Re: Particle Visualization



Monitek wrote:
> "PD" <TheDraperFamily@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
> news:1118522689.968198.238280@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> >
> >
> > Monitek wrote:
> >> "PD" <TheDraperFamily@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
[snip]
> >> >
> >> > There are several reasons why this cannot be the case.
> >> > Let's start with where the supposed vacuum polarization charges go. Do
> >> > they actually make it to the capacitor plates?
> >> > If no, then this would result in a dielectric effect, exactly as in a
> >> > real material, with a measurable dielectric constant > 1. I don't
> >> > believe that has been measured.
> >> > If yes, then some of the charge delivered in the leads would be that
> >> > pulled from the vacuum, as well as that pulled from the battery. That
> >> > is, there would be more *excess* charge than accountable from the
> >> > source.
> >> >
> >>
> >> Vacuum dielectric constant is defined as 1. The polarised vacuum is
> >> polarised by the energy of the charge on the plates of the capacitor.
> >> There
> >> is no net current flow between the plates via the battery. As the vacuum
> >> polarisation takes place there is an effective current flow due to charge
> >> separation until the charge reaches equilibrium then the "current flow "
> >> stops and the electric field is established and is maintained via the
> >> vacuum
> >> polarisation.
> >
> > You didn't answer the question. Is the charge in the gap delivered to
> > the plates or no?
> An electron does not flow from the negatively charged plate to the positive
> plate. The dielectric polarises ie lines its charge up in the direction of
> the potential gradient. The negative polarisation adjacent to the positive
> plate causes the electrons to move from the plate by the fact that like
> charges repel. This leaves a net positive charge on the positive plate.
> Similarly when EMR passes a capacitor the plates are polarised by the state
> of vacuum polarisation which is created by the EMR wave.
>
> > (If not, WHY NOT?)
>
> Why if an electron crossed the gap between the plates it would be a
> conductor not a capacitor an ideal example of which has infinite resistance.

You've defined the displacement as being a *real* current with charge
flow. I would suggest that any material where there is a current in the
presence of an electric field is a conductor. The usual algebraic
formulation of this looks something like this: J = (sigma)*E, where J
is the current density, E is the electric field, and (sigma) is the
conductivity. You say J is nonzero when E is nonzero, which demands
that (sigma) is nonzero. The resistivity is the reciprocal of (sigma).
So if you have infinite resistance, what must the conductivity be? If
you have nonzero conductivity, how can the resistance be infinite?

But algebra aside, let's look at a region of space immediately adjacent
to a plate. You say there is charge separation in that region of space
*right next* to the plate. What on earth keeps the charge from
depositing on the plate. The vacuum gap is nothing like a material
dielectric, where there is a surface to the dielectric material beyond
which the dielectric's charges cannot move.

>
> >>
> >> > Secondly, there would be simple tests to determine whether charge moves
> >> > in the gap. A phosphorescent screen placed near one plate would
> >> > register hits from passing charges. I'm pretty sure this has NOT been
> >> > observed.
> >> >
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> I have some zinc sulphide powder handy will that do? I will have to get
> >> the
> >> van der graph out though.
> >
> > You can do the research on what's required for a phosphorescent screen.
> > Got an old computer monitor? (Legal notice: you could kill yourself
> > here if you don't know what you're doing.)
> >
>
> I think the material used for video screens only fluoresces as having a
> sustained afterglow would be a nuisance.

Yes, either a fluorescent or a phosphorescent screeen will work.

>
> >> Is that a fact that only charged particles cause materials to
> >> phosphoresce?
> >
> > Well, pretty much so, but it's irrelevant. If you don't see anything on
> > the screen, then you know for sure you don't have charge flowing
> > through the phosphorescent screen, because moving charges will cause
> > phosphorescence.
> >
>
> Pretty much so is too vague, I really would like a yes/no on this one,
> because other than using such screens I have never had occasion to condider
> what they do and why they do it. So is it a fact that only charged particles
> can cause a phosphorescent material to glow?

Photons, if they are high enough energy, can kick out electrons from
the surface of the screen and cause the electron to leave a spot on the
screen, but that's a 2nd-order effect. The point here is that moving
electrons WOULD be detected. I'm not expecting you to see spots and
then having to worry that they are due to something else. I don't
expect you to see spots from ANYTHING in the gap, let alone moving
charges.

