Ask any question you want about Physics

Hopefully a simple question. Probably more suited to a Electrical Engineer but seeing if you physics guys can help me since you're better educated in these sorta things.

In QAM, can you simultaneously lower Frequency noise while increasing Phase noise?

a reply to: Arbitrageur

To me it's a map of the properties of space at various points in that space. There doesn't have to be any particle in a gravitational field for example, the graviton is only hypothesized. There are no particles or waves in the above weather map, it just shows wind strength (via arrow length) and direction, as dragonridr was trying to explain. It's not much different from how you might envision an electric field where you'd have longer arrows closer to the electric charge and shorter arrows further away from the electric charge, where the arrows could represent field strength visually, though often we use math to characterize things like electric fields. But the math is basically describing something very similar to that, the properties of space at various points in space, where in the case of an electric field it would be field strength and direction, analogous to the wind speed and direction on the weather map.

that's not a filed in QM sense. But what ever works for you.
in your example with weather graph the field is merely a scape, 3 dimensional scape. If moving body enters that fragment of the 'field' it will follow that scape. That is GR space-time invisible framework inside which moving objects follow given geodesics.

That's not what QM field is I think. QM field is 'made' of whats filling it out. It is a collection of quantized values that logically constitute the field that know nothing about geodesics (space-time scape).
In QM the field is something else.

Gravitational field as per Einstein, I think, simply outlines the area of gravity effect.

a reply to: Arbitrageur

You can't see see charge, but you can see the effects. If that doesn't help you envision charge, I don't know what will.

If I was your student in a classroom, would you consider that for an answer?


cheers)

a reply to: ImaFungi

I don't think "field" and "material" intersect on the ol' Venn diagram of life.

Something can be, and not be a pervasive medium like a gas or fluid.

originally posted by: Bedlam
a reply to: ImaFungi

I don't think "field" and "material" intersect on the ol' Venn diagram of life.

Something can be, and not be a pervasive medium like a gas or fluid.

Is the Em field anything other than the total quantity and quality of photon and virtual photon?

originally posted by: ImaFungi
Do you think you understand 'photon' better than I have drawn?

I'm pretty sure I've studied more quantum mechanics than you and since the photon is a quantum mechanical phenomenon, I think it's likely, but the descriptions in QM are mathematical, not pictorial.

What is one aspect of photon I have not drawn?

What Einstein called "spooky action at a distance", a property of photons which seemed so odd the concept was intended to try to disprove the quantum mechanics model, but eventually that backfired, and rather than proving QM false, this property of photons was experimentally confirmed suggesting the quantum mechanics model made good predictions.

Are you saying it is impossible the photon is a sphere like object?

Yes. How could such an object give the results observed in the double-slit experiment?

Or a line like object? You think it may be way more complex, like every photon is 100 different gears? Or every photon is a snow flake?

They have different frequency and certain other properties like polarization and spin, but the photons coming out of a laser I don't think are much like snowflakes, either figuratively or literally. They are probably all very similar, having some slight variations in energy but not by much.

The atoms are moving a certain way at a certain speed, draw arrows, sure wind, fine field;

But in EM, you put a test particle in relation to EM field, as you would the wind field, and it is moved;

In the wind field, it is moving atoms which move the test particle; In the EM field is it what that moves the test particle? Photons and/or virtual photons?

Yes I'm glad you know how wind works. What moves the test particle in the EM field? We have a model that says virtual photons but virtual photons aren't independently measurable nor verifiable themselves, but the movement of the test particle is measurable and verifiable. So I can't say for sure exactly what causes the test particle to move. Field theory works reasonably well in predicting the movement of test particles, though it's still unable to predict observed vacuum energy accurately so it probably still needs some refinement.

I asked this question over and over again, and I thought it was part of the reason field theory was desired to be devised, because it was not understood where photons came from, when electrons were accelerated

Back in the 1890s, we knew about electrons, and we understood that electromagnetic radiation was created by accelerating them. At that time we didn't have anything like quantum field theory and didn't know about photons. In that sense we didn't need QFT to explain the EM radiation. What we needed QFT for was to bridge the gap between relativity and quantum mechanics, both of which were developed later.

So why do accelerating electrons emit EM radiation? You're a visual person so let's look at a rough visual analogy. This track is intended to accelerate the train in a curve, but the train still wants to go in a straight line, why?



