Ask any question you want about Physics

originally posted by: KrzYma

Yes I do...

EM field IS the electrons and protons

You are saying too much too quickly, when we are trying to focus on fundamental one thing at a time, you are showing all your cards above there and it looks like you were bluffing.

It seems you do not know what you are talking about.

Now your theory is that; Only 1 thing exists? And it has no components?

a reply to: Bedlam


That's very interesting, I heard one guy in the states did that and picked up a taxi driver having a conversation the other side of the globe. When you look at the root dispersal system of a tree, it looks a bit like the iron filling map of a magnetic field . Or the ionisation trails of a lightening strike when it grounds. I wonder if something more is going on here, as trees with a higher iron content like Oak, tend to get blasted more with lightening strikes anecdotally at least. They lift one heck of a lot of water out of the ground as well. That's a lot of serious work.

originally posted by: KrzYma


EM field IS the electrons and protons

Now, I may have to apologize for quickly judging.

But, hm. I dont know. By saying EM field is the electrons and protons, are you not saying electron = proton = photon?

Implying only 1 'essential material thingness' existing, which amongst this 1 singular object, has many differences amongst it, and these differences are called photon, electron, proton?

Well, in theory, that is a categorical conceptual statement, which is similar to me saying; 'there is the totality of something', as a singular concept, of all that exists;

But you are trying to make a physical statement, about the physicality of what exists,

your statement that EM field is... em field = protons and electrons

Is saying that, only protons and electrons (ignoring gravity, neutrino for a moment) exist, and the concept EM field is unnecessary, and non existent reality of a true thingness;

Which would be arguing that; light does not exist...

Or are you arguing that light = only protons and electrons?

These sorts of thoughts are what led me to initially say, that it seemed like you didnt know what you were talking about.

a reply to: ImaFungi

Sorry he is confusing you. The EM field is not electrons or protons---in elementary particle physics (standard model) the EM field and lepton field and quark (hadron) fields are distinct, and with mutual interactions when particles have charge.

a reply to: ImaFungi

You sort of zen'd the answer but missed your own analogy by applying it to the poster instead of seeing it as a reflection... when you said that muddies the water a bit.

Well exactly the metaphor needed. Water not muddied is just a lot of H2O in one place... but in seas and oceans and vapors and frozen states and in quantum states of being injected into emeralds(beryl) or naturally found in opal. It is rarely in its pure form meaning the pure form of an atomic structure is the element itself... even gold gets what 99.99% percent as it is only one single atom unbound that is 100%

So basically a lot more muddy or a lot more pure? No difference really bound in a conglomerate of other particles, or unbound swaping charges changing form in half lifes and atomic weights binding and unbinding once just hydrogen but now bound with two oxygens, tat can unbind and combine or change charge through decay non stop all around in a casuality some natural and some intentional causality... makes no difference, although artificial world constructs can really f up a natural system of constructs especially in the container that life is found to harness in...

But in the name of progress there is both growth and ignorance... and the more that is inspected? The more difficult they are to distingush.

So thinking of all of this swirling mass of particles changing swaps being an EM cloud is normal... of course the real difference is densities or purities of it. On planets moons stars etc obviously more bound particles than those floating around at varying distances in space and vaccums... the interactions and charges of course of these various clouds of EM varies in effect based on properties and localities of whatever group is most represented in whatever form or cluster or cloud or conglomerate of them.

kinda like people wanting to say because the majority of US citizens have a Christian heritage or belief structure then the US is a Christian nation and try to use the politics as one that represents Christainity while drawing lines against all others... when it was meant to represent freedom and equality not any specific group. See the effects of that... especially on freedom and equality when groups try to be refineries and make a mint in the process trying to establish or keep their monopoly?

Anyhoo... thats the nice thing about seeing the framework beyond the dogma of terms and definitions... same basic interactions no matter the subject.

a reply to: mbkennel

Ok, so another question I tried to ask him that is relevant;

Make a separate distinction; That which is purely EM itself (EM field/photon/s)

And that which is purely not EM (quarks, electrons, graviton,neutrino etc.)