>
> >> Might have to wait until the rotating magnet investigation is completed.
> >> I
> >> have the holder made to fix the magnet in a drill. Would you be happy
> >> with a
> >> ceramic disc capacitor as a probe to save me making one?
> >
> > Recall that you needed to change the gap so that you can get more than
> > one data point and fit the results to eliminate the pickup in the
> > twisted pair.
> >
> >>
> >>
> >> As far as the effect has not been seen all tha means is the charge
> >> separation is below the minimum for the effect.
> >
> > And your model should predict what that is. After all, you claim you
> > have a measurable and *real* displacent current, and so you can say
> > that you know exactly how much charge has been moved from one side of
> > the gap to the other. Therefore you know how many vacuum electron and
> > positrons have moved that distance and then you can determine whether
> > that is above or below threshold for seeing it.
> >
>
> First of all I do not know if the effect of phosphorescence has been
> observed between capacitor plates or not. I dont know whether it can be seen

Why wouldn't it be seen? Do the test. Better yet, choose an electron
detector of your choice and put that in the gap.

> even if I am right about pair separation being responsible for carrying the
> electric field. I am looking into it. From the size of the displacement
> current one can determine the equivalent electron flow and thats about it.
>
> Secondly, thats not quite what I said. I said that the displacement current
> can be measured and has been measured by measuring the magnetic field
> associated with it - they are synonymous. If you are measuring a real
> current then real charges are moving to create it. A galvo does not respond
> to an imaginary current.

And a galvo is not measuring the magnetic field.

> I personally have not measures the displacement
> current.

Then I suggest you should!

>
> As for e-p separation, I wish it was as easy as that. I have determined an
> approximate figure for the separation distance v charge value of e-p pairs.
> However, as you know from Maxwells equations that the potential is the sum
> of all the individual charges and is so in this case. The difference being
> the value of the charge is a variable and the number of pairs contributing
> to the charge is unknown. One can make a guess and say that pair separation
> would be the limit of charge carrying capability after that the vacuum
> creates pairs and the capacitor becomes a conductor.

Then your model is stuck. At least you could have a free paramater for
one and calculate the other in terms of it.

>
> >>
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> > Summarizing, if you'll look again at Maxwell's equations, you'll see
> >> >> > that there is a possible source of an electric field that is NOT due
> >> >> > to
> >> >> > any physical electric charge (the field lines do not terminate at
> >> >> > any
> >> >> > charges), and there is a possible source of a magnetic field that is
> >> >> > NOT due to any physical electric current.
> >> >
> >> > Have you looked at Maxwell's equations?
> >> >
> >>
> >> Yes they contain a term for the displacement current.
> >
> > They contain a term dE/dt and dB/dt.
> >
> > http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/electric/maxeq.html#c3
> >
> >> The displacement
> >> current is due to charge movement during vacuum polarisation. When the
> >> electric field is established the charges stop moving and the magnetic
> >> effect ceases. If the equations require a displacement current then the
> >> displacement current is real, the charge movement is also real.
> >>
> >> >> >
> >> >> > [snip]
> >> >> >
> >> >> > PD
> >> >> >
> >> >>
> >>
>
>
> Regards,
> Monitek (Arden Barker)

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: experimental verification of electromagnetic mass
    ... The vacuum is therefore a dielectric ... Tell me what communicates the movement of charge to the magnet ... A free neutron decays in flight into a proton, an electron, ... |> Then I think we differ on what a first principle is. ...
    (sci.physics.particle)
  • Re: experimental verification of electromagnetic mass
    ... force is electromagnetic and has naff all to do with colour charge or gluons. ... "empty vacuum", and that the "empty vacuum" is full of electron positron pairs ... >> inverse square law is only an approximation with a dipole magnet and ...
    (sci.physics.particle)
  • 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: Reflections on Aether
    ... >>Which the vacuum still is not. ... > That was the magnetic moment of an electron treated as a circular current. ... > Massless particles have no inertia. ... account what "charge conservation" actually *means*. ...
    (sci.physics)
  • Re: A version of QED without ultraviolet divergences
    ... |> | quantum vacuum". ... |> charge of an electron is screened by a cloud of virtual particles. ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)