The answer of course is momentum. Like the train, you can have electrons traveling at high speed, and then force them to go around a "curve" by sending them into a strong magnetic field. While the electrons do curve, they aren't constructed the same way as a train and so part of their momentum can keep going in a straight line in massless particles called photons. As long as certain rules are met, there's nothing to prevent this from happening and it happens in a device called a synchrotron which emits photons in the direction the electrons were originally traveling before they were made to curve. The following link and illustration showing the the emission of EM radiation in green is from the momentum of the electron wanting to go in a straight line, and this was understood in the late 1800s way before quantum field theory and even before the photon was discovered (read the link):

Synchrotron radiation

originally posted by: ImaFungi
The gravity field must be composed of something;

Not necessarily. Gravitons are only hypothesized.

The EM field must be composed of something;

You could say an electromagnetic field is composed of time-varying electric and magnetic fields, but I don't think that's the answer you're looking for.

Both of these are said to exist at all points in space;

Where there are no photons, the EM field is said to still be something that exists, where there are no photons;

Where there is no mass or curvature, the gravity field is said to still be something that exists;

That's not my understanding. You can't find anywhere in our universe with such conditions as far as I know. If you could somehow construct a Faraday cage at absolute zero it might block the CMB photons, but we've only got close to absolute zero, never actually reached it. Any object above that will emit thermal photons, so photons are everywhere for at least those two reasons.

I don't know of anything that will block gravity the way a Faraday cage can block electromagnetic waves, so if there's at least one object in the universe with mass, the gravitational effect extends from that infinitely at the speed of light.

You can call it something else, but that which exists must have some characteristic like mass;

I always thought the term Aether was used to evoke the thought of a real material substance like medium that existed at all points in space;

Einstein referred to a "new aether" in general relativity terms, but that term didn't stick and we now call it "space-time", but the idea is that space is affected by mass, the closer the mass the greater the effect. But you can't get infinitely far away from the mass so you can't make the effect go to precisely zero.

If you believe EM field is something that really exists and exists at all points in space, if you believe gravity field is something that really exists and exists at all points in space; you believe something extremely close to the general concept of Aether;

I think your understanding of these concepts is different than mine. The way I understand them to be everywhere is as explained above. Your understanding is that if nothing else was around they would still be there, and I don't share that idea with you. The reason we end up at the same place though is because you can't really find a spot in our universe which is free of photons or free of the effects of mass, though you might find areas where these can be minimal.

originally posted by: greenreflections
That's not what QM field is I think. QM field is 'made' of whats filling it out. It is a collection of quantized values that logically constitute the field that know nothing about geodesics (space-time scape).
In QM the field is something else.

Let's look at your original question:

originally posted by: greenreflections
Don't get it. Why so many confusing definitions of 'field'? Is it constituted of individual particles that together form wave pattern or is definition of 'particle' messed up?

Yes the weather map illustrates the concept of a field. The concept of a field is not difficult. Quantum mechanics and quantum field theory are difficult, and most people never learn them.

originally posted by: greenreflections
a reply to: Arbitrageur
If I was your student in a classroom, would you consider that for an answer?

I wouldn't ask my students how they envision what charge is made of, since I don't know of any answer. It's fundamental meaning we don't know what it's made of. But if I asked them to give an example of the effects of charge, yes that would be a great answer. Lightning would be a good answer also.

originally posted by: Arbitrageur

"What is one aspect of photon I have not drawn?"

What Einstein called "spooky action at a distance", a property of photons which seemed so odd the concept was intended to try to disprove the quantum mechanics model, but eventually that backfired, and rather than proving QM false, this property of photons was experimentally confirmed suggesting the quantum mechanics model made good predictions.

I meant what is one aspect I attempted to draw that I did not include... What is a physical characteristic I left out of attempting to reach towards a visual expression of how a photon might really exist?

ImaFungi

The third picture is a question; the 3 pictures in total are a depiction of 2 electrons colliding amidst the EM field that really exists at every point in space; I am asking when electrons accelerate, which I presume occurs when they collide; though also to mention, I remember asking once and was answered that it was an uncertain, whether or not electrons continuously emit EM radiation while traveling at a constant velocity in vacuum; And if the EM field exists at all points in space, I do not know how the electron would not continuously propagate EM radiation, if it was continuously moving amidst the EM field,

The EM field does not really exist at all points in space, or if it did one might have to come up with some pretty nifty reasons as to why the electron does not continuously emit radiation, and why neutral particles would not emit radiation, because they also would uncontrollably be colliding/disturbing the field continuously.