Is it true that every single *pico planck length* that does not contain quarks, electrons, etc

Contains EM field?



*pico planck length* -

I use this exaggeration to depict the point I am trying to get at, I do not mean whatever that literal bastardized terminology means, but I am pointing towards with this exaggeration the concept of seriously absolutely serious serious please, absolute, tiniest, possible really, smallest true, eternal, possible quantity of 3d absolute space;

Imagine you had any people, or machines floating in space holding hands making a sphere shape; and each second, they each took an equal step inwards toward the center of the sphere, continually making the sphere smaller; Without thinking of physical limitations of material; eventually such a progression would have to end, and those harebrained crack theories of infinite infinitesimal space would be shown to be wrong; For this conceptual vacant quanta of the infinitesimal limit of distinct volume, which conceptually, a finite quantity of these would make up the space of the universe (potentially infinite quantity of these exist beyond the universe, infinite nothingness; but the very fact of spheres being different volumes express the fact that conceptual and real volume is not infinite/infinitesimal... you can not surround an area, and zoom in forever); lets call this type of conceptual space ; *IL* (for *inner limit*; #e name, we will think of a better one) So considering this; my question related;

Non EM/photon takes up real space;

Well of course this gets difficult thinking if the universe is open or closed; because if it is open, that means the edges are constantly overflowing spilling out? And is that similar to potential reason for expansion/accelerated?

If we imagine these neat nice fields packed in the center of the universe; and then consider there is no wall, no material sphere keeping the universe packed; then it is weird to think how the fields might behave at the edges of the universe, like if the fields are these neat nice tapestry, gravity/em... at the edges what is keeping the so neat, would they be frayed?

So regardless;

Non EM/Photon takes up the exact real spaces it takes up (where an electron really exists at any given time, a photon cannot , yes?)

Is every *"inner limit"* full of EM field/photon that is not full of non EM field/photon?

a reply to: ImaFungi

Ah points in space and whole number issues... Miss Daisy, I've got just what you need.

youtu.be...

originally posted by: KrzYma
EM field IS the electrons and protons

originally posted by: ImaFungi
It seems you do not know what you are talking about.

KrzYma's post is a skunk works post with no supporting scientific evidence (and with contradictory evidence), which is off-topic in the science and tech forum.

a reply to: ImaFungi
I'm going to answer your question with a question.

If you drop a paper clip:
A: The paper clip accelerates toward the Earth
B: The Earth accelerates toward the paperclip
C: Both A and B.

What is the answer? With a good enough explanation to accompany it, I'd accept either A or C. While technically C is true mathematically with an immeasurably small amount of acceleration by the Earth, experimentally this acceleration would be impossible to measure because the mass of the paper clip is too small with respect to the Earth making A true for experimental purposes.

How is this relevant to your question about the EM field? If you build a super-cold Faraday cage you might be able to block enough EM that it would be very difficult to measure any EM inside, perhaps as difficult as measuring the Earth's acceleration toward the falling paper clip. But neither would be mathematically zero, because you can't get the Faraday cage down to absolute zero, only very close to that temperature, so it will still emit thermal radiation albeit a very small amount. Outside the Faraday cage you've got the cosmic microwave background which is everywhere, so how can you have that and not have the EM field everywhere?

Regarding a scale smaller than a Planck length, since we can't observe anything smaller than a planck length (not even close to that really) we can't make any statements about that scale which can be experimentally confirmed. A photon with a small enough wavelength to observe a Planck length would create a black hole from which no information escapes (that I know of), so observing something that small or smaller doesn't seem technically feasible.

Are there any stages according to understanding and theory which suggest at least a type of galaxy if not a great number of galaxies might begin with their stars a lot closer to one another when compared to potential averages of star-star distance in observed and theorized galaxies?

