Scalar Waves

chr0naut

The second sentence in that Wikipedia article refers to objects in the vicinty of the field. If the field were even, all pervasive and continued forever, without limit, then one could not describe any object as "in the vicinity of the field" because all objects would be, and to exactly the same extent.

The confusion you may be having is with the word "indefinitely". You are taking it to mean "infinitely". The word actually means "undefined". Thus the sentence is saying "I can't tell you how far the field reaches, because it is too variable and complex for me to explain".

Hm ok. Well I took that second sentence to mean that electrons are coupled with the field and so cause reactions with it, so the field is most strongly active closer to or in the vicinity of electrons. We are in the vicinity of the field of every electron in every star in the night sky, I must posit, for my measly eye is able to absorb the rippled field from that star, so that must mean either there is an EM field that exists between my eye, and all those stars, and all the galaxies our equipment can detect light from, Or, there is no field, and electrons shoot photon particles from their innards across the universe like projectiles from guns. Or some other theory.

If you hold your two fingers up at a distance of a few inches from one another, does the field reach between them? How does the field appear approaching plancks length?

ImaFungi
reply to post by dragonridr

 

Yes that is interesting but I dont see how it relates to what I was asking. Reading back the last few previous posts of mine I see how dysfunctional my writing has been, In my mind I can clearly see the problems which I am asking and know they are relative, the fundamental problems and curiosities that would plague any physical universal system that exists, and I want to know about the one that does. So I will try to be more clear, and try not to rush my thoughts and pile on the questions, I dont think this forum is going anywhere so I need to take a deep breath. What is the EM field, how does it exist? Are you trying to say the EM field is the vacuum? Or is the EM field its own energetic entity? If it is its own energetic entity, how does it exist, what is it, Do you comprehend the importance of this question and reality in which it seeks to know, and do you know the answer? When I ask, what is it, I mean, if you had to draw it, how would it appear, like if a child were to ask what is an apple, it would help to describe it using sensual data such as taste, and historical data such as its classifications as fruit and plant and how it grows on a tree, but what would also help would be an image of an apple. Like wise, talking about the very real very existent EM field, can you find a good drawing of one? What does the math say the EM field must look like? Are the lines of force associated with it actual lines, like fishing lines, like a quadrillion fishing lines every quantity of space, and the lines go from one side of the universe to the other? Or are these lines really made of particles, so the lines of force arent connected objects?

Ok if you understood what i posted earlier about how the act of a particle moving at the speed of light causes an em field will move on to describing it because your trying to figure out what it is. So lets talk about light or photons. Light is an electromagnetic wave and electromagnetic energy as well as EM radiation all are the same. They are all related if you know one of these measurements you can find all three. So now think of a photon as energy being transferred from point a to b. We can measure the energy its frequency or its wave length. These waves are its em field it is energy radiating outward as a photon or electron travel at the speed of light. Remember i used the sound barrier example earlier where that bubble doesnt exist until our plane reaches the speed of sound. Until are particle is moving at the speed of light there is no EM field.So at its most basic an em field is a side effect of a particle moving at the speed of light. How it forms well it forms from 2 waves the first one is formed by the particle electron for example moving in one direction. This also forms a magnetic wave at a 90 degree angle to direction of travel in an electron or light 90 degress from its polarization. Think two waves moving along a path one up down one left right the vibration of these two is it field. Im going to look later if i can find some pictures to help you see this part. But from what im reading your thinking of it as a physical force in and of itself its not its a property.

ImaFungiHm ok. Well I took that second sentence to mean that electrons are coupled with the field and so cause reactions with it, so the field is most strongly active closer to or in the vicinity of electrons. We are in the vicinity of the field of every electron in every star in the night sky, I must posit, for my measly eye is able to absorb the rippled field from that star, so that must mean either there is an EM field that exists between my eye, and all those stars, and all the galaxies our equipment can detect light from, Or, there is no field, and electrons shoot photon particles from their innards across the universe like projectiles from guns. Or some other theory.

If you hold your two fingers up at a distance of a few inches from one another, does the field reach between them? How does the field appear approaching plancks length?

I think that the strength of your visualization is keeping you from seeing things differently, so I'll take a different tack and see if I can clarify things.

If we look at the case of a DC generator, stripped bare of all the extras, it is a coil of wire that moves relative to a magnetic field. As the magnetic field moves past the wire, it induces the electrons to organize in the wire, producing a differential of electrons between opposite ends of the wire. When we measure the voltage difference between the ends of the wire we siphon off a few of those electrons through our meter and it indicates a potential difference.

We could say that a changing magnetic field induces an unchanging electric field that in turn causes the electrons in the wire to organize.