Spooky action at a distance is not proven, I have said it before I will say it again, the only way spooky action at a distance can be real is if the universe is fake; FACT.

But then again you believe that the gravity field may be composed of ABSOLUTELY PURE NOTHING, so you are used to spooky action at a distance keeping the moon near the earth and the earth near the sun.

What moves the test particle in the EM field? We have a model that says virtual photons but virtual photons aren't independently measurable nor verifiable themselves, but the movement of the test particle is measurable and verifiable. So I can't say for sure exactly what causes the test particle to move. Field theory works reasonably well in predicting the movement of test particles, though it's still unable to predict observed vacuum energy accurately so it probably still needs some refinement.

Something moves the test particle, Something must have mass/and or energy; Something can only be moved by mass and/or energy, the EM field must have its own independent mass and/or energy,

If you and I were in a perfect vacuum with nothing in front of us to possibly reflect any light, and you had a flashlight, that just before entering the vacuum we put new batteries in and tested multiple times in multiple settings, and then we went in the vacuum and shone the light away from us, and you had no evidence that light was coming out of the flashlight because it was not reflecting off of air (and the wall pointed towards was x miles away), would you suspect no light was propagating from the flashlight? Trying to see where you stand with the potential value of reasonable inference.

Is it more likely there is cotton candy and unicorns in the center of the earth or iron core? Is it more likely if the EM field exists it is at least something rather than absolutely pure nothing?

Is virtual photon theory pretty much; photons at rest?

Back in the 1890s, we knew about electrons, and we understood that electromagnetic radiation was created by accelerating them.


At that time we didn't have anything like quantum field theory and didn't know about photons. In that sense we didn't need QFT to explain the EM radiation. What we needed QFT for was to bridge the gap between relativity and quantum mechanics, both of which were developed later.

So why do accelerating electrons emit EM radiation? You're a visual person so let's look at a rough visual analogy. This track is intended to accelerate the train in a curve, but the train still wants to go in a straight line, why?


The answer of course is momentum. Like the train, you can have electrons traveling at high speed, and then force them to go around a "curve" by sending them into a strong magnetic field. While the electrons do curve, they aren't constructed the same way as a train and so part of their momentum can keep going in a straight line in massless particles called photons.

Ok now we are getting somewhere;

Well first, I recall my mention above about the potential for electrons to constantly emit radiation; and then I say;

Where do the photons come from?

A real EM field does exist at all points in space?

And when an electron is traveling straight, it is making a path in this EM field of real material particles, and when the electron curves, it pushes a new path through EM particles; well imagine a motor boat traveling straight, and then turning; the concept is very simple, I comprehend any of these possible physics principles, I am explicitly highlighting precisely what I do not comprehend, and either you do not comprehend either so you are ignoring my questions and repeating the principles I am aware of, or....

"The gravity field must be composed of something;"
Not necessarily. Gravitons are only hypothesized.

Gravitons can be hypothesized....a million things can be hypothesized; YET;

The gravity field must be composed of something, NECESSARILY


YES GRAVITY FIELD = COMPOSED OF SOMETHING

NO GRAVITY FIELD = COMPOSED OF NOTHING

"The EM field must be composed of something"

You could say an electromagnetic field is composed of time-varying electric and magnetic fields, but I don't think that's the answer you're looking for.

Of course its not; the angels on a hair pin are composed of fundamental angels;

you started to get there by saying the EM field is composed of virtual photons, but then you have to physically, this is physics, physically define virtual photons.... turtles?

What are the major differences between photons and virtual photons?

Are there the same frequencies of virtual photons as photons? Can they interact? Do the same particles create them?

originally posted by: ImaFungi
I meant what is one aspect I attempted to draw that I did not include... What is a physical characteristic I left out of attempting to reach towards a visual expression of how a photon might really exist?

I don't know how you're defining "physical characteristic" here, since the photon has no mass, and everything we measure about it is a property, including spin in entanglement experiments. It's measurable.

Spooky action at a distance is not proven, I have said it before I will say it again, the only way spooky action at a distance can be real is if the universe is fake; FACT.

