Re: Particle Visualization


"PD" <TheDraperFamily@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:1117754586.654490.24160@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>
>
> Monitek wrote:
>> ----- Original Message -----
>> From: "PD" <TheDraperFamily@xxxxxxxxx>
>> Newsgroups: sci.physics.particle
>> Sent: Wednesday, June 01, 2005 2:53 PM
>> Subject: Re: Particle Visualization
>>
> [snip]
>> >
>> >>
>> >> > Think of it as how often the vertex
>> >> > happens.
>> >> >
>> >>
>> >> I do not understand the relevance of this statement.
>> >
>> > I wasn't sure you would. It's a reference to Feynman diagrams. A
>> > Feynman diagram is a little schematic of an interaction, where the
>> > different parts of the schematic represent terms in an algebraic
>> > expression which allows you to calculate the rate at which that
>> > interaction occurs. For example, a diagram like a "Y" might have for
>> > the three legs an incoming electron, an outgoing electron, and an
>> > emitted (or absorbed) photon, and the point where the emission (or
>> > absorption) occurs is at the junction of the "Y" -- the vertex. The
>> > term corresponding to the vertex is proportional to the charge of the
>> > electron. The stronger the charge is, essentially, the more frequently
>> > the vertex will occur during an electron's path through spacetime.
>> >
>> Sorry I switched of the idea behind Feynmans aide memoirs the minute he
>> introduced an imaginary exchange particle into the proceedings.
>>
>> > Note that the charge is carried by the electron in this case, which is
>> > codified in the rule that vertices happen on electron lines but never
>> > on photon lines. You can't have a "Y" with just photons on the three
>> > legs. On the other hand, the statement that the electron has charge
>> > means *nothing more* than the fact that it does have vertices where
>> > photons are emitted or absorbed. That is, the answer to the question,
>> > "What is charge, anyway?" is simply that it is a flag that the particle
>> > that bears it participates in such interactions.
>> >
>>
>> The vertices are imaginary.
>
> I don't know why you say that. Just because virtual particles are
> *among* those that play in Feynman diagrams, this does not mean that
> all vertices are associated with virtual particles. Therefore it makes
> no sense to say that vertices are imaginary.
>
> In a sense you are right, though, because the diagrams represent
> mnemonics on how to write down the calculations for the rates. It so
> happens that the diagrams are physically suggestive, however.
>

I appreciate that Feynman's introduction of the exchange photon produced a
mathematical model which fitted the observed data to a T. And cf Maxwell
when the maths fit, then the theory which produced the equations, must be
right then Feynman's work is powerful juju. However Feynman himself never
understood how this vitual exchange particle model matched reality. I
venture to suggest that all it means is that they are physically coupled.

>> When the rate of change of velocity is large
>> enough then a charged particle causes an electromagnetic disturbance to
>> radiate.
>
> And, in your mind, how large is "large enough"?
>

Electrons oscillating at 10 kHz and above emit EMR waves, below that
frequency zilch.

>>
>> >>
>> >> >>
>> >> >> b) From what are the electromagnetic properties of EMR produced?
>> >> >
>> >> > Too vague. I don't know what you mean by "electromagnetic
>> >> > properties".
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >>
>> >> One can measure the electrostatic field associated with EMR.
>> >> One can measure the magnetic field assoiated with EMR.
>> >> "electromagnetic properties" is a phrase which encompasses both
>> >> properties.
>> >> My question is : Where do the electromagnetic properties associated
>> >> with
>> >> EMR
>> >> arise from?
>> >> If the photon has no charge (I note the word 'need' as used above
>> >> leaving
>> >> open the option for a charged photon), then the "electromagnetic
>> >> properties"
>> >> must arise from something else. If so what could that something else
>> >> be?
>> >> On
>> >> the other hand if the photon is charged then one does not have to look
>> >> for
>> >> something else to derive the electromagnetic properties of EMR.
>> >>
>> >
>> > No, and this is simple to explain. You are under the impression, it
>> > appears, that the only sources of electric and magnetic fields are
>> > charges. This is not so. If you open a textbook to the chapter on
>> > Faraday's law and Maxwell's equations, you will see that there are
>> > other sources for electric and magnetic fields; namely, a changing
>> > magnetic field is a source of an electric field, and a changing
>> > electric field is a source of a magnetic field. This, in fact, is the
>> > key thing that lets electric/magnetic fields propagate *together*
>> > through space, without carrying charge with them. The fact that the
>> > fields are periodic (oscillating) is central to this, because
>> > oscillating fields are constantly changing, which is required for them
>> > to continue to feed each other.
>> >
>>
>> Electromagnetic induction is what I would call it. Even that will not
>> work
>> for EMR because a magnetic field can only induce a current in a
>> conductor.
>
> That is flat wrong. A changing magnetic field in the evacuated (or
> air-filled) gap of a dipole magnet will produce a measurable electric
> field in that gap, which can be tested by the placement of a
> *stationary* electron or other charged, nonconductive object in that
> gap.
>

The only conclusion you can arrive at from both the statement I made above
and the following statement you made is that the vacuum *IS A CONDUCTOR*. It
has an impedance of 300 ohms.