Going the other way, an electromagnet is exactly the reverse of the generator. If we place a differential of electrons at each end of a piece of wire, they flow through the wire creating an electric field because of the current flow. This changing electric field produces a static magnetic field.

The physical relationship between the electric and magnetic fields can best be illustrated with what is called the ''right-hand rule". If you took a piece of wire and closed your right hand around it, and the current in the wire ran in the direction in which your thumb points, then the magnetic field created would wrap the wire like your fingers and would flow in the direction that your fingers point.

If you look at the spatial arrangement, the electric field going along the wire creates a magnetic field going across the wire at 90 degrees to it. In this example the magnetic field appears to rotate about the electric one, but using the principle of relativity, they both move relative to each other at 90 degrees. This is especially the case in free space.

Note also that magnetic fields have "field lines" (spatial concentrations of magnetic force) that make any description of how they move and are shaped a difficult task. It mostly relates to the fact that magnetic fields are self repulsive. So are electric fields.

So, we now have a few facts about electromagnetism that we can apply:
- A changing magnetic field induces an electric field.
- A changing electric field induces a magnetic field.
- These fields 'move' at 90 degrees to each other.
- Magnetic fields repulse similar magnetic fields and attract dissimilar magnetic fields.
- Electric fields repulse similar electric fields and attract dissimilar electric fields.

So, in the case of starlight, extreme temperature causes an atom to 'glow', producing light (electromagnetic waves) by photoelectric effect (Einstein produced a brilliant paper on this before he had done any work on relativity). This light travels in the space between stars where there is no (or very little) matter and field strengths are low (i.e: there is no appreciable medium).

EM waves do not carry electrons with them, or require a medium to 'wave' and they only travel at light speed - these are observed things.

The magnetic field, with no "particle" to support it, collapses in free space. This causes a change in the magnetic field. A changing magnetic field induces an electric field. This field, without any external support also collapses, producing a change in the electric field. A changing electric field induces a magnetic field and this cycle, as it is loss-less, repeats forever or until something (like the receptors in our eye) obstructs the path of the EM wave packet.

We know that the wave's components will physically be at 90 degrees from each other and that the way they 'step around' each other follows the right-hand rule.

I think that this may help you understand EM from a different perspective.

chr0naut



So, in the case of starlight, extreme temperature causes an atom to 'glow', producing light (electromagnetic waves) by photoelectric effect (Einstein produced a brilliant paper on this before he had done any work on relativity). This light travels in the space between stars where there is no (or very little) matter and field strengths are low (i.e: there is no appreciable medium).

EM waves do not carry electrons with them, or require a medium to 'wave' and they only travel at light speed - these are observed things.

Thank you for taking the time to create that informative post. So, extreme temperatures, atom glows, meaning its electrons are accelerated causing a disturbance in the near by EM field? The light travels in the space... Before the extreme temperatures where is the light? Let me be clear on what im wondering and asking; How does an accelerated electron create an electromagnetic wave, before it creates the wave where is the potential wave, does EM wave come from the electron, or does it come from some essence surrounding the electron? If it comes from the electron itself, then that is like a baseball coming from a pitcher, or a chip of paint coming from a car, a separable object being ejected, but I was under the impression this is not what physicists believe occurs, they dont picture the electron to contain an infinite number of photons within itself that whenever the electron gets accelerated it cant help it self but to shoot some out. I was under the impression that there was an EM field, which only the electrons could interact with or disturb, and when an electron was disturbed, the field, surrounding the electron took on the characteristics of the electrons disturbance, in the form of a wave of frequency and length. So either the potential field exists between the sun and earth, like an ocean or a gigilion strings or lines of force, and when the electrons in the sun shake violently, the EM field surrounding the sun absorbs that electron energy and sends it outward...or there is no EM field between the sun and earth, every electron has an infinite quantity of photons, and when the electrons in the sun are shaken, the electrons shoot photons, and those photons travel to earth. If neither of those views are correct, what is the correct view?

reply to post by ImaFungi


The photon doesn't drop out of the electron. It's a result of the electron changing energy levels (in this case). That creates the photon, with an energy level equivalent to the difference in states.

I understand your confusion - you're visualizing the electron crapping out a photon physically like a rabbit dropping a pellet, but it doesn't work that way. And part of it is you seem to be sort of spinning around some terminology aspects that are confusing you - sort of like the old saw about where was the guy when he jumped off the bridge. English isn't good for describing this sort of thing. So you end up with a terminology issue - if he's still got a foot on the bridge he hasn't jumped yet, but if he has no contact then he's already jumped, there isn't a precise term for the instant of jumping, but "when he jumped" seems to imply there is, so you can drive kids crazy with the ambiguity.