So are you saying quantum entanglement experiments are flawed in some way and if so what's the experimental flaw, in say this experiment?

Quantum ‘spookiness’ passes toughest test yet

So far it seems you just don't like the results because nature doesn't seem to follow rules you think she should follow nor behave as you think she should behave.

In the early days of quantum mechanics even physicists had problems accepting experimental results, so I guess you're in good company of a lot of once-living very bright people who are now dead. Here's what some of them had to say about quantum mechanics:
Quantum Mechanics related quoted

Anyone who is not shocked by quantum mechanics has not fully understood it. (Niels Bohr)

The mathematical predictions of quantum mechanics yield results that are in agreement with experimental findings. That is the reason we use quantum theory. That quantum theory fits with experiment is what validates the theory, but why experiment should give such peculiar results is a mystery. This is the shock to which Bohr referred. (Marvin Chester with slight modifications).

If that turns out to be true, I'll quit physics. (Max von Laue)

To our classical sensibilities, the phenomena of quantum mechanics, interference and so forth, seem weird. The various formulations package that weirdness in various ways, but none of them can eliminate it because the weirdness comes from the facts, not the formalism. (Dan Styer)

The more success quantum theory has, the sillier it looks. (Albert Einstein, 1912)

I am sorry that I ever had anything to do with quantum theory. (Schrodinger)

At every instant a grain of sand has a definite position and velocity. This is not the case with an electron. (Max Born)

That goes back a long time to the infancy quantum mechanics, but I think most physicists now have had the shock Bohr referred to sometime in their experience, but have since gotten over it.

I suppose you're still in the shock phase and haven't gotten over it? Or De Nile isn't just a river in Egypt? (It sounds better if you say it instead of typing it).

But then again you believe that the gravity field may be composed of ABSOLUTELY PURE NOTHING, so you are used to spooky action at a distance keeping the moon near the earth and the earth near the sun.

I'm open-minded in cases where evidence is lacking, such as the hypothesized gravitons. Maybe they exist, maybe they don't.

Something moves the test particle, Something must have mass/and or energy; Something can only be moved by mass and/or energy, the EM field must have its own independent mass and/or energy,

The Earth has mass and a television transmitter uses energy and is broadcasting that in EM frequencies. I still don't understand exactly WHY mass has the effect on space that it does, but I have no doubts that mass does affect space. I can only plead ignorance regarding details at the moment but if someone claims to have experimentally confirmed gravitons somehow, I'll review the evidence.

If you and I were in a perfect vacuum with nothing in front of us to possibly reflect any light, and you had a flashlight, that just before entering the vacuum we put new batteries in and tested multiple times in multiple settings, and then we went in the vacuum and shone the light away from us, and you had no evidence that light was coming out of the flashlight because it was not reflecting off of air (and the wall pointed towards was x miles away), would you suspect no light was propagating from the flashlight? Trying to see where you stand with the potential value of reasonable inference.

In general it depends. If the question was about a speaker then I'd presume the sound wouldn't travel through the vacuum, but light from the flashlight would.

Well first, I recall my mention above about the potential for electrons to constantly emit radiation; and then I say;

Where do the photons come from?

A real EM field does exist at all points in space?

The question about all points in space seems flawed and here's why. Suppose you had a place in space with truly "nothing", and you ask if the EM field is there. As soon as you try to make a measurement, you no longer have "nothing", so you can answer that directly. If you try to answer by inference, you can predict there is exactly one particle in the entire universe and that prediction will be more accurate than what quantum field theory predicts about "nothing" ("vacuum energy"), and thus obviously both predictions are dismally inaccurate. So why would you want to use a model that is so far off in making predictions about "nothing" to make predictions about "nothing"? Its crazy!

And when an electron is traveling straight, it is making a path in this EM field of real material particles, and when the electron curves, it pushes a new path through EM particles; well imagine a motor boat traveling straight, and then turning; the concept is very simple, I comprehend any of these possible physics principles, I am explicitly highlighting precisely what I do not comprehend, and either you do not comprehend either so you are ignoring my questions and repeating the principles I am aware of, or....

You're doing what you usually do, ignoring experiment. I answered your question and you're ignoring the answer because it's an experimental result. Now you want to draw pictures of what's happening with crayons. I repeat that I doubt you can draw any accurate picture of a photon. Instead, study the experiments, and realize the electron is much different than a motorboat.

