field. Now wind one
>turn of another wire AROUND the electromagnet with an ammeter in
>series in the turn, taking care to isolate the secondary winding. Now
>turn OFF the DC power source, making the current ZERO in the
>electromagnet. You will see the effect of an ELECTRIC field in the
>secondary winding, pushing charges through the ammeter.
>
Ok so the most powerful of the electromagnetic demonstrations demonstrating
that a collapsing magnetic field can cause charges to move. The two coils are
coupled via the magnetic field. The charge motion is in the opposite direction
to the inducing charge and the magnetic field is at right angles to both. I am
not sure how you envisage the electrons in a neutral wire creating an electric
field.
>For a more sophisticated experiment, find a mass spectrometer and turn
>on the magnetic field in the dipole magnet. When the magnet field is
>turned OFF, there is an electric field created in the vacuum space
>between the poles of the magnet -- which you can detect with your
>favorite means of electric field detection. It's important to note
>once again that the electric field is created SOLELY in the region of
>changing magnetic field between the pole plates, where there are no
>coil windings, no source of charge, no metal, no anything. And it
>happens only after the magnet has been turned off, so it is a dead,
>neutral piece of metal.
>
As we have said the magnetic field and the electric field are symbiotic when
changing in field strength. This is an example surely of the vacuum being
polarised. If empty space has physical properties of charge then the space
contains charged particles, if the vacuum is electrically neutral then the sum
of the charge of the charged particles is neutral. A Dirac sea of electron
positron pairs satisfies this physical requirement. The charge will only appear
whilst the magnetic field is collapsing to zero.
>> >
>> >If I understand you right, you are demanding that there are charges
>> >present in empty space because you believe it's impossible for fields
>> >to propagate in a region without charge. But if you find yourself
>> >wrong, that fields CAN propagate in a region without charge, then the
>> >need for charge in empty space vanishes.
>>
>> Yes there has to be Current flow to create magnetic fields. Electric fields
>
>> occur round charged particles and are considered to be polarised
>> electron-positron pairs. They are the charged particles resposible for
>> the electric field and the propagation of EMR. Moving charged particles
>> create a magnetic field. If you can detect a magnetic field then there
>> are moving charged particles close by. Of course an electromagnetic
>> wave can travel in a region which does not contain charged particles
>> like free leptons say, but whilst the disturbance of the wave is manifest
>> then charged particles are present and responsible for the electric
>> and magnetic properties of the wave.
>>
>> The alternating magnetic wave requires a current to create the magnetic
>field
>> which induces the next current. If a current is flowing then you have
>charged
>> particles making the current.
>
>OK, let me get something straight with you. Charged particles do
>create an electric field, and currents create a magnetic field.
IMPORTANT REMEMBER THIS ALWAYS.
>However, this is not the ONLY way to create an electric field and a
>magnetic field.
>
Yes it is.
>Look at Maxwell's equations. I don't know whether you're used to the
>integral form or the differential form. I'll use a form you might have
>seen in your basic classes.
>Del*E = 4*pi*k*(charge density)
>DelxE = -dB/dt
>Del*B = 0
>DelxB = (1/c^2)[4*pi*k*(current density) + dE/dt]
>
>The stuff on the left-hand side is the field created, and the stuff on
>the right are the sources of the field. Note that these equations
>apply completely locally, which means that at a particular point in
>space (x,y,z), the stuff on the left-hand side is talking about the
>field at THAT point in space and not the space anywhere near it, and
>the stuff on the right-hand side is talking about the sources at THAT
>point in space and not the space anywhere near it.
>
The equations do not create the field. The equations model the physical
phenomenon.
>So you are right, if there is a charge density, then that is a source
>of the electric field. And if there is a current density, there is a
>magnetic field in space.
>
The equations are a statement of the physical facts. The charge density IS
related to the amount of CHARGE present. The current density is related to the
number and velocity of charged particles which are MOVING. As you have said
current IS the movement of charged particles.
>But notice that there are other source terms, so that even if charge
>density is zero, there can still be an electric field, which comes
>from the other source -dB/dt. Even if the current density is zero,
>there can still be a magnetic field at that point, which comes from
>the other source dE/dt.
>
That's because when the magnetic field is at a maximum then the current is at a
minimum.
>So now you might ask, is it possible for there to be electric and
>magnetic fields in a region of space where there is absolutely no
>charge and no current? Absolutely. Simply see if there is a solution
>to what's left of Maxwell's equations:
You are countering your statements on current and magnetism above.
>Del*E = 0
>DelxE = -dB/dt
>Del*B = 0
>DelxB = (1/c^2)[dE/dt]
>
>Aha! There IS a solution. It's an electromagnetic wave! In a region
>where there is no charge source at all!
>
If there were no current flow in the vacuum then an electromagnetic wave would
not propagate. As you have said current flow is required to create a magnetic
filed. The corollary is if you can measure a magnetic field then you are
detecting the flow / movement of charged particles. The displacement current is
the electron positron pair separating.
