| Topic: |
Science > Physics |
| User: |
"Emwizsoon" |
| Date: |
29 Dec 2004 08:29:14 PM |
| Object: |
electrons & magnetic fields, a puzzle |
While contemplating about electromagnetic fields. It led
me to electrons and electric wire.
Electrical currents are moving electrons right? I have
2 questions that is giving me headaches visualizing and
all.
1. How long "magnetic field energy" emanate from
particles that do not lose any energy themselves. The
flowing electrons in a wire are not considered to
compensate by either slowing down or losing "charge",
even if the magnetic field expends energy to let's
say attract or repel magnetized object. It is a
violation of conservation of energy. If physicists
need to apply neutrino to compensate for conservation
of energy in beta decay where neutron = proton +
electron + nutrino (this being put to fulfill
conservation fo energy). Why not in the electrons
in the wire as described above?
2. How does magnetic field emerge from moving electrons?
I can't find any solid physical explanation.
I searched in my textbook for the answers to the above
and I can't find it.
Pls. assist guys. Many thanks.
Emwizsoon
.
|
|
| User: "Old Man" |
|
| Title: Re: electrons & magnetic fields, a puzzle |
29 Dec 2004 10:34:05 PM |
|
|
"Emwizsoon" <emwizsoon@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1104373754.217229.15740@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
While contemplating about electromagnetic fields. It led
me to electrons and electric wire.
Electrical currents are moving electrons right? I have
2 questions that is giving me headaches visualizing and
all.
1. How long "magnetic field energy" emanate from
particles that do not lose any energy themselves. The
flowing electrons in a wire are not considered to
compensate by either slowing down or losing "charge",
even if the magnetic field expends energy to let's
say attract or repel magnetized object. It is a violation
of conservation of energy.
No. Part of the energy required to accelerate the electron
and its electric field, E, to a given velocity goes into the
energy of the observed magnetic field, B. The relativistic
invarients are E^2 - B^2 and E(dot)B. The energy in the
observed fields is proportional to E^2 + B^2.
If physicists need to apply neutrino to compensate for
conservation of energy ...
plus conservation of momentum, conservation of angular
momentum (spin), conservation of baryon number, and
conservation of lepton number.
... in beta decay where
neutron = proton + electron + nutrino
No:. your "neutrino" is an "anti-neutrino". Lepton nomber
is conserved.
(this being put to fulfill conservation fo energy).
Why not in the electrons in the wire as described above?
This is nonsense. There is no problem. Energy is conserved.
Emwizsoon displays delusions of competence.
2. How does magnetic field emerge from moving electrons?
I can't find any solid physical explanation.
It's a relativistic transformation, even for v << c. Essentially,
the magnetic field appears because of the relative motion of the
electrons electric field WRT the observer.
I searched in my textbook for the answers to the above
and I can't find it.
Pls. assist guys. Many thanks.
Emwizsoon
[Old Man]
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: electrons & magnetic fields, a puzzle |
29 Dec 2004 11:07:25 PM |
|
|
Old Man wrote:
"Emwizsoon" <emwizsoon@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1104373754.217229.15740@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
While contemplating about electromagnetic fields. It led
me to electrons and electric wire.
Electrical currents are moving electrons right? I have
2 questions that is giving me headaches visualizing and
all.
1. How long "magnetic field energy" emanate from
particles that do not lose any energy themselves. The
flowing electrons in a wire are not considered to
compensate by either slowing down or losing "charge",
even if the magnetic field expends energy to let's
say attract or repel magnetized object. It is a violation
of conservation of energy.
No. Part of the energy required to accelerate the electron
and its electric field, E, to a given velocity goes into the
energy of the observed magnetic field, B. The relativistic
invarients are E^2 - B^2 and E(dot)B. The energy in the
observed fields is proportional to E^2 + B^2.
If physicists need to apply neutrino to compensate for
conservation of energy ...
plus conservation of momentum, conservation of angular
momentum (spin), conservation of baryon number, and
conservation of lepton number.
... in beta decay where
neutron = proton + electron + nutrino
No:. your "neutrino" is an "anti-neutrino". Lepton nomber
is conserved.
(this being put to fulfill conservation fo energy).
Why not in the electrons in the wire as described above?
This is nonsense. There is no problem. Energy is conserved.
Emwizsoon displays delusions of competence.
2. How does magnetic field emerge from moving electrons?
I can't find any solid physical explanation.
It's a relativistic transformation, even for v << c. Essentially,
the magnetic field appears because of the relative motion of the
electrons electric field WRT the observer.
I searched in my textbook for the answers to the above
and I can't find it.
Pls. assist guys. Many thanks.
Emwizsoon
[Old Man]
Old man is obsessed with other peoples competence.
It is of course always their delusion.
You talk like he knows the limited jargon of physisist's.
But of course you have no other language of understanding.
Do you think your smart?
Mitch Raemsch
.
|
|
|
| User: "Emwizsoon" |
|
| Title: Re: electrons & magnetic fields, a puzzle |
29 Dec 2004 11:43:29 PM |
|
|
wrote:
Old man is obsessed with other peoples competence.
It is of course always their delusion.
You talk like he knows the limited jargon of physisist's.
But of course you have no other language of understanding.
Do you think your smart?
Mitch Raemsch
Those questions are from assignments in class. I'm
a student. Thanks for the explanations. I'm surprised
that relativistic effect occurs in the subatomic. I
thought they are not compatible. Do you know
why an electron produces a charge or a field?
What really is a field? Can relativity explains where
a field come from? My professor said he doesn't
know. Maybe he would ask those questions in the
next assignment that's why he didn't say.
Emwizsoon
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: electrons & magnetic fields, a puzzle |
29 Dec 2004 11:59:00 PM |
|
|
Emwizsoon wrote:
macromitch@internetCDS.com wrote:
Old man is obsessed with other peoples competence.
It is of course always their delusion.
You talk like he knows the limited jargon of physisist's.
But of course you have no other language of understanding.
Do you think your smart?
Mitch Raemsch
Those questions are from assignments in class. I'm
a student. Thanks for the explanations. I'm surprised
that relativistic effect occurs in the subatomic. I
thought they are not compatible. Do you know
why an electron produces a charge or a field?
What really is a field? Can relativity explains where
a field come from? My professor said he doesn't
know. Maybe he would ask those questions in the
next assignment that's why he didn't say.
Emwizsoon
I didn't respond to you. But
Good luck with your teachers.
I don't think your sense will survive!!!
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: electrons & magnetic fields, a puzzle |
30 Dec 2004 12:00:02 AM |
|
|
Emwizsoon wrote:
macromitch@internetCDS.com wrote:
Old man is obsessed with other peoples competence.
It is of course always their delusion.
You talk like he knows the limited jargon of physisist's.
But of course you have no other language of understanding.
Do you think your smart?
Mitch Raemsch
Those questions are from assignments in class. I'm
a student. Thanks for the explanations. I'm surprised
that relativistic effect occurs in the subatomic. I
thought they are not compatible. Do you know
why an electron produces a charge or a field?