What are the major differences between photons and virtual photons?

Are there the same frequencies of virtual photons as photons? Can they interact? Do the same particles create them?

-Photons are real, measurable entities that can be observed independently. They are what carries the light we see from distant galaxies to our telescopes, for example. Their ontology is not debated.
-Virtual photons cannot be measured independently, and they don't carry light to our telescopes from distant galaxies. They aren't really photons at all, they are not particles of any type.

I'm re-posting Matt Strassler's blog article about virtual particles, read it if you haven't already:

Virtual Particles: What are they?

A virtual particle is not a particle at all. It refers precisely to a disturbance in a field that is not a particle.

originally posted by: ImaFungi
Something moves the test particle, Something must have mass/and or energy; Something can only be moved by mass and/or energy

Not true

the EM field must have its own independent mass and/or energy,

EM field has its own independent momentum and energy.

Again, back to physics, which means experimental facts: Compton scattering.

Don't imagine that you can 'rationalize' and understand physics without understanding the origin of modern physics from experimental observations. It wasn't invented to make our brains happy (in its day, Newtonian mechanics was as strange and shocking to ordinary people's intuition as QM is today), it was invented to explain and unify persistent experimental facts of the universe.

If you and I were in a perfect vacuum with nothing in front of us to possibly reflect any light, and you had a flashlight, that just before entering the vacuum we put new batteries in and tested multiple times in multiple settings, and then we went in the vacuum and shone the light away from us, and you had no evidence that light was coming out of the flashlight because it was not reflecting off of air (and the wall pointed towards was x miles away), would you suspect no light was propagating from the flashlight? Trying to see where you stand with the potential value of reasonable inference.

The fact that the batteries were running down and there was a very small force on the flashlight in the other direction gives suspicions that yes there were photons coming out, because that's what flashlights do.

Is it more likely there is cotton candy and unicorns in the center of the earth or iron core? Is it more likely if the EM field exists it is at least something rather than absolutely pure nothing?

"something" vs "pure nothing" are not useful terms in physics unless you can connect them with physical experiments.

Now, here is an operational definition of "EM field existing" that could be experimentally accessed: "Is there any place ever observed in the Universe in which accelerating charges do not result in changes in electromagnetic fields?" The answer to that is "No, not that we have ever seen." The physical modeling of EM fields starting from Faraday hypothesizes that there is a value of electric and magnetic field, (or really 6 components of 2 vectors) everywhere in the Universe, and intrinsically superimposed over all material particles which also existing in the universe. There have been no failures from that hypothesis.

Is virtual photon theory pretty much; photons at rest?

No, it's an odd way of describing electromagnetic interactions in quantum representations, which, if it were classical Maxwell would be ones which do not result in propagating radiation, such as electrostatics/magnetostatics/induction, etc.

Well first, I recall my mention above about the potential for electrons to constantly emit radiation; and then I say;

Where do the photons come from?

Interactions with accelerating charges. Photons can be created and destroyed by interactions. If you splash and make a wave in the water surface in your bathtub, where did the wave come from? Where was it before?

A real EM field does exist at all points in space?

Yes. It's value could be 'zero' or really small.

Analogy with bathtub mechanics: Within the bathtub universe with water, does the 'bathtub wave field' exist at all points in the bathtub universe? Yes, there is a height of water everywhere. What if it is perfectly still? (minimum energy state). That's the bathtub vacuum state. What is a bathtub-phonon? It's a little wave disturbance on that bathtub-water-height-field.

And when an electron is traveling straight, it is making a path in this EM field of real material particles,

No, it is making a path through space, and everywhere in space, there is simultaneously the possibility that the EM field has some non-zero (or zero) value.

and when the electron curves, it pushes a new path through EM particles; well imagine a motor boat traveling straight, and then turning; the concept is very simple, I comprehend any of these possible physics principles, I am explicitly highlighting precisely what I do not comprehend, and either you do not comprehend either so you are ignoring my questions and repeating the principles I am aware of, or....

Not quite.