There are worse things about it you haven't considered yet, that bothered the eggheads when they first realized what was happening. One is, the photon is generally "bigger" in terms of the wave created than the atom. Much, much bigger. How does that happen? And even worse, how does the photon "know" what wavelength/energy to be, before the electron completes the drop in energy? When exactly does the photon emerge? At the beginning? As the electron drops? During the drop? At the end? Each opens up weirder possibilities.

Bedlam


There are worse things about it you haven't considered yet, that bothered the eggheads when they first realized what was happening. One is, the photon is generally "bigger" in terms of the wave created than the atom. Much, much bigger. How does that happen? And even worse, how does the photon "know" what wavelength/energy to be, before the electron completes the drop in energy? When exactly does the photon emerge? At the beginning? As the electron drops? During the drop? At the end? Each opens up weirder possibilities.

Lol, no I was of the belief that the photon is not shot out, which is why I was surprised when chronaut said that there was no em field that exists everywhere, because if there is no em field that the electron disrupts,how does the photon get to earth from the sun? If it is not shot out, then must it be the ripple of a field, and must this field exist everywhere, if the field only exists around the electron, that is the same idea as the electron projecting its own energy outwards, and arises questions of how its energy field exists in stability around it, action at a distance, is it touching it, what is it made of, when the electron is vibrated how does this singular ring of energy bubble shoot out across the universe. So I thought the consensus was that there is an EM field that exists everywhere in the universe, that is coupled to electrons, like buoys are coupled to the ocean, and like the wave of a buoy here can disturb a buoy over there, via the medium or field of water.

Your questions are quite intuitive to me if the Em field is a 3d medium/substance (keeping mind of a previously un imaginable nature, in terms of time of reaction, and weirdly being composed of 2 aspects E and B) And a mass is disturbed while in that substance, I can imagine some type of substance absorbing the energy of the disturbed mass, just like a dropped stone in a pond, the "photon" or wave function created is larger then the stone. And this I think is where E=mc^2 comes into affect, just becuase the electron appears to be a certain size, and when disturbed the energy associated appears larger in size, says nothing of the energy, or mass equivalence contained in the electrons essence, this just says that the light field is subtle and sensitive, and that a slight movement of a tiny mass of electron, contains relatively a lot of radiating power. The e=mc2 part is probably if you measured all the energy in the radiation, you can find out the rest mass of the electron, and also the energy used to accelerate the electron.

reply to post by ImaFungi


The wave propagates by itself. It doesn 't need any sort of field to wave through as sound needs air.

reply to post by Bedlam


Where does the wave come from/arise from, what is it made of? If it doesnt come from the electron, when the wave is created, where is it coming from? Outside of the electron, surrounding it?

ImaFungiThank you for taking the time to create that informative post. So, extreme temperatures, atom glows, meaning its electrons are accelerated causing a disturbance in the near by EM field? The light travels in the space... Before the extreme temperatures where is the light? Let me be clear on what im wondering and asking; How does an accelerated electron create an electromagnetic wave, before it creates the wave where is the potential wave, does EM wave come from the electron, or does it come from some essence surrounding the electron? If it comes from the electron itself, then that is like a baseball coming from a pitcher, or a chip of paint coming from a car, a separable object being ejected, but I was under the impression this is not what physicists believe occurs, they dont picture the electron to contain an infinite number of photons within itself that whenever the electron gets accelerated it cant help it self but to shoot some out. I was under the impression that there was an EM field, which only the electrons could interact with or disturb, and when an electron was disturbed, the field, surrounding the electron took on the characteristics of the electrons disturbance, in the form of a wave of frequency and length. So either the potential field exists between the sun and earth, like an ocean or a gigilion strings or lines of force, and when the electrons in the sun shake violently, the EM field surrounding the sun absorbs that electron energy and sends it outward...or there is no EM field between the sun and earth, every electron has an infinite quantity of photons, and when the electrons in the sun are shaken, the electrons shoot photons, and those photons travel to earth. If neither of those views are correct, what is the correct view?

OK, so you are wanting to know about the instant where the EM wave is produced.

Before I go on and give you more word picture metaphors to explain things, I'll just say this: The standard way we describe Physics (which we usually can't see directly) is with a mathematical description. The word pictures (and sometimes our own mental images) we use are really only metaphors that describe what it is like by relating it with stuff we are familiar with. If you really want to understand the actual physics without encumbering it in with stuff that only makes the picture sensible, but is really irrelevant and does not actually relate, you have to get into the maths. The mathematical description is the truth stripped bare and can also give actual values for things, something the metaphors cannot really do.