What really is a field? Can relativity explains where
a field come from? My professor said he doesn't
know. Maybe he would ask those questions in the
next assignment that's why he didn't say.
Emwizsoon
I didn't respond to you. But
Good luck with your teachers.
I don't think your sense will survive!!!
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: electrons & magnetic fields, a puzzle |
30 Dec 2004 12:11:34 AM |
|
|
Old Man wrote:
"Emwizsoon" <emwizsoon@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1104373754.217229.15740@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
While contemplating about electromagnetic fields. It led
me to electrons and electric wire.
Electrical currents are moving electrons right? I have
2 questions that is giving me headaches visualizing and
all.
1. How long "magnetic field energy" emanate from
particles that do not lose any energy themselves. The
flowing electrons in a wire are not considered to
compensate by either slowing down or losing "charge",
even if the magnetic field expends energy to let's
say attract or repel magnetized object. It is a violation
of conservation of energy.
No. Part of the energy required to accelerate the electron
and its electric field, E, to a given velocity goes into the
energy of the observed magnetic field, B. The relativistic
invarients are E^2 - B^2 and E(dot)B. The energy in the
observed fields is proportional to E^2 + B^2.
If physicists need to apply neutrino to compensate for
conservation of energy ...
plus conservation of momentum, conservation of angular
momentum (spin), conservation of baryon number, and
conservation of lepton number.
... in beta decay where
neutron = proton + electron + nutrino
No:. your "neutrino" is an "anti-neutrino". Lepton nomber
is conserved.
(this being put to fulfill conservation fo energy).
Why not in the electrons in the wire as described above?
This is nonsense. There is no problem. Energy is conserved.
Emwizsoon displays delusions of competence.
2. How does magnetic field emerge from moving electrons?
I can't find any solid physical explanation.
It's a relativistic transformation, even for v << c. Essentially,
the magnetic field appears because of the relative motion of the
electrons electric field WRT the observer.
I searched in my textbook for the answers to the above
and I can't find it.
Pls. assist guys. Many thanks.
Emwizsoon
[Old Man]
Old man is obsessed with other peoples competence.
It is of course always their delusion.
You talk like he knows the limited jargon of physisist's.
But of course you have no other language of understanding.
Do you think your smart?
Mitch Raemsch
.
|
|
|
| User: "Emwizsoon" |
|
| Title: Re: electrons & magnetic fields, a puzzle |
30 Dec 2004 04:54:39 AM |
|
|
Old man and my professor sure know how to torture a mind. I spent
the night contemplating how can an electron create a field. Is it
in the spinning or vibration, but nothing comes out of the electron
as it is a point particle so what cause the field. I went to the
internet at midnight and searched for what is a "field" and came
across the a message by Seto:
"In his book "Dreams of A Final Theory" (page 25) Steven Weinberg
define a field as follows: "A field like an electric or magnetic
field is a sort of stress in space, something like the various
sorts of stress that are possible within a solid body, but a
field is a stress in space itself.".
This definition of a field implies that space is a physical medium
that can exhibit stress.within itself. This physical medium is the
ether. An experiment to detect the existence of the ether is
described in the following link (page 3):
http://www.journaloftheoretics.com/Links/Papers/Seto.pdf
Ken Seto"
My professor stated some weeks ago that the ether has been
disproven by experiments. How come someone is still coming up
with the ether. Could the reason Old man is not telling because
he doesn't know it himself?
If there is one who knows how an electron can produce a field.
Pls share the mechanism as soon as possible so I can answer it
when it appears in test exams. I still don't what is a field. If the
space is empty, how can field exist at all?
Thanks.
Emwizsoon
.
|
|
|
| User: "Old Man" |
|
| Title: Re: electrons & magnetic fields, a puzzle |
30 Dec 2004 02:50:09 PM |
|
|
"Emwizsoon" <emwizsoon@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1104404079.654939.264300@c13g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
Old man and my professor sure know how to torture a mind. I spent
the night contemplating how can an electron create a field. Is it
in the spinning or vibration, but nothing comes out of the electron
as it is a point particle so what cause the field.
An electromagnetic field (E, B) is defined by the force observed
on a test charge, q with velocity, v:
F = q [ E + v x B ]
It's not clear whether Emwizsoon is referring to the magnetic
field due to motion of a charge or that due to its magnetic
moment.
Quantum electrodynamics represents the electromagnetic
force by the exchange of virtual photons between charged
particles. It's an exceedingly precise theory, predicting the
magnitude for the observed magnetic moment of the muon
to within 8 significant decimal places.
I went to the
internet at midnight and searched for what is a "field" and came
across the a message by Seto:
Seto is a crackpot. He has no knowledge of physics
and is ignorant of empirical findings.
"In his book "Dreams of A Final Theory" (page 25) Steven Weinberg
define a field as follows: "A field like an electric or magnetic
field is a sort of stress in space, something like the various
sorts of stress that are possible within a solid body, but a
field is a stress in space itself.".
This is how the General Theory of Relativity represents
gravitation. Thereof, space itself is compressed by the
proximity of mass, such that an observer in gravitational
free-fall is unable to measure his coordinate acceleration
in a self referential manner. On the other hand, GTR
treats the electromagnetic force as an absolute force in
that it doesn't distort space, and is thus measurably self-
referential.
This definition of a field implies that space is a physical medium
that can exhibit stress.within itself. This physical medium is the
ether. An experiment to detect the existence of the ether is
described in the following link (page 3):
http://www.journaloftheoretics.com/Links/Papers/Seto.pdf
Ken Seto"
My professor stated some weeks ago that the ether has been
disproven by experiments. How come someone is still coming up
with the ether. Could the reason Old man is not telling because
he doesn't know it himself?
The Aether is both inelegant and physically unnecessary.
The propagation of transverse electromagnetic radiation
through an Aether requires that space be otherwise
undetectably inhomogeneous.
Requiring only two observable parameters, "c" and "G",
the properties of space are most elegantly and sufficiently
described by the space-time metric.
If there is one who knows how an electron can produce a field.
Pls share the mechanism as soon as possible so I can answer it
when it appears in test exams. I still don't what is a field. If the
space is empty, how can field exist at all?
Thanks.
Emwizsoon
.
|
|
|
| User: "Androcles" |
|
| Title: Re: electrons & magnetic fields, a puzzle |
30 Dec 2004 10:46:25 PM |
|
|
"Old Man" <nomail@nomail.net> wrote in message
news:yd-dnZtCMa-Y90ncRVn-tw@prairiewave.com...
"Emwizsoon" <emwizsoon@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1104404079.654939.264300@c13g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
Old man and my professor sure know how to torture a mind. I spent
the night contemplating how can an electron create a field. Is it
in the spinning or vibration, but nothing comes out of the electron
as it is a point particle so what cause the field.
An electromagnetic field (E, B) is defined by the force observed
on a test charge, q with velocity, v:
F = q [ E + v x B ]
It's not clear whether Emwizsoon is referring to the magnetic
field due to motion of a charge or that due to its magnetic
moment.