More like this: Motorboat is going straight. Then when it turns, the interaction between the pressure from the material bottom of the motorboat acts on the water, which, along with intrinsic physics of water waves, results in some of the former momentum and energy in the mechanical motion of the motorboat to be engaged in moving water in a way which results in propagating water waves, which can be observed by somebody who stands further away at the shoreline, or on another boat. The boat, and the water wave field, are different things, and they mutually interact. Boat makes changes on water, water makes changes on boat. The details of charges and EM fields are different than boat and water wave field, but the general concepts are the same.

Water wave field: a two-dimensional scalar field, as in everywhere in x,y space there exists a value, one real number corresponding to the deviation of the height of the water from the minimum energy (flat water) state.

Difference between water wave field and EM: water wave field is a collective property of other 'stuff' (i.e. water molecules in a particular dense fluid state). EM field is not a collective property of other underlying 'stuff', it was always there.

Either the electron loses material from its body when it is accelerated, and that material is the detected photon;

Or, the detected photon exists, materially, before the electron is accelerated;

There is no other option. Unless you provide a satisfactory one, to my critical standard.

a reply to: ImaFungi
A photon has no mass so I don't know what you mean by "material".

If you include energy and momentum in that term then both are conserved when the electron emits a photon. In the synchrotron radiation example the electron had that energy and momentum before the photon was created, then when it encountered the magnetic field, that's what caused that energy and momentum to be transferred to a photon. I picked this example because it should be easy to see the momentum correlation:

Synchrotron radiation

Radiation cone generated by an electron package

So some major "parts" of the photon did exist before it was created, but not the photon itself.

originally posted by: Arbitrageur
Synchrotron radiation

Radiation cone generated by an electron package

Why is there not photon/s propagating all the way along the electrons curve, until it is precisely in its new direction; I am asking, why is it not that that yellow area is stretched from covering the area it is now and also including the area towards the arrow tip completing a triangle of yellow with that black line; is this an improper image, or is it a physics belief that photon is only emitted at exactly and only one instant upon the precise beginning of the curve,

And what is to cause the photon to follow through on the curve?

So either it begins a curve, or its curve is really more of a sharp angle?

originally posted by: ImaFungi
Why is there not photon/s propagating all the way along the electrons curve, until it is precisely in its new direction;

If the electron was traveling more slowly, it would be more spread out, in fact the width of that cone depends on how fast the electron is going. In this example it's going at such a large fraction of light speed, it's in and out of the magnet so fast that it doesn't spread out much.

I am asking, why is it not that that yellow area is stretched from covering the area it is now and also including the area towards the arrow tip completing a triangle of yellow with that black line; is this an improper image, or is it a physics belief that photon is only emitted at exactly and only one instant upon the precise beginning of the curve,

And what is to cause the photon to follow through on the curve?

So either it begins a curve, or its curve is really more of a sharp angle?

Obviously it's not exactly to scale since the electrons are visible in the drawing and normally you couldn't see the electrons. It is possible however to see synchrotron radiation in visible wavelengths.

Because the electron is going so fast and spends so little time in the magnetic area, the radius of the curve can be relatively small but it's not exactly "sharp". If it's traveling at nearly the speed of light how long do you expect it to stay in that magnetic area? Not long, so it's only there for "an instant" by most definitions of that term (according to the link the burst of energy from a group of electrons lasts about 100 picoseconds, and the angular width of the cone is about one tenth of one degree in a typical experiment). But if you experiment on slower electrons the cone will not be that narrow; find the cone width formula at the link.

a reply to: Arbitrageur

Its a cone that continually increases its width over time and space? Why not more like a cylinder? So that image shows the fact that multiple photons are created and each photon in a slight different space with slightly different momentum/direction and so thats why over time and space the total grouping of a quantity of photons spreads out cone like?

Around this curve, would a single electron emit a single photon?

How many photons is it thought a single electron would emit going around that cure?

And if that field producer that makes it curve, was flipped upside down, or turned 180 degrees it would curve the electron the other direction?

Can single electrons be sent through?

Are all the electrons spins aligned in the grouping before being sent around, or they align while sent around or they do not align?

Is it a combination of electron spin and the orientation of EM field generator at the curve that send the electron in a particular direction, around the track?

How is the EM at the curve generated? The EM field, sends electricity through magnets, So pretty much the field is like an end of a bar magnet, the electrons are vibrating in the EM magnet, as electricity, and that energy has to go somewhere, so it goes out of the end of the EM magnet, like how bar magnets attract and repulse by having their electrons spins aligned, which some how produces some pure reaction with the EM field, so that other orientated electron material or electrons themselves;


Is it understood physically mechanically why, well I should ask first, is neutron effected by EM field? Are there any neutral charge fundamental particles? Or any subatomic/fundamental particles that are not effected by EM field?