If on average, or if in the milky way, the average distance of stars to their neighbors was 100;

Could a galaxy exist, where the average distance of stars to their neighbors was 50? 30? 10? 5? etc.?

Is it theorized that any galaxies begin in such situations of closer star proximity, and then over time spread out?

originally posted by: ImaFungi
Are there any stages according to understanding and theory which suggest at least a type of galaxy if not a great number of galaxies might begin with their stars a lot closer to one another when compared to potential averages of star-star distance in observed and theorized galaxies?

There are hyper-dense galaxies, generally small and old, which may have been ejected globular clusters or may have started off larger and just contracted over time. Compared to the Milky Way, some of them are 10,000 to 20,000 times as dense.

a reply to: Bedlam

Kinda like the ¨big crunch¨ theory... as galaxies start collasping into the large black hole at the center and other black holes local to the galaxies many solar systems have crunched the matter in them pretty effectively shrinking them down. Picture that happening enmass not just the large at the center but countless times around the entire spiral over and over until squeeeeze not much left to conglomerate the huge jet and bang... time to do it all over again.

Of course the galaxies already colliding due to their black holes pulling towards each other... fun times. Not much difference than when it occurs in smaller solar systems between stars with smaller black holes in their centers.

Of course not all galaxies have a black hole in the center, but not all stars turn into one either on death...

Neat stuff though, like zooming really far in and really far out leaving the atomic scale where its at and just on the astronolical level its going to look exactly like the same thing... stars larger than our entire solar system exist in our very galaxy ffs. So now imagine a galaxy looking like a solar system in scale from some other viewpoint but on local inspection looks exactly the same... zooming in and zooming out no effect same business... I get the giggles just thinking about it.

originally posted by: Bedlam


There are hyper-dense galaxies, generally small and old, which may have been ejected globular clusters or may have started off larger and just contracted over time. Compared to the Milky Way, some of them are 10,000 to 20,000 times as dense.

So answering my question of can/do galaxies ever start off with stars in close proximity, you seem to be answering;

when galaxies begin, and then when the first stars of galaxies begin (and is this when, the first galaxies ever began), the stars are at a relatively great distance from one another, according to theory.

a reply to: ImaFungi
Its a difficult question to answer based on direct observation since the galaxies tended to form a long time ago meaning we generally have to observe galaxy formation at a great distance when the galaxies are hard to see at all, so it's hard to see details. Your statement might be true as a generalization, however I suspect that there was quite a bit of variation in stellar density when the galaxies formed as well, and bedlam is correct that galaxies tend to be evolving to get more dense over time though there is also variation in how that evolution progresses.

Look at the simulation starting a little after 15 minutes in the following video, showing how a model of quantum fluctuations based on satellite data results in larger scale density variations, so if this is a somewhat accurate simulation of larger scale variations you can infer from this what the density variations would be on smaller scales relevant to your question by "zooming in" mentally.

George Smoot: The design of the universe

originally posted by: KrzYma

originally posted by: greenreflections
I am wondering how indeed photon when released is acquiring its speed? What serves as propulsion for emitted quanta?

I know it is crazy but the easiest way I can explain it to myself is that photon is not exactly being emitted. It is being pulled out. Pulled out in a way that an atom to maintain its composure uses force. Force in my vocabulary means something is working against uniform environment sort of. By 'emitting' I would visualize an atom to 'give up', fail to hold any further quanta when an atom can no longer keep it due to, say, changed positive core requests.

In a way, photon is being pulled out. No prolusion is needed to explain the instantaneous gaining speed of photon.

If I assume positive to be a 'trap' for negative where it is using force to acquire (borrow) what it needs to stay as a whole then if "positive" for any reason does not able to keep that negative piece, quanta will be shed into negative sea (sucked in).

There is my photon propulsion mechanism))))

(facepalm) Here it comes, the misconception caused by a theory telling an photon is a real thing.