It's not clear whether Old Fart is referring to vB, v.B or
vx * B, x being distance. Nor has Old Man specified what is meant
by an "electromagnetic" field, since a changing B-field will produce
an E-field and a changing E-field will produce a B-field. Perhaps
Old Fart is talking out his arse.
Quantum electrodynamics represents the electromagnetic
force by the exchange of virtual photons between charged
particles.
Oh, "virtual" reality. Yeah, we can produce that with computers.
I was watching virtual history on TV. Very good likenesses
of Hitler and Churchill.
It's an exceedingly precise theory, predicting the
magnitude for the observed magnetic moment of the muon
to within 8 significant decimal places.
I went to the
internet at midnight and searched for what is a "field" and came
across the a message by Seto:
Seto is a crackpot. He has no knowledge of physics
and is ignorant of empirical findings.
WOW! Old Fart got hold of something I can agree with
100% . Well done, Old Fart! Absolutely right. Pity you
are a crackpot also, but hey, we can't have everything.
At least we have one thing in common, Seto is a moron.
"In his book "Dreams of A Final Theory" (page 25) Steven Weinberg
define a field as follows: "A field like an electric or magnetic
field is a sort of stress in space, something like the various
sorts of stress that are possible within a solid body, but a
field is a stress in space itself.".
This is how the General Theory of Relativity represents
gravitation.
Yeah, but it doesn't do too well with my arse pressing down
in this chair. The fucking chair keeps pushing back and
stopping me moving; I get no relief from circulation cut-off
either. Perhaps I'm being subjective. If I looked at it
objectively would that change it?
Thereof, space itself is compressed by the
proximity of mass,
Rolling
On
Floor
Laughing
My
Arse
back out of compression.
such that an observer in gravitational
free-fall
Came close once. That ride at MGM Studios called the
"Tower of Terror".
is unable to measure his coordinate acceleration
in a self referential manner.
Yeah, the bathroom scale I was sitting on read zero
on the down drop and 300 lbs going up. I swear I
do not weigh 300 lbs. 180 maybe.. a bit overweight.
On the other hand, GTR
treats the electromagnetic force as an absolute force in
that it doesn't distort space, and is thus measurably self-
referential.
Egads... the magnet on my fridge is sentient! I'll ask it
how it's feeling today. Hold on, I'll be right back....
It said " Just hanging on".... seemed kinda sad, really.
Oh well, nuff for me.
Old Fart, you learn what you are told, repeat it like a parrot,
but you don't think. You have delusions of competence.
Androcles.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Franz Heymann" |
|
| Title: Re: electrons & magnetic fields, a puzzle |
31 Dec 2004 02:33:13 AM |
|
|
"Androcles" <dummy@dummy.net> wrote in message
news:BQ4Bd.182$5R.160@fe3.news.blueyonder.co.uk...
"Old Man" <nomail@nomail.net> wrote in message
news:yd-dnZtCMa-Y90ncRVn-tw@prairiewave.com...
"Emwizsoon" <emwizsoon@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1104404079.654939.264300@c13g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
Old man and my professor sure know how to torture a mind. I spent
the night contemplating how can an electron create a field. Is it
in the spinning or vibration, but nothing comes out of the
electron
as it is a point particle so what cause the field.
An electromagnetic field (E, B) is defined by the force observed
on a test charge, q with velocity, v:
F = q [ E + v x B ]
It's not clear whether Emwizsoon is referring to the magnetic
field due to motion of a charge or that due to its magnetic
moment.
It's not clear whether Old Fart is referring to vB, v.B or
vx * B, x being distance.
Old Man did presume that the reader had a measure of intellect.
It is therefore not surprising that Androcles found the statement
unclear.
Nor has Old Man specified what is meant
by an "electromagnetic" field, since a changing B-field will produce
an E-field and a changing E-field will produce a B-field.
It was unnecessary in the context of Old Man's statement.
Perhaps
Old Fart is talking out his arse.
Quantum electrodynamics represents the electromagnetic
force by the exchange of virtual photons between charged
particles.
Oh, "virtual" reality. Yeah, we can produce that with computers.
I was watching virtual history on TV. Very good likenesses
of Hitler and Churchill.
Androcles has just succeeded in illustrating my opinion of his
intellect.
The attitude exemplified by
"If you gan't get to grips with it, pretend to make fun of it"
makes it easy to sort the chaff from the wheat.
[snip]
Yeah, but it doesn't do too well with my arse pressing down
in this chair. The fucking chair keeps pushing back and
stopping me moving; I get no relief from circulation cut-off
either. Perhaps I'm being subjective. If I looked at it
objectively would that change it?
Prat
All you are succeeding in doing is to prove that it is not only SR
which your mind fails to encompass.
[snip]
Franz
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Old Man" |
|
| Title: Re: electrons & magnetic fields, a puzzle |
31 Dec 2004 06:20:57 PM |
|
|
"Androcles" <dummy@dummy.net> wrote in message
news:BQ4Bd.182$5R.160@fe3.news.blueyonder.co.uk...
"Old Man" <nomail@nomail.net> wrote in message
news:yd-dnZtCMa-Y90ncRVn-tw@prairiewave.com...
"Emwizsoon" <emwizsoon@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1104404079.654939.264300@c13g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
Old man and my professor sure know how to torture a mind. I spent
the night contemplating how can an electron create a field. Is it
in the spinning or vibration, but nothing comes out of the electron
as it is a point particle so what cause the field.
An electromagnetic field (E, B) is defined by the force observed
on a test charge, q with velocity, v:
F = q [ E + v x B ]
It's not clear whether Emwizsoon is referring to the magnetic
field due to motion of a charge or that due to its magnetic
moment.
It's not clear whether Old Fart is referring to vB, v.B or
vx * B, x being distance. Nor has Old Man specified what is meant
by an "electromagnetic" field, since a changing B-field will produce
an E-field and a changing E-field will produce a B-field. Perhaps
Old Fart is talking out his arse.
If Androcles knew anything about EM, he would know that
"E" and "B" refer to the fields in place, whatever their source.
The remainder of Androcles's ignorance based "comments"
aren't worthy of comment.
[Old Man]
Quantum electrodynamics represents the electromagnetic
force by the exchange of virtual photons between charged
particles.
Oh, "virtual" reality. Yeah, we can produce that with computers.
I was watching virtual history on TV. Very good likenesses
of Hitler and Churchill.
It's an exceedingly precise theory, predicting the
magnitude for the observed magnetic moment of the muon
to within 8 significant decimal places.
I went to the
internet at midnight and searched for what is a "field" and came
across the a message by Seto:
Seto is a crackpot. He has no knowledge of physics
and is ignorant of empirical findings.
WOW! Old Fart got hold of something I can agree with
100% . Well done, Old Fart! Absolutely right. Pity you
are a crackpot also, but hey, we can't have everything.
At least we have one thing in common, Seto is a moron.