Photon right, is it understood, physically, mechanically, why the photon is not effected by an EM field? Something important is hidden in that mystery;

Is it the same mechanism that keeps electron near nucleus once free electron gets a certain distance to nucleus, as a N bar magnet keeps near S bar magnet once it gets a certain distance? The same mechanism, of magnetism; an electron moving the EM field in such a way, in relation to other particles moving the EM field in such a way, that the electron is either attracted or repulsed?

originally posted by: ImaFungi
a reply to: Arbitrageur

Its a cone that continually increases its width over time and space? Why not more like a cylinder? So that image shows the fact that multiple photons are created and each photon in a slight different space with slightly different momentum/direction and so thats why over time and space the total grouping of a quantity of photons spreads out cone like?

You can focus a laser over a short distance but after that it essentially forms a cone too. Why wouldn't it spread out a bit at greater distances from the source?

Around this curve, would a single electron emit a single photon?

How many photons is it thought a single electron would emit going around that cure?

I'm not sure, but it would depend on a number of variables mentioned at the source.

And if that field producer that makes it curve, was flipped upside down, or turned 180 degrees it would curve the electron the other direction?

Sure, why wouldn't it?

Can single electrons be sent through?

Can you think of anything that would prevent that? All I can think of is maybe it's not an experimentally useful thing to do, which is why they don't do it, but that doesn't mean it couldn't be done if there was a reason to do it.

Are all the electrons spins aligned in the grouping before being sent around, or they align while sent around or they do not align?

Synchrotron radiation is known for its polarization, which requires the electrons to get their spins maybe 90% aligned in a storage ring first, which can take some time.

Is it a combination of electron spin and the orientation of EM field generator at the curve that send the electron in a particular direction, around the track?

The spin affects the polarization, not direction. The direction is a result of the electron's initial energy, its charge and the characteristics of the magnetic field it passes through.

How is the EM at the curve generated? The EM field, sends electricity through magnets, So pretty much the field is like an end of a bar magnet, the electrons are vibrating in the EM magnet, as electricity, and that energy has to go somewhere, so it goes out of the end of the EM magnet, like how bar magnets attract and repulse by having their electrons spins aligned, which some how produces some pure reaction with the EM field, so that other orientated electron material or electrons themselves;

They probably use an electromagnet for the bending magnet but hypothetically you could send electrons between the poles of a permanent magnet and they would still curve, though not as much if the permanent magnet had lower field strength. The EM radiation is generated because the moving electron is accelerated in a direction normal to its motion once it enters the magnetic field. This is all explained at the link I provided which I don't think you read.

Is it understood physically mechanically why, well I should ask first, is neutron effected by EM field? Are there any neutral charge fundamental particles? Or any subatomic/fundamental particles that are not effected by EM field?

Neutrons are of course composed of charged quarks and they have a magnetic moment which will tend to align with an external magnetic field, while neutrinos are apparently not composed of other particles so they are fundamental.

Photon right, is it understood, physically, mechanically, why the photon is not effected by an EM field? Something important is hidden in that mystery;

Why would it be? It has no charge, at least none that's ever been measured.

originally posted by: ImaFungi
Is it the same mechanism that keeps electron near nucleus once free electron gets a certain distance to nucleus, as a N bar magnet keeps near S bar magnet once it gets a certain distance? The same mechanism, of magnetism; an electron moving the EM field in such a way, in relation to other particles moving the EM field in such a way, that the electron is either attracted or repulsed?

Electricity and magnetism are related which is why we refer to electromagnetism, but they're not the same. Electrons are attracted to nuclei via electric fields, but that's not what makes then curve in the synchrotron illustration, which is traveling through a magnetic field.

What if physicality doesn't move, and instead, information moves or rather energy purposed/measured moves. So then it is that force moves through physicality, and is physicality, but what differentiates force from physicality is how it is measured/its information/the information of force.

Probably?

Like the Trinity, if you understand that relationship.


Information/measurement/conception moving through, or in, the body = force.

it is that force moves through physicality, and is physicality = like body language, where your form is information and information in motion is your force