...
Photon is just a name for something, a term used to describe the interaction between charged particles.
There is nothing "leaving" the atom and traveling to another atom.
EM field propagates, nothing travels and certainly nothing made up like "wave point duality" moves between atoms.
You need to understand that Photon is just a name for something that happens. It is a name for something that delivers the information about change in EM field.

yes, bro, I have a feeling we talk of the same phenomena. I am not implying photon is a material entity. Photon in my books so far is an 'event'.
It has to be postulated or something)))

cheers great board!

wonder if bosons force carriers were first to form?

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: ImaFungi

So then quite obviously he was wondering;

That was not obvious to me.
Thank you for reading his mind for me.

Does it mean you have an educated answer?

a reply to: ImaFungi

Is saying that, only protons and electrons (ignoring gravity, neutrino for a moment) exist, and the concept EM field is unnecessary, and non existent reality of a true thingness;
Which would be arguing that; light does not exist...
Or are you arguing that light = only protons and electrons?
These sorts of thoughts are what led me to initially say, that it seemed like you didnt know what you were talking about.

proton has opposite "direction" compare to electron,
you can also say, electron has 'opposite' direction compare to proton.

doesn't matter how you call it, fact is, both attract they center of charge to each other.
There is only one thing present, the charge field.
Where is a proton ? where the field has charge 1, or direction let say up (up, down, left, right has no meaning here, what is important, proton is the opposite of electron )

simple case example:
take a distance of 1 m, on the one end is the 'center' of an proton, on the other the 'center' of an electron.
The density of the E field is +1 on one end and -1 on the other end. ( +1 and -1 is just a convention to name things )
NOW... this proton is not just on that one end, it is also where the electron is, just not so dense !
1/r2.
And also the electron is where the proton is, just not so dense ( 1/r2 )
if they don't move, there is no light, if they do, EM field will reconfigure.
This 'reconfiguration' is what propagates in all directions, it influences other electrons and protons and you call it then ...the light.

all other things we observe and give names for ( neutrinos, photons, bosons and what not is just 'bigger' or not so 'big' perturbance in EM field)

originally posted by: ImaFungi
a reply to: mbkennel

Ok, so another question I tried to ask him that is relevant;

Make a separate distinction; That which is purely EM itself (EM field/photon/s)

And that which is purely not EM (quarks, electrons, graviton,neutrino etc.)

Is it true that every single *pico planck length* that does not contain quarks, electrons, etc

Contains EM field?



*pico planck length* -

I use this exaggeration to depict the point I am trying to get at, I do not mean whatever that literal bastardized terminology means, but I am pointing towards with this exaggeration the concept of seriously absolutely serious serious please, absolute, tiniest, possible really, smallest true, eternal, possible quantity of 3d absolute space;

Imagine you had any people, or machines floating in space holding hands making a sphere shape; and each second, they each took an equal step inwards toward the center of the sphere, continually making the sphere smaller; Without thinking of physical limitations of material; eventually such a progression would have to end, and those harebrained crack theories of infinite infinitesimal space would be shown to be wrong; For this conceptual vacant quanta of the infinitesimal limit of distinct volume, which conceptually, a finite quantity of these would make up the space of the universe (potentially infinite quantity of these exist beyond the universe, infinite nothingness; but the very fact of spheres being different volumes express the fact that conceptual and real volume is not infinite/infinitesimal... you can not surround an area, and zoom in forever); lets call this type of conceptual space ; *IL* (for *inner limit*; #e name, we will think of a better one) So considering this; my question related;

Non EM/photon takes up real space;

Well of course this gets difficult thinking if the universe is open or closed; because if it is open, that means the edges are constantly overflowing spilling out? And is that similar to potential reason for expansion/accelerated?

If we imagine these neat nice fields packed in the center of the universe; and then consider there is no wall, no material sphere keeping the universe packed; then it is weird to think how the fields might behave at the edges of the universe, like if the fields are these neat nice tapestry, gravity/em... at the edges what is keeping the so neat, would they be frayed?