"In his book "Dreams of A Final Theory" (page 25) Steven Weinberg
define a field as follows: "A field like an electric or magnetic
field is a sort of stress in space, something like the various
sorts of stress that are possible within a solid body, but a
field is a stress in space itself.".
This is how the General Theory of Relativity represents
gravitation.
Yeah, but it doesn't do too well with my arse pressing down
in this chair. The fucking chair keeps pushing back and
stopping me moving; I get no relief from circulation cut-off
either. Perhaps I'm being subjective. If I looked at it
objectively would that change it?
Thereof, space itself is compressed by the
proximity of mass,
Rolling
On
Floor
Laughing
My
Arse
back out of compression.
such that an observer in gravitational
free-fall
Came close once. That ride at MGM Studios called the
"Tower of Terror".
is unable to measure his coordinate acceleration
in a self referential manner.
Yeah, the bathroom scale I was sitting on read zero
on the down drop and 300 lbs going up. I swear I
do not weigh 300 lbs. 180 maybe.. a bit overweight.
On the other hand, GTR
treats the electromagnetic force as an absolute force in
that it doesn't distort space, and is thus measurably self-
referential.
Egads... the magnet on my fridge is sentient! I'll ask it
how it's feeling today. Hold on, I'll be right back....
It said " Just hanging on".... seemed kinda sad, really.
Oh well, nuff for me.
Old Fart, you learn what you are told, repeat it like a parrot,
but you don't think. You have delusions of competence.
Androcles.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Androcles" |
|
| Title: Re: electrons & magnetic fields, a puzzle |
31 Dec 2004 06:40:45 PM |
|
|
"Old Man" <nomail@nomail.net> wrote in message
news:ms2dnd8m5M1wcUjcRVn-qg@prairiewave.com...
"Androcles" <dummy@dummy.net> wrote in message
news:BQ4Bd.182$5R.160@fe3.news.blueyonder.co.uk...
"Old Man" <nomail@nomail.net> wrote in message
news:yd-dnZtCMa-Y90ncRVn-tw@prairiewave.com...
"Emwizsoon" <emwizsoon@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1104404079.654939.264300@c13g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
Old man and my professor sure know how to torture a mind. I spent
the night contemplating how can an electron create a field. Is it
in the spinning or vibration, but nothing comes out of the electron
as it is a point particle so what cause the field.
An electromagnetic field (E, B) is defined by the force observed
on a test charge, q with velocity, v:
F = q [ E + v x B ]
It's not clear whether Emwizsoon is referring to the magnetic
field due to motion of a charge or that due to its magnetic
moment.
It's not clear whether Old Fart is referring to vB, v.B or
vx * B, x being distance. Nor has Old Man specified what is meant
by an "electromagnetic" field, since a changing B-field will produce
an E-field and a changing E-field will produce a B-field. Perhaps
Old Fart is talking out his arse.
If Androcles knew anything about EM, he would know that
"E" and "B" refer to the fields in place, whatever their source.
The remainder of Androcles's ignorance based "comments"
aren't worthy of comment.
[Old Man]
If Old Fart had ever wound an electric motor or generator as
I did 40 years ago for a living, Old Fart would have learned
EM from direct experience instead of from second-hand books.
Those that can, do. Those that can't, teach. Experience is still
the best teacher.
Quantum electrodynamics represents the electromagnetic
force by the exchange of virtual photons between charged
particles.
Oh, "virtual" reality. Yeah, we can produce that with computers.
I was watching virtual history on TV. Very good likenesses
of Hitler and Churchill.
It's an exceedingly precise theory, predicting the
magnitude for the observed magnetic moment of the muon
to within 8 significant decimal places.
I went to the
internet at midnight and searched for what is a "field" and came
across the a message by Seto:
Seto is a crackpot. He has no knowledge of physics
and is ignorant of empirical findings.
WOW! Old Fart got hold of something I can agree with
100% . Well done, Old Fart! Absolutely right. Pity you
are a crackpot also, but hey, we can't have everything.
At least we have one thing in common, Seto is a moron.
"In his book "Dreams of A Final Theory" (page 25) Steven Weinberg
define a field as follows: "A field like an electric or magnetic
field is a sort of stress in space, something like the various
sorts of stress that are possible within a solid body, but a
field is a stress in space itself.".
This is how the General Theory of Relativity represents
gravitation.
Yeah, but it doesn't do too well with my arse pressing down
in this chair. The fucking chair keeps pushing back and
stopping me moving; I get no relief from circulation cut-off
either. Perhaps I'm being subjective. If I looked at it
objectively would that change it?
Thereof, space itself is compressed by the
proximity of mass,
Rolling
On
Floor
Laughing
My
Arse
back out of compression.
such that an observer in gravitational
free-fall
Came close once. That ride at MGM Studios called the
"Tower of Terror".
is unable to measure his coordinate acceleration
in a self referential manner.
Yeah, the bathroom scale I was sitting on read zero
on the down drop and 300 lbs going up. I swear I
do not weigh 300 lbs. 180 maybe.. a bit overweight.
On the other hand, GTR
treats the electromagnetic force as an absolute force in
that it doesn't distort space, and is thus measurably self-
referential.
Egads... the magnet on my fridge is sentient! I'll ask it
how it's feeling today. Hold on, I'll be right back....
It said " Just hanging on".... seemed kinda sad, really.
Oh well, nuff for me.
Old Fart, you learn what you are told, repeat it like a parrot,
but you don't think. You have delusions of competence.
Androcles.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Franz Heymann" |
|
| Title: Re: electrons & magnetic fields, a puzzle |
01 Jan 2005 11:30:22 AM |
|
|
"Androcles" <dummy@dummy.net> wrote in message
news:hkmBd.6387$48.1187@fe1.news.blueyonder.co.uk...
[snip]
If Old Fart had ever wound an electric motor or generator as
I did 40 years ago for a living, Old Fart would have learned
EM from direct experience instead of from second-hand books.
Those that can, do. Those that can't, teach. Experience is still
the best teacher.
That, folks, comes from the mouth of a living embodiment of the
falsity of that statement.
Franz
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Old Man" |
|
| Title: Re: electrons & magnetic fields, a puzzle |
31 Dec 2004 08:56:25 PM |
|
|
"Androcles" <dummy@dummy.net> wrote in message
news:hkmBd.6387$48.1187@fe1.news.blueyonder.co.uk...
"Old Man" <nomail@nomail.net> wrote in message
news:ms2dnd8m5M1wcUjcRVn-qg@prairiewave.com...
"Androcles" <dummy@dummy.net> wrote in message
news:BQ4Bd.182$5R.160@fe3.news.blueyonder.co.uk...
"Old Man" <nomail@nomail.net> wrote in message
news:yd-dnZtCMa-Y90ncRVn-tw@prairiewave.com...
"Emwizsoon" <emwizsoon@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1104404079.654939.264300@c13g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
Old man and my professor sure know how to torture a mind. I spent
the night contemplating how can an electron create a field. Is it
in the spinning or vibration, but nothing comes out of the electron
as it is a point particle so what cause the field.