>>
>> >
>> >>
>> >> The clue is in the initial generation of the wave, a moving charge
>starts
>> >> the process, therefore a moving charge, or current flow, must sustain
>> >> each subsequent cycle, well half cycle in reality. To sustain EMR one
>> >> has to accept that the vacuum contains charged particles.
>> >>
>> >> You still avoid the radio transmission reception question. Well the
>answer,
>>
>> >> as you know, is that one has to arrange to allow the charged part of the
>> >> EM wave to charge up a capacitor, or for the magnetic part of the EM
>> >> wave to induce a current in a conductor. Dont forget that the induced
>> >> current in the receiver also produces a back EMF in the EMR, which
>> >> also implies that charge is available for movement, otherwise no current
>
>> >> would flow in the receiving inductor. Ever tried to pass ac current
>through
>>
>> >> a transformer with an open circuit output?
>> >>
>> >
>> >You are confusing the detection of the EM wave with the wave itself.
>> >The wave impinging on an antenna that contains electrons will indeed
>> >move those electrons, inducing a current in the circuit.
>>
>> >But does
>> >there have to be a "conducting wire" between all points for EM
>> >transmission, whether that wire is made of metal or vacuum? No.
>> >
>> I am not quite sure what you mean by this. Specifically what does
>> "all points" mean.
>
>What I mean is, there is no need for any conductor or source of charge
>between the cell phone tower and my cell phone antenna. There is no
>need for a conductor or source of charge between a distant radio
>galaxy and the Hubble Space Telescope. There is no need for a
>conductor or source of charge between the Telstat satellite and my TV
>set.
>
There is a need for the vacuum to be a conductor, but not necessary for the
conduction to occur from source to destination.
>>
>> >And as for your last point, a capacitor is EXACTLY an open circuit,
>> >right? Yet somehow you can get energy transmitted across it.
>> >
>>
>> I was not talking about a capacitor I was talking about a transformer.
>> Basically an open circuit output transformer will have in infinite
>> impedance to alternating current. Similarly if the vacuum of space
>> had an infinite impedance then light would not be able to propagate.
>
>Note that there is nothing but insulation between the primary and
>secondary windings of a transformer. In fact you can separate those
>windings a good distance in a vacuum and it will still act as a
>transformer. So I ask you, how does power (energy) get from the
>primary to the secondary?
>
>Note too, that if you have a DC current in the primary winding of a
>transformer, you will see nothing induced in the secondary, but if you
>cut a winding in the primary, creating the open circuit transformer
>you referred to, you will see a current appear in the secondary!
>Energy has made its way across an open circuit transformer with
>infinite impedance.
>
The primary and secondary are coupled by the magnetic field, there is
capacitive coupling but in a good design it is miniscule. The magnetic field
moves the charge at right angles to its direction. I do not know why the charge
is moved at right angles I just know that experiment shows that it is.
>>
>> First of all the antenna is a capacitor with one plate being ground
>> but not always. The electric charge in the em wave induces an electric
>> charge in the aerial, which in turn is used to oscillate a tuned circuit.
>> Because the capacitor is charged alternately there is an alternating
>> potential difference the electrons are moved but induced charge, not
>> some sort of Compton effect.
>
>No this is not right. The electric field is in the space filling the
>region around the antenna. The electric field at the location of the
>antenna induces *motion* of the charges already existing in the
>conductor of the antenna.
>
The electric field associated with electromagnetic radiation is a polarised
dielectric as Maxwell equations demonstrate.
>>
>> As far as a capacitor transitting energy across an open circuit junction,
>> there is no mystery about this. When one plate is charged up say
>> positively then the opposite plate attracts a surplus of electrons
>> because it is a physical fact that unlike charges attract and like
>> charges repel. the electrons moving into the plate where the negative
>> charge is induced constitute a current flow and can do work. If the
>> charge on the positive plate is an alternating charge then the energy
>> available to do work is almost continuous, the RMS value of the peak
>> current is the DC eqivalent current flow.
>>
>
>OK, now go back in the freshman physics lab. Make yourself a big
>capacitor, big enough to work your hands between the plates. Connect
>it to a switch and a DC power source. Hold a compass in the space
>BETWEEN the plates, a little off center. Note that there is no wire,
>no charged current traveling between the two plates, agreed?
No that is not agreed. There are no charged particles moving between the plates
but there are charged particles moving in the space between the plates but NOT
moving from one plate to the other.
> When you
>close the switch, or open the switch, you will see the compass needle
>deflect in the direction of the magnetic field created in the region
>BETWEEN the plates, where there is no current.
>
>PD
>
If you are measuring a magnetic field then this field is due to the movement of
charged particles - period.
You are measuring the physical fact that the displacement current is real. The
separation of electron positron pairs is the displacement current.
Regards,
Monitek (Arden Barker)
- Next message: Eugene Stefanovich: "Re: Download a new book on quantum mechanics and relativity."
- Previous message: N:dlzc D:aol T:com \(dlzc\): "Re: How to tell if a theory is a good one"
- In reply to: Paul Draper: "Re: experimental verification of electromagnetic mass"
- Next in thread: Paul Draper: "Re: experimental verification of electromagnetic mass"
- Reply: Paul Draper: "Re: experimental verification of electromagnetic mass"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|