So regardless;

Non EM/Photon takes up the exact real spaces it takes up (where an electron really exists at any given time, a photon cannot , yes?)

Is every *"inner limit"* full of EM field/photon that is not full of non EM field/photon?

At the subatomic scale you have fields which if nothing else have disturbances or virtual particles and space-time, whatever that turns out to be. But the Planck scale is so much smaller, far below the subatomic scale and just like there is trouble talking about particles as actual solid objects, at that scale space-time and reality runs into the same problem.

Interestingly, at the largest scale, your question about the edges of the universe has a similar problem. Spacetime expands slowly on a local scale, like for galaxies and local clusters of galaxies. But galaxies really far away are moving away from us much faster. They are not expanding, spacetime is. So there is no special place where you live at the "edge" of the Universe. Wherever you are it's the far away regions that are expanding faster. It's not expanding from an "edge" like a supernova would.

a reply to: joelr

The best way to look at it is simply the galaxies don't move much thr space around them expands. Say we could take a tape measure and and spool it from one galaxy to another. You would expect our tape measure to read 1 million light years then two etc as it continued to spool out. But what would happen is we would see no change in distance . You could be perfectly justified in saying that the distance between the galaxies has not changed as time goes on. But wait how can this be ?? Well the answer is are tape measure would have stretched as well with the expansion of space time.

There is no edge or at least we believe there is not one. But even if there was nothing would ever be able to reach it making it a useless question. Even if a galaxy was on the edge of thr universe at the beginning space around it expanded in all directions. Meaning there is no longer an edge near anything.

originally posted by: dragonridr
a reply to: joelr

The best way to look at it is simply the galaxies don't move much thr space around them expands. Say we could take a tape measure and and spool it from one galaxy to another. You would expect our tape measure to read 1 million light years then two etc as it continued to spool out. But what would happen is we would see no change in distance . You could be perfectly justified in saying that the distance between the galaxies has not changed as time goes on.

This astronomer says the same thing but I'd like to see the math on exactly what happens to the tape measure, because its mass won't increase, right? So if the tape measure is longer with no increase in mass what happens to its width, thickness, and density, and how do you calculate that?

curious.astro.cornell.edu... o-intermediate

the tape measure will not unwind at all as the universe expands, because the galaxies are not actually moving with respect to each other! Instead, it will read one billion light-years the whole time. You could be perfectly justified in saying that the distance between the galaxies has not changed as time goes on. When you bring the tape measure back in, however, you will notice something unusual; due to the stretching of space, your tape measure will have stretched as well, and if you compare it to an identical tape measure which you had sitting in your pocket the entire time, you will see that all the tick marks on it are twice as far apart as they used to be.

So he doesn't address the mass of the tape measure or the effect on width, thickness, or density at all. I'm skeptical of this explanation until someone can show me the math for calculating exactly what happens dimensionally to the tape measure in all dimensions, not just length, and how the density has changed. Is he inferring that the interatomic distances of the atoms making up the tape measure changed because of the expansion of space?

(By the way, this analogy of the tape measure is pretty similar to what actually happens to light when it travels between galaxies. When light is emitted from one galaxy and travels through space to another galaxy, during its trip through space it also will be stretched, causing it to have a longer wavelength and therefore causing its color to appear more towards the red end of the spectrum. This is what leads us to see redshifted light when we look at faraway galaxies, and it is measurements of this redshift that allow us to estimate the distances to these galaxies.)

The light stretching I can understand completely, but there are no molecular bonds in light like there are in the tape measure.

I'm not questioning the expansion of the universe, just the accuracy of this tape measure claim. I think part of the reason that space is able to expand is that gravity between galaxies is relatively weak, however, the intermolecular forces in a tape measure are not so weak since EM forces in general (which bind the tape measure atoms) are over a trillion trillion trillion times stronger than gravity.