An electromagnetic field (E, B) is defined by the force observed
on a test charge, q with velocity, v:
F = q [ E + v x B ]
It's not clear whether Emwizsoon is referring to the magnetic
field due to motion of a charge or that due to its magnetic
moment.
It's not clear whether Old Fart is referring to vB, v.B or
vx * B, x being distance. Nor has Old Man specified what is meant
by an "electromagnetic" field, since a changing B-field will produce
an E-field and a changing E-field will produce a B-field. Perhaps
Old Fart is talking out his arse.
If Androcles knew anything about EM, he would know that
"E" and "B" refer to the fields in place, whatever their source.
The remainder of Androcles's ignorance based "comments"
aren't worthy of comment.
[Old Man]
If Old Fart had ever wound an electric motor or generator as
I did 40 years ago for a living, Old Fart would have learned
EM from direct experience instead of from second-hand books.
Those that can, do. Those that can't, teach. Experience is still
the best teacher.
That's not much of a brag. Old Man can do better:
Old Man is a has been experimental nuclear physicist.
The job was to get a charged nucleus from point A to B,
steering it and accelerating it via electromagnetic fields.
No faking it, the nuceus really had to arrive at point B
with the expected momentum vector. It did. QED
[Old Man]
.
|
|
|
| User: "Androcles" |
|
| Title: Re: electrons & magnetic fields, a puzzle |
01 Jan 2005 04:13:18 AM |
|
|
"Old Man" <nomail@nomail.net> wrote in message
news:BO6dncg5-s3DjEvcRVn-hQ@prairiewave.com...
"Androcles" <dummy@dummy.net> wrote in message
news:hkmBd.6387$48.1187@fe1.news.blueyonder.co.uk...
"Old Man" <nomail@nomail.net> wrote in message
news:ms2dnd8m5M1wcUjcRVn-qg@prairiewave.com...
"Androcles" <dummy@dummy.net> wrote in message
news:BQ4Bd.182$5R.160@fe3.news.blueyonder.co.uk...
"Old Man" <nomail@nomail.net> wrote in message
news:yd-dnZtCMa-Y90ncRVn-tw@prairiewave.com...
"Emwizsoon" <emwizsoon@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1104404079.654939.264300@c13g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
Old man and my professor sure know how to torture a mind. I spent
the night contemplating how can an electron create a field. Is it
in the spinning or vibration, but nothing comes out of the
electron
as it is a point particle so what cause the field.
An electromagnetic field (E, B) is defined by the force observed
on a test charge, q with velocity, v:
F = q [ E + v x B ]
It's not clear whether Emwizsoon is referring to the magnetic
field due to motion of a charge or that due to its magnetic
moment.
It's not clear whether Old Fart is referring to vB, v.B or
vx * B, x being distance. Nor has Old Man specified what is meant
by an "electromagnetic" field, since a changing B-field will
produce
an E-field and a changing E-field will produce a B-field. Perhaps
Old Fart is talking out his arse.
If Androcles knew anything about EM, he would know that
"E" and "B" refer to the fields in place, whatever their source.
The remainder of Androcles's ignorance based "comments"
aren't worthy of comment.
[Old Man]
If Old Fart had ever wound an electric motor or generator as
I did 40 years ago for a living, Old Fart would have learned
EM from direct experience instead of from second-hand books.
Those that can, do. Those that can't, teach. Experience is still
the best teacher.
That's not much of a brag. Old Man can do better:
Old Man is a has been experimental nuclear physicist.
Old Man hasn't produced much in the last 100 years then.
The job was to get a charged nucleus from point A to B,
steering it and accelerating it via electromagnetic fields.
No faking it, the nuceus really had to arrive at point B
with the expected momentum vector. It did. QED
[Old Man]
Ah, so I was right.
Androcles.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Timo Nieminen" |
|
| Title: Re: electrons & magnetic fields, a puzzle |
31 Dec 2004 04:40:37 AM |
|
|
On Fri, 31 Dec 2004, Androcles wrote:
"Old Man" <nomail@nomail.net> wrote:
"Emwizsoon" <emwizsoon@yahoo.com> wrote:
Old man and my professor sure know how to torture a mind. I spent
the night contemplating how can an electron create a field. Is it
in the spinning or vibration, but nothing comes out of the electron
as it is a point particle so what cause the field.
An electromagnetic field (E, B) is defined by the force observed
on a test charge, q with velocity, v:
F = q [ E + v x B ]
It's not clear whether Emwizsoon is referring to the magnetic
field due to motion of a charge or that due to its magnetic
moment.
It's not clear whether Old Fart is referring to vB, v.B or
vx * B, x being distance.
Given that Old Man simply quotes the Lorentz force law, it is perfectly
clear what Old Man is referring to.
Incidentally, by vB, do you mean the dyadic product or the scalar product
of the norms of v and B?
Nor has Old Man specified what is meant
by an "electromagnetic" field, since a changing B-field will produce
an E-field and a changing E-field will produce a B-field. Perhaps
Old Fart is talking out his arse.
Old Man clearly stated (E, B), meaning both. Write it as 2 3-vector
real fields, one 3-vector complex field, one 6-vector field, or a rank 2
antisymmetric 4D tensor, your choice, all being valid representations of
the same thing, namely the electromagnetic field.
Quantum electrodynamics represents the electromagnetic
force by the exchange of virtual photons between charged
particles.
Oh, "virtual" reality. Yeah, we can produce that with computers.
I was watching virtual history on TV. Very good likenesses
of Hitler and Churchill.
Virtual photons having nothing to do with virtual reality, are you simply
trolling or do you really not know the difference?
--
Timo
.
|
|
|
| User: "Androcles" |
|
| Title: Re: electrons & magnetic fields, a puzzle |
31 Dec 2004 05:08:22 AM |
|
|
"Timo Nieminen" <uqtniemi@mailbox.uq.edu.au> wrote in message
news:Pine.OSF.4.58.0412312035300.11633@dingo.cc.uq.edu.au...
On Fri, 31 Dec 2004, Androcles wrote:
"Old Man" <nomail@nomail.net> wrote:
"Emwizsoon" <emwizsoon@yahoo.com> wrote:
Old man and my professor sure know how to torture a mind. I spent
the night contemplating how can an electron create a field. Is it
in the spinning or vibration, but nothing comes out of the
electron
as it is a point particle so what cause the field.
An electromagnetic field (E, B) is defined by the force observed
on a test charge, q with velocity, v:
F = q [ E + v x B ]
It's not clear whether Emwizsoon is referring to the magnetic
field due to motion of a charge or that due to its magnetic
moment.
It's not clear whether Old Fart is referring to vB, v.B or
vx * B, x being distance.
Given that Old Man simply quotes the Lorentz force law, it is
perfectly
clear what Old Man is referring to.
Incidentally, by vB, do you mean the dyadic product or the scalar
product
of the norms of v and B?
Who would ever know?
Emwizsoon has declared himself to be a student, is currently asking why
the speed of light is 186,000 mps and not 250,000 mps, and anyone with
half a brain would realize the Lorentz force law isn't in the curriculum
yet. OldFart
is merely showing off, it has nothing whatever to do with the question
asked
which is "how can an electron create a field?"