>> Where are the conductors in EMR in vacuo? A conductor is a collection of
>> charges which are free to move. To use electromagnetic induction to
>> propagate EMR you need charged particles.
>
> That is also incorrect. A moving charge can initiate an electromagnetic
> wave, but the wave will continue to propagate after the charge has been
> removed or neutralized.
>

Which also indicates that the charge measured in the EMR is not due to the
original charge. The charge in the EMR induces the magnetic wave front which
in turn induces the charge in the next wave front and cancels the charge
behind as it collapses and so on ad infinitum.

>>
>>
>> Sorry, your starting assumption in your inductive cycle is totally wrong.
>> You can not start the electromagnetic induction cycle with a magnetic
>> field.
>> The reason being that moving charges are required to create a magnetic
>> field
>> so the changing electric field comes first. Electric fields require
>> charged
>> particles-period. Therefore to create a magnetic field you require
>> charged
>> particles. Where are your charged particles in EMR?
>>
>>
>> > The fact that there are non-charge sources for electric and magnetic
>> > fields came as quite a surprise to Faraday, but experiments don't lie.
>> > Likewise, the fact that the mathematical solution to propagating,
>> > chargeless fields happened to propagate at a speed that was numerically
>> > close to the measured speed of light came as quite a surprise to
>> > Maxwell, but it too was verified later in experiment.
>> >
>>
>> If you have an electrostatic field you have a charged particle
>> responsible
>> for its creation. There are no electric fields which do not have a
>> charged
>> particle as a source. Yes there is no doubt that Maxwells equations were
>> a
>> flash of pure brilliance. The subsequent sweeping of the field source
>> under
>> the carpet was a mistake.
>
> See above.
>

Sorry nobody has shown that the charge field in EMR has no charged particles
associated with it. It is an assumption that there are no charged particles
in the vacuum. The finesse was to consider only the fields in the equations
because it was the fields which did the work. The assumption was "obviously
a vacuum has no charged particles in it".

>>
>> > This sequence of stunning revelations completely changed everything in
>> > physics. Indeed, of the four fundamental interactions, the
>> > electromagnetic interaction is the *only* one that we freely exploit at
>> > will. (Some will include gravity in that category, but if we didn't
>> > happen to have a fairly huge source of a gravitational interaction
>> > nearby, it'd be useless to us.)
>> >
>> > PD
>> >
>>
>> The weak force has been resolved as electromagnetic. I have modelled the
>> strong force as electromagnetic. The electromagnetic force is
>> electromagnetic. So dont be surprised that there may only be two
>> fundamental
>> forces.
>>
>
> The weak force has NOT been resolved as electromagnetic, unless you've
> done so. I await your demonstration.
>
> PD
>

Somebody has already got a Nobel for it.

http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/FHSST_Physics_atomic_nucleus_elementary:Forces_of_nature


Regards,
Monitek (Arden Barker)


.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Reflections on Aether
    ... > pair still exists but the physical properties have been cancelled, no charge ... a dielectric medium of electron positron pairs. ... > accelerating charge produces a changing magnetic field. ...
    (sci.physics)
  • Re: Particle Visualization
    ... >>> electrons were NOT affected by a magnetic field then should there be no ... > then it must be vacuum polarization. ... Which makes a definite experimental prediction about *real* charge flow ... The electron moving up say has its magnetic field ...
    (sci.physics.particle)
  • Re: Detecting Space-Time
    ... > What poles of an electron? ... So a magnetic field can exist without a moving charge too. ... I can suspend a human being on a permanent magnet. ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Reflections on Aether
    ... What I am saying is that an electron positron aether ... As we have described above an accelerating charge creates ... >> magnetic field, the same magnetic field creates a back emf in the initial ... >> charged particles is subjected to an acceleration. ...
    (sci.physics)
  • Re: experimental verification of electromagnetic mass
    ... Your proof that my assertion that the electric field IS charged particles ... >gold-leaf electroscope and put it on the table. ... applying a net charge to the rod. ... that a collapsing magnetic field can cause charges to move. ...
    (sci.physics.particle)