OK, back to the description. An atom can be visualized as a nucleus of 'bits of stuff' surrounded by some different stuff that we call electrons. The nucleus is held together by the strong nuclear force. For the purposes of our metaphor, the electrons are an indistinct probability cloud of 'stuff' that sits at a certain distances from the nucleus like enclosing spherical shells. The electrons are held in place by the weak nuclear force. The number of electron charges, and their spacing from the nucleus is tightly controlled according to certain rules. Here is a link to a Simple Wikipedia article on Electron Shells.

When we apply energy to an atom, it absorbs, and briefly stores the energy. The way it absorbs the energy into the fairly rigid structure of the atom is by changing the angular momentum of the electrons, which has the effect of 'boosting' the radius at which the electrons sit from the nucleus. It does this in discrete steps, not in an analogue way. If the energy applied is not quite enough to push the electrons into the next subshell orbit, then the electrons don't change. This is part of the quantum nature of the electrons and the shell positions can be though of stable steps of energy through which the electrons can pass.

Note that these shells and subshells are finite and as you reach the higher subshells, the stability of things become increasingly 'wobbly'. The effect is that energy gets re-emitted when the electron shells collapse back to more stable territory and each 'step' emits a photon of energy. The main way this energy is expressed is as an electromagnetic wave.

The moving electric field as the electron collapses from one subshell to another induces a magnetic field, at 90 degrees to it and this magnetic field, now spatially detached from the atom cannot sustain and so collapses, which is a changing magnetic field, which, in turn induces an electric field which also cannot sustain so it collapses, which is a changing electric field, which induces a magnetic field and so on ad infinitum...

Note that the re-emitted energy is not the same as the input energy. The emitted energy relates to the structure of the electron shells and subshells. In this way, different atomic structures have different features to their emitted energy. This is why we can determine determine the chemical structure of compounds by heating them up and looking at their emitted spectrum in a gas chromatagraph.

If you continue to apply energy to the atom, beyond what can be stored in the electron shells and subshells, the atom will set up an oscillation between its electron shell states that determines the color (frequency) of the output EM as well as the number of photons (amplitude).

Of course... maths!

chr0naut

Note that these shells and subshells are finite and as you reach the higher subshells, the stability of things become increasingly 'wobbly'. The effect is that energy gets re-emitted when the electron shells collapse back to more stable territory and each 'step' emits a photon of energy. The main way this energy is expressed is as an electromagnetic wave.

The moving electric field as the electron collapses from one subshell to another induces a magnetic field, at 90 degrees to it and this magnetic field, now spatially detached from the atom cannot sustain and so collapses, which is a changing magnetic field, which, in turn induces an electric field which also cannot sustain so it collapses, which is a changing electric field, which induces a magnetic field and so on ad infinitum...

To be more simple could we have discussed the EM radiation event of atomless electrons, though it is ok, I am thankful as it is for you taking the time to answer me.

I get this stuff, I have known and came across this description the first day I began looking into the progress of physics. You say 'the moving electric field as the electron collapses', where is this electric field, is it attached to the electron, does it exist immediately on the electron, or a few planck lengths away from it, does the electric field exist cm or inches away from the electron before the electron collapses? I originally used the example of a free electron being accelerated because the creates EM radiation does it not, and is simpler then evoking the situation including the atom.

Note that the re-emitted energy is not the same as the input energy. The emitted energy relates to the structure of the electron shells and subshells. In this way, different atomic structures have different features to their emitted energy. This is why we can determine determine the chemical structure of compounds by heating them up and looking at their emitted spectrum in a gas chromatagraph.

If you continue to apply energy to the atom, beyond what can be stored in the electron shells and subshells, the atom will set up an oscillation between its electron shell states that determines the color (frequency) of the output EM as well as the number of photons (amplitude).

Of course... maths!

edit on 20/12/2013 by chr0naut because: Small corrections

Ok swell. I am really only curious in what the EM field is, if it exists, if it exists how it exists, how does the electron create EM radiation, where is the EM radiation coming from, the physical EM radiation, what is that made of and where is it coming from, how is the electron attached to it and causing it?

Nature exists before math, and nature is not numbers, nature is things. Math, in physics, is numbers and letters and symbols that attempt at =ing the things of nature. If there is no image or thing describable entity or mechanism that goes along with the numbers, the symbols, then you arent properly comprehending what the numbers are symbolizing. The universe is the image of an electron vibrating and em radiation being the result, the math is this event symbolized, thus, the math should be able to be used to create a symbolic image of an electron vibrating and em radiation being the result.