You don't know the answer, Old Fart doesn't know the answer, Lorentz
didn't know the answer and neither does anyone else. The field already
exists for the Lorentz force law to apply.
Nor has Old Man specified what is meant
by an "electromagnetic" field, since a changing B-field will produce
an E-field and a changing E-field will produce a B-field. Perhaps
Old Fart is talking out his arse.
Old Man clearly stated (E, B), meaning both. Write it as 2 3-vector
real fields, one 3-vector complex field, one 6-vector field, or a rank
2
antisymmetric 4D tensor, your choice, all being valid representations
of
the same thing, namely the electromagnetic field.
Nor has Old Man specified what is meant
by an "electromagnetic" field, since a changing B-field will produce
an E-field and a changing E-field will produce a B-field. Perhaps
Old Fart is talking out his arse.
You seem to have a reading comprehension difficulty.
Quantum electrodynamics represents the electromagnetic
force by the exchange of virtual photons between charged
particles.
Oh, "virtual" reality. Yeah, we can produce that with computers.
I was watching virtual history on TV. Very good likenesses
of Hitler and Churchill.
Virtual photons having nothing to do with virtual reality, are you
simply
trolling or do you really not know the difference?
Virtual photons have nothing to do with real reality either.
Androcles
--
Timo
.
|
|
|
| User: "Timo Nieminen" |
|
| Title: Re: electrons & magnetic fields, a puzzle |
31 Dec 2004 03:13:23 PM |
|
|
On Fri, 31 Dec 2004, Androcles wrote:
"Timo Nieminen" <uqtniemi@mailbox.uq.edu.au> wrote:
On Fri, 31 Dec 2004, Androcles wrote:
"Old Man" <nomail@nomail.net> wrote:
"Emwizsoon" <emwizsoon@yahoo.com> wrote:
Old man and my professor sure know how to torture a mind. I spent
the night contemplating how can an electron create a field. Is it
in the spinning or vibration, but nothing comes out of the
electron
as it is a point particle so what cause the field.
An electromagnetic field (E, B) is defined by the force observed
on a test charge, q with velocity, v:
F = q [ E + v x B ]
It's not clear whether Emwizsoon is referring to the magnetic
field due to motion of a charge or that due to its magnetic
moment.
It's not clear whether Old Fart is referring to vB, v.B or
vx * B, x being distance.
Given that Old Man simply quotes the Lorentz force law, it is
perfectly
clear what Old Man is referring to.
Incidentally, by vB, do you mean the dyadic product or the scalar
product
of the norms of v and B?
Who would ever know?
Who would ever know what you meant by vB? Hopefully, you would know, since
you wrote it.
Who would ever know what Old Man meant? Old Man offered the
Lorentz force law as an operational definition of the electromagnetic
field. Is that really so hard to understand?
Emwizsoon has declared himself to be a student, is currently asking why
the speed of light is 186,000 mps and not 250,000 mps, and anyone with
half a brain would realize the Lorentz force law isn't in the curriculum
yet. OldFart
is merely showing off, it has nothing whatever to do with the question
asked
which is "how can an electron create a field?"
You contradict yourself. Asking why the speed of light is 186,000 mps is
not the same as asking how can an electron create a field. Old Man doesn't
answer that question, but asks for clarification from the OP.
You criticised Old Man's reply on the grounds of ambiguity. Such criticism
is, at best, unfounded horse dung. Your criticism of his post contained
far more ambiguity than his.
Nor has Old Man specified what is meant
by an "electromagnetic" field, since a changing B-field will produce
an E-field and a changing E-field will produce a B-field. Perhaps
Old Fart is talking out his arse.
Old Man clearly stated (E, B), meaning both. Write it as 2 3-vector
real fields, one 3-vector complex field, one 6-vector field, or a rank
2
antisymmetric 4D tensor, your choice, all being valid representations
of
the same thing, namely the electromagnetic field.
Nor has Old Man specified what is meant
by an "electromagnetic" field, since a changing B-field will produce
an E-field and a changing E-field will produce a B-field. Perhaps
Old Fart is talking out his arse.
Old Man clearly stated (E, B), meaning both. Write it as 2 3-vector
real fields, one 3-vector complex field, one 6-vector field, or a rank 2
antisymmetric 4D tensor, your choice, all being valid representations of
the same thing, namely the electromagnetic field.
You seem to have a reading comprehension difficulty.
You don't understand what Old Man writes, I understand what Old Man
writes, and yet you claim that I have a reading comprehension difficulty?
Also note that I understand what you wrote. Disagreement does not mean
lack of understanding.
--
Timo
.
|
|
|
| User: "Androcles" |
|
| Title: Re: electrons & magnetic fields, a puzzle |
31 Dec 2004 04:29:18 PM |
|
|
"Timo Nieminen" <uqtniemi@mailbox.uq.edu.au> wrote in message
news:Pine.OSF.4.58.0501010700100.2683@dingo.cc.uq.edu.au...
On Fri, 31 Dec 2004, Androcles wrote:
"Timo Nieminen" <uqtniemi@mailbox.uq.edu.au> wrote:
On Fri, 31 Dec 2004, Androcles wrote:
"Old Man" <nomail@nomail.net> wrote:
"Emwizsoon" <emwizsoon@yahoo.com> wrote:
Old man and my professor sure know how to torture a mind. I
spent
the night contemplating how can an electron create a field. Is
it
in the spinning or vibration, but nothing comes out of the
electron
as it is a point particle so what cause the field.
An electromagnetic field (E, B) is defined by the force observed
on a test charge, q with velocity, v:
F = q [ E + v x B ]
It's not clear whether Emwizsoon is referring to the magnetic
field due to motion of a charge or that due to its magnetic
moment.
It's not clear whether Old Fart is referring to vB, v.B or
vx * B, x being distance.
Given that Old Man simply quotes the Lorentz force law, it is
perfectly
clear what Old Man is referring to.
Incidentally, by vB, do you mean the dyadic product or the scalar
product
of the norms of v and B?
Who would ever know?
Who would ever know what you meant by vB? Hopefully, you would know,
since
you wrote it.
Who would ever know what Old Man meant? Old Man offered the
Lorentz force law as an operational definition of the electromagnetic
field. Is that really so hard to understand?
Emwizsoon has declared himself to be a student, is currently asking
why
the speed of light is 186,000 mps and not 250,000 mps, and anyone
with
half a brain would realize the Lorentz force law isn't in the
curriculum
yet. OldFart
is merely showing off, it has nothing whatever to do with the
question
asked
which is "how can an electron create a field?"
You contradict yourself. Asking why the speed of light is 186,000 mps
is
not the same as asking how can an electron create a field. Old Man
doesn't
answer that question, but asks for clarification from the OP.
You criticised Old Man's reply on the grounds of ambiguity. Such
criticism
is, at best, unfounded horse dung. Your criticism of his post
contained
far more ambiguity than his.
