Re: Is vacuum not empty?

On Jul 1, 9:53 pm, dlzc <dl...@xxxxxxx> wrote:
Dear Dredd:

On Jul 1, 12:24 pm, Dredd <wed...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:



On Jun 30, 12:48 am, "N:dlzcD:aol T:com \(dlzc\)" <dl...@xxxxxxx>
"Dredd" <wed...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:d07af971-2417-4116-8bf4-3272b1057034@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
...
If vacuum has both permittivity and
permeability, than that implies
directly that you can

1. Magnetize vacuum - follows that
vacuum becomes a permanent magnet

No. You can magnetize vacuum, by storing
energy in it, but it does not stay.

Sir, permeability means magnetizable

Does not mean it has to stay magnetized.

while permeability stays constant, I cant
see why they not should stay magnetized

2nd law of thermo. When is the last time
you saw a photosn stand still...

By vacuum I meant completely empty, without
any photon inside

In QM, magnetism and E-field are produced by virtual photons. So if
the space is empty, it will have neither form of energy if it is empty
of photons. Granted, this is one model, but if you shoot a test
particle through this "empty space" it will interact with the stuff
outside of the space that is making the field.

follows that a large portion of vacuum may
act like a large permanent magnet

It does not follow, unless you want to say
"instantaneously".

but according to relativity there are not
instantaneous things out there

No, it says no such thing. An instant is
merely a time-slice, a single "now". A
conceptual tool.

Then feel free to explain your instantaneous

I just did.

Instantaneous regarding to what?

Instantaneous, as opposed to "what happened on my summer vacation", or
"for the six seconds that the particle stream was incident on the area
of interest".

Sir, you just named instantaneous events which are not single

happened - summer vacation

six seconds - particle stream incident - area of interest


You cant have a instantaneous which is single

single... what? Do you mean you must "integrate over some long period
of time"?

Not sure, I suppose we need at least an observer in order something
occurring instantaneous




2. Vacuum is a dielectric - follows that
vacuum becomes a capacitor storing
charges

Only for a short time. But to keep
simlarity with your "1.", [you] should say
that you can apply a static electric field
across it.

So vacuum is a capacitor with charges in it

follows that vacuum is not empty

No. You have stipulated that it is empty.
Therefore, if follows that what you find in
the box, is more-or-less some part of the
Universe.

yes, it must be

Kind of explains how the observer is always
part of the observed, doesn't it?

How can you do all that?

Charge motion.

what motion, you mean static

Not for magnetism. Not to create the
charge separation.

what charges are we talking about?

For your E-field, or "voltage", your
"capacitor storing charge"
required charge motion.

How can you have a magnet when you dont
have any magnets

Charge motion.

a permanent magnet has a static magnetic
field

There *is* charge motion in "permanent magnets".
Look into "magnetic domains".

you mean orientation, not motion, right?

there are nothing in motion inside a magnet bar

<snipping link that Google breaks on reposting>

... now consider how many magnets are made
of non-conductors. Recall that conductors
place "free" electrons in conduction shells.
Magnetic domains do allow charge motion
within the domain.

Are you so sure of your statement?

Are you suggesting that free electrons are
in motion through a permanent magnet bar?

[You know, when you think you smell blood in the water, your English
improves. I do wish you felt "safe" in being who you really are.]

I think within the domains (grains), yes. You can apply a rapdily
changing magnetic field, and severly heat a permanent magnet, much
more than say a conductive plate. Hard to do that without charge
motion "somewhere"

Bur SIr, this is the point.

I see vacuum rather as a permanent magnet, with no need for motion
around it.


...



In the Universe. Potential (voltage) is a
macroscopic term, so only means something
in the Universe.

Here is one for you. Probably to be announced
soon (if not already). A fellow at LANL induced
rapidly changing magnetic fields in a vacuum,
and simulated gamma ray bursts with rapidly
changing magnetic fields, fields changing so
fast that the charges "must" have been moving
FTL. Gamma rays elicited from "empty space".
Only those spaces were filled with magnetic
field energy, which is not "nothing'. Quantum
mechanically, charge is an interchange of
virtual photons, and such an experiment makes
them "real". (Whatever that is.)

There is no such thing as empty space. Not
necessarily because of some aether, but
because there is no separation in this
Universe... only "distance".
Y

While I can see the macro aspect of the
problem, I cannot really see what charges
are we talking about

You mean particle anti particle, aka
fermions antu fermions?

We are only talking about "charge" in its
generic sense. You spoke of charging
capacitors to elicit a field, this usually
involves motion of electrons.

Only when it gets charged, till gets in
steady state

Similarly, vacuum is already charged, I
cant see any motion anywhere

I don't see that is charged. I push a test charge through it, and the
test charge continues "straight".

I mean, if it has dielectric properties it must be already charged,
otherwise it makes not much sense having
a dielectric which is not charged with anything.



Only potential, for sure, potential is
not motion

Some is... say a rotating gyroscope. As a black box, potential energy
is available. That it is kinetic within the box... well that is much
like "magnetism", except that charge motion does not have to be in the
"black box"....=



You need opposite particles in order to
annihilate each other. And if I understand
it right when they meet they do explosions.

Annihilation is separate. Do we need to get
into that now? You might look at
"positronium" if you think they only explode.

I cant see any explosions in vaccum

Quite a well known phenomenon: "spontaneous
pair creation".
Google...
"spontaneous pair creation" site:.edu

How do they annihilate in order to
disappear as your say "instantaneously" ?

How do they exist in the first place, if
there is no separation (only distance)?

At distance but not separated?

How about that?

Man, I can't raise a mystery and get words from you? ;>)

How about this, we talk about the distance between the mean of a
statistical data set, and its standard deviation. Or (more to the
point) between the means of two different data sets. Is distance only
a statistical measure, with the "actual, real" particles in fact
smeared across the "soution set" we call spacetime. This makes for
"distance", but no separation.

I cant really digest this one

You mean different datasets that are not separated?
This implies a single dataset with distinct separate means standard
deviations

An impossibility


Thanks for keeping it friendly...

What do you mean, thank you for the explanations, which I would like
to understand


Your words can be the last, unless you have questions.

David A. Smith

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Charged spinning disks
    ... name Brownian motion, and described it as due to the zpf fluctuations, ... test charge simultaneously. ... As the magnet rotates about it's ... magnetic axis in the direction of its electron currents, ...
    (sci.physics)
  • Re: BJT Can be Considered a CCCS in some situations
    ... are due to charge. ... Applying special relativity to electric fields result in magnetic ... our measurements of a battery and a magnet are ... motion with respect to the charges that cause the electric field and the ...
    (sci.electronics.design)
  • Re: Quantum Flux
    ... It is not the magnetic monopole that Dirac theorized. ... That was an attempt at making charge symmetrical with magnetism. ... those particles displaying unique flux patterns due to ... charge, mass, and magnet all together the presumption of the electron ...
    (sci.physics)
  • Re: Thoughts on why space must have three dimensions
    ... By fundamental particle do you mean beneath an electron? ... I'm looking at magnet as sourced from the 1D in this topology. ... charge secondarily produced by it via this operation. ... If a particles stability is inherent then we ...
    (sci.physics)
  • Re: Is charge conserved between frames?
    ... >> reciprocal electrodynamic action of a magnet and a conductor. ... >> these bodies is in motion. ... The conductor constrains the motion of the charge ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)