ImaFungi
Nature exists before math, and nature is not numbers, nature is things. Math, in physics, is numbers and letters and symbols that attempt at =ing the things of nature. If there is no image or thing describable entity or mechanism that goes along with the numbers, the symbols, then you arent properly comprehending what the numbers are symbolizing.

A lot of people who aren't that good at math or skilled with physics say that, because they haven't had to deal with the sorts of concepts you can only do well in math. But the sad fact is, English is not perfect. No spoken language is. Math is good at describing some things that you can't easily state in words, or draw in pictures. And the higher the math is, the worse that gets. When you get into field theory, it becomes really tough to describe things in simple English, because English doesn't cut it for describing that sort of thing. Describing curl, gradient, or divergence to you in easy one or two syllable phrases or a fast Paint drawing isn't going to happen. I had a lot of people try to explain convolution in English. It just confused me worse until one day I "got it", then I could see what the equations were doing. But the English descriptions didn't really help at all, because they don't fit what's happening very well.

Math is just another way of stating things. And it's good at some things, and bad at others. Physics is a thing it's good at. Poetry, not so much.

eta: For example. English is not very good at describing sensory inputs, except as analogies. Go to the fridge. Randomly choose something, taste it, and describe that taste to us unambiguously, only with the following restrictions - you can't relate it to any other food. You can't say "it tastes sort of like..." at all. You can't describe it in terms of something else you've tasted or smelled, or similarities to other foods. You have to exactly describe the taste using only adjectives. "cheesy" or "meat like" or the like are out.

Now, take that difficulty, and expand the complexity of what you're trying to describe four or five orders of magnitude, and that's how you'll be doing explaining a z-transform or a Fourier series exactly and unambiguously to a layman in english, with no referral to other maths.

reply to post by ImaFungi


I think i understand a way for you to grasp what you want to know and we can talk about whati believe is the greatest discovery science ever made. A man by the name of James Clerk Maxwell was the inventor of photography but he became interested in electricity. So he quickly realized there was a link between electricity and magnetism. This wasnt a difficult to understand he knew if you pass a magnet over a wire you get electricity and if you pass electricity through a wire you get magnetism. So he knew they were connected and then it hit him he realized that there were EM waves and they were not separate but indeed were just 1 thing.



Then his real stroke of genius kicked in through experiment he determined EM waves move at the speed of light and as i said having done experiments with light realized light itself is an EM wave. This leads us to maxwells equations which is used in space-time formulations in general relativity i already explained how space time distortions create the illusion of a magnetic field. It is also used in quantum mechanics to show electric and magnetic potentials.Now we know his equations are not fundamental laws of the universe but more accurately a precursor or approximation of the theory of quantum electrodynamics. This is where your getting confused. You see an EM field as you mentioned photons emitting photons and your just not understanding how but this is almost right. So lets look an electron is known as an exchange force remember in order to have an electric current energy has to be able to transfer in a wire from one electron to the next. The electron isnt actually leaving its atom and going to the next one energy is being transferred by a magnetic field through a virtual photon. This virtual photons dont really exist until enery in space time causes us to see them. Where they transfer energy to the next electron through interaction. Now i know you understand virtual particles we have discussed this before. But i want you to notice something do you see in the picture i posted how we have a magnetic spike then electric than magnetic and so on see how one propagates the other. This is why when we say am EM wave it is nothing but a transfer of energy which in its movement must create a magnetic field. Does this explain it better?

reply to post by Bedlam


Im not asking for a MS paint image. Im wondering if in the past 100 years all the brilliant physicists who so clearly view how an EM field exists, and how when an electron is accelerated em radiation is created, in their minds due to their comprehension of math; im wondering if any of them have had the time to use any program more advanced then MS paint to put the symbols back into reality form, which is physicality, imagery is symbol of a true nature, a true physicality. If I know an apple by sight, and you know it by math, thats great we both know a bit about an apple. I know a little about an electron, I know that its thought when one is accelerated EM radiation is created, I attempt at imagining these things yes analogously, you succeed at imagining these things via the symbolic architecture of math. Has no physicst been able to successfully transfer their comprehension of the math, of an electron being accelerated and creating EM radiation, into what the math says the reality of this activity must appear as?

I said this "ImaFungi
Nature exists before math, and nature is not numbers, nature is things. Math, in physics, is numbers and letters and symbols that attempt at =ing the things of nature." Do you agree with these statements? Would you agree that reality is not math, as in reality is not 2 d squiggly symbols (or do you think it is?)? Would you then agree that a reality exists, in which the best discovered way to comprehend that reality, is by transferring real physical