Nor has Old Man specified what is meant
by an "electromagnetic" field, since a changing B-field will
produce
an E-field and a changing E-field will produce a B-field. Perhaps
Old Fart is talking out his arse.
Old Man clearly stated (E, B), meaning both. Write it as 2 3-vector
real fields, one 3-vector complex field, one 6-vector field, or a
rank
2
antisymmetric 4D tensor, your choice, all being valid
representations
of
the same thing, namely the electromagnetic field.
Nor has Old Man specified what is meant
by an "electromagnetic" field, since a changing B-field will produce
an E-field and a changing E-field will produce a B-field. Perhaps
Old Fart is talking out his arse.
Old Man clearly stated (E, B), meaning both. Write it as 2 3-vector
real fields, one 3-vector complex field, one 6-vector field, or a rank
2
antisymmetric 4D tensor, your choice, all being valid representations
of
the same thing, namely the electromagnetic field.
You seem to have a reading comprehension difficulty.
You don't understand what Old Man writes, I understand what Old Man
writes, and yet you claim that I have a reading comprehension
difficulty?
Also note that I understand what you wrote. Disagreement does not mean
lack of understanding.
I understood what he wrote. Disagreement does not mean
lack of understanding. Nor does irrelevance.
Androcles
--
Timo
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Androcles" |
|
| Title: Re: electrons & magnetic fields, a puzzle |
30 Dec 2004 06:11:51 AM |
|
|
"Emwizsoon" <emwizsoon@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1104404079.654939.264300@c13g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
Old man and my professor sure know how to torture a mind. I spent
the night contemplating how can an electron create a field. Is it
in the spinning or vibration, but nothing comes out of the electron
as it is a point particle so what cause the field. I went to the
internet at midnight and searched for what is a "field" and came
across the a message by Seto:
"In his book "Dreams of A Final Theory" (page 25) Steven Weinberg
define a field as follows: "A field like an electric or magnetic
field is a sort of stress in space, something like the various
sorts of stress that are possible within a solid body, but a
field is a stress in space itself.".
This definition of a field implies that space is a physical medium
that can exhibit stress.within itself. This physical medium is the
ether. An experiment to detect the existence of the ether is
described in the following link (page 3):
http://www.journaloftheoretics.com/Links/Papers/Seto.pdf
Ken Seto"
My professor stated some weeks ago that the ether has been
disproven by experiments. How come someone is still coming up
with the ether. Could the reason Old man is not telling because
he doesn't know it himself?
If there is one who knows how an electron can produce a field.
Pls share the mechanism as soon as possible so I can answer it
when it appears in test exams. I still don't what is a field. If the
space is empty, how can field exist at all?
Thanks.
Emwizsoon
Seto is a well-known aetherialist who ignores any evidence that
disagrees with his ideas. The aether concept was indeed put to
rest over 100 years ago. You'll have to get used to people that
retain strange ideas that are easily refuted, and Seto is one of them.
There are two fields that are readily accessible to you, the magnetic
and the gravitational. They are detected quite easily by the forces
they produce. The electric field can likewise be detected by the force
it produces, but powerful electric fields are also a danger to human
life and must be treated with caution.
Now...
All we know (or think we know) about ANY of these fields is that
they are associated with producing a force at a distance between
two pieces of matter. It can be a repulsive force in the case of
the electric and magnetic fields (like poles repel) or it can be an
attractive force (unlike poles attract) and of course by observation
gravity is an attractive force.
Nobody can tell you what mechanism causes them, although
a considerable amount of knowledge is available as to how they
behave.
Androcles.
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: electrons & magnetic fields, a puzzle |
30 Dec 2004 07:18:21 AM |
|
|
In my poor pop physics understanding, I recollect that there is some
discussion of experimental evidence for a quantum ether (eg Paul
Davies' writing in New Scientist). Tho I *understand* this ether would
have a very weak interaction with a normal magnetic field, mebbe there
is indeed some relation with stressed space?
Hlafordlaes
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "PD" |
|
| Title: Re: electrons & magnetic fields, a puzzle |
30 Dec 2004 10:54:42 AM |
|
|
Forgive the stand-alone reply, without clipped context.
First of all, be wary of etherist interpretations. The improper leap
they make is easy to miss, partly because the idea seems so intuitive.
Weinberg correctly states that this is *sort of* like a stress in
*space itself.* Seto then declares where there is stress, there must be
a physical medium. Seto also then leaps to an ether, which is something
that conventionally sits IN space, not being space itself. This is an
unwarranted leap.
Secondly, you need to abandon the idea that a field is something that
*flows* from a source. While there are aspects of fields that do
exhibit flow-like behavior (retarded potentials, for example), you can
get into trouble quickly carrying the notion too far. For example, it's
improper to think that the field at a distance of 2m from a charged
object at some point had to flow through a point 1m away from the
charge. It's a tricky notion that has to be described by its effects,
not by some underlying process.
When you learn some quantum, you'll be able to augment the notion of a
field with that of virtual particle exchange. In that case, you *can*
talk about propagation, but it comes with a cost. In this case, you
have to abandon the idea that all propagation occurs in a strictly
time-ordered sequence. In fact, to get the correct answer, you have to
sum all possible propagations, including those that may dip backwards
in time!
PD
.
|
|
|
| User: "Magneto" |
|
| Title: Re: electrons & magnetic fields, a puzzle |
09 Jan 2005 11:16:19 PM |
|
|
PD wrote:
Forgive the stand-alone reply, without clipped context.
First of all, be wary of etherist interpretations. The improper leap
they make is easy to miss, partly because the idea seems so intuitive.
Weinberg correctly states that this is *sort of* like a stress in
*space itself.* Seto then declares where there is stress, there must be
a physical medium. Seto also then leaps to an ether, which is something
that conventionally sits IN space, not being space itself. This is an
unwarranted leap.
Secondly, you need to abandon the idea that a field is something that
*flows* from a source. While there are aspects of fields that do
exhibit flow-like behavior (retarded potentials, for example), you can
get into trouble quickly carrying the notion too far. For example, it's
improper to think that the field at a distance of 2m from a charged
object at some point had to flow through a point 1m away from the
charge. It's a tricky notion that has to be described by its effects,
not by some underlying process.
When you learn some quantum, you'll be able to augment the notion of a
field with that of virtual particle exchange. In that case, you *can*
talk about propagation, but it comes with a cost. In this case, you
have to abandon the idea that all propagation occurs in a strictly
time-ordered sequence. In fact, to get the correct answer, you have to
sum all possible propagations, including those that may dip backwards
in time!
PD
I like that explanation!!
I've been trying to think of a good way to model a field...know of any
good analogies??
Magneto
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "ca314159" |
|
| Title: Re: electrons & magnetic fields, a puzzle |
30 Dec 2004 07:51:17 AM |
|
|
Emwizsoon wrote:
While contemplating about electromagnetic fields. It led
me to electrons and electric wire.
Electrical currents are moving electrons right? I have
2 questions that is giving me headaches visualizing and
all.
1. How long "magnetic field energy" emanate from
particles that do not lose any energy themselves. The
flowing electrons in a wire are not considered to
compensate by either slowing down or losing "charge",
even if the magnetic field expends energy to let's
say attract or repel magnetized object. It is a
violation of conservation of energy. If physicists
need to apply neutrino to compensate for conservation
of energy in beta decay where neutron = proton +
electron + nutrino (this being put to fulfill
conservation fo energy). Why not in the electrons
in the wire as described above?
2. How does magnetic field emerge from moving electrons?
I can't find any solid physical explanation.
I've tried to simulate non-moving electrostatic charges:
http://users.bestweb.net/~ca314159/graph.htm
The dark blue equipotential lines look alot like
magnetic field lines.
The last picture (which shows only the equipotential lines)
is actually supposed to represent a capacitor but to me it
looks like the magnetic field around a slice through an
helical inductor.
I searched in my textbook for the answers to the above
and I can't find it.
Pls. assist guys. Many thanks.
Emwizsoon
.
|
|
|
| User: "Franz Heymann" |
|
| Title: Re: electrons & magnetic fields, a puzzle |
30 Dec 2004 12:01:29 PM |
|
|
"ca314159" <ca314159@bestweb.net> wrote in message
news:41D407D4.BF126C30@bestweb.net...
Emwizsoon wrote:
While contemplating about electromagnetic fields. It led
me to electrons and electric wire.
Electrical currents are moving electrons right? I have
2 questions that is giving me headaches visualizing and
all.
1. How long "magnetic field energy" emanate from
particles that do not lose any energy themselves. The
flowing electrons in a wire are not considered to
compensate by either slowing down or losing "charge",
even if the magnetic field expends energy to let's
say attract or repel magnetized object. It is a
violation of conservation of energy. If physicists
need to apply neutrino to compensate for conservation
of energy in beta decay where neutron = proton +
electron + nutrino (this being put to fulfill
conservation fo energy). Why not in the electrons
in the wire as described above?
2. How does magnetic field emerge from moving electrons?
I can't find any solid physical explanation.
I've tried to simulate non-moving electrostatic charges:
http://users.bestweb.net/~ca314159/graph.htm
The dark blue equipotential lines look alot like
magnetic field lines.
The last picture (which shows only the equipotential lines)
is actually supposed to represent a capacitor but to me it
looks like the magnetic field around a slice through an
helical inductor.
I searched in my textbook for the answers to the above
and I can't find it.
If you see only a piece of the field, with the boundary conditions not
in the picture, then equipotentials, electric field lines and magnetic
field lines are all interchangeable with one another.
Franz
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Uncle Al" |
|
| Title: Re: electrons & magnetic fields, a puzzle |
30 Dec 2004 10:19:01 AM |
|
|
Emwizsoon wrote:
While contemplating about electromagnetic fields. It led
me to electrons and electric wire.
Maxwell's equations - there are only four of them, and they are short.
Electrical currents are moving electrons right?
Not necessarily, no. Not at all. All the good stuff is in the field.
I have
2 questions that is giving me headaches visualizing and
all.
1. How long "magnetic field energy" emanate from
particles that do not lose any energy themselves.
Physics book. A magnetic field has the same equation of state as an
ideal gas. How does a gas stay pressurized without losing energy?
[snip]
2. How does magnetic field emerge from moving electrons?
I can't find any solid physical explanation.
Quantum mechanics, Standard Model. Maxwell's equations - There are
only four of them, and they are short.
--
Uncle Al
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
(Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/qz.pdf
.
|
|
|
| User: "John Sefton" |
|
| Title: Re: electrons & magnetic fields, a puzzle |
30 Dec 2004 10:42:09 AM |
|
|
Uncle Al wrote:
Emwizsoon wrote:
While contemplating about electromagnetic fields. It led
me to electrons and electric wire.
Maxwell's equations - there are only four of them, and they are short.
Electrical currents are moving electrons right?
Not necessarily, no. Not at all. All the good stuff is in the field.
I have
2 questions that is giving me headaches visualizing and
all.
1. How long "magnetic field energy" emanate from
particles that do not lose any energy themselves.
Physics book. A magnetic field has the same equation of state as an
ideal gas. How does a gas stay pressurized without losing energy?
Exactly.
How does the balloon remain inflated,
which takes work,
if no energy is entering the atoms
to keep them bouncing off the inside of the balloon?
This is everyone's problem.
Al and others have blinkers installed
in order not to see it.
John
.
|
|
|
| User: "Dave" |
|
| Title: Re: electrons & magnetic fields, a puzzle |
30 Dec 2004 11:23:50 AM |
|
|
"John Sefton" <vegan16@accesscomm.ca> wrote in message
news:41d42edd$1@news.accesscomm.ca...
Physics book. A magnetic field has the same equation of state as an
ideal gas. How does a gas stay pressurized without losing energy?
Exactly.
How does the balloon remain inflated,
which takes work,
if no energy is entering the atoms
to keep them bouncing off the inside of the balloon?
once the balloon is inflated the sides stop moving. if nothing is moving no
work can be done, so the atoms bouncing off the inside don't lose energy.
.
|
|
|
| User: "John Sefton" |
|
| Title: Re: electrons & magnetic fields, a puzzle |
30 Dec 2004 12:38:05 PM |
|
|
Dave wrote:
"John Sefton" <vegan16@accesscomm.ca> wrote in message
news:41d42edd$1@news.accesscomm.ca...
Physics book. A magnetic field has the same equation of state as an
ideal gas. How does a gas stay pressurized without losing energy?
Exactly.
How does the balloon remain inflated,
which takes work,
if no energy is entering the atoms
to keep them bouncing off the inside of the balloon?
once the balloon is inflated the sides stop moving. if nothing is moving no
work can be done, so the atoms bouncing off the inside don't lose energy.
So holding up something takes no work?
Somewhat counterintuitive maybe?
Hold a book at arm's length for 2 minutes.
Why does your arm get tired?
John
.
|
|
|
| User: "Dave" |
|
| Title: Re: electrons & magnetic fields, a puzzle |
30 Dec 2004 01:22:27 PM |
|
|
"John Sefton" <john@petcom.com> wrote in message
news:41D44B0D.2040104@petcom.com...
Dave wrote:
"John Sefton" <vegan16@accesscomm.ca> wrote in message
news:41d42edd$1@news.accesscomm.ca...
Physics book. A magnetic field has the same equation of state as an
ideal gas. How does a gas stay pressurized without losing energy?
Exactly.
How does the balloon remain inflated,
which takes work,
if no energy is entering the atoms
to keep them bouncing off the inside of the balloon?
once the balloon is inflated the sides stop moving. if nothing is
moving no
work can be done, so the atoms bouncing off the inside don't lose
energy.
So holding up something takes no work?
Somewhat counterintuitive maybe?
Hold a book at arm's length for 2 minutes.
Why does your arm get tired?
John
maybe counterintuitive, but true. nothing says that your intuition has to
control the way things in the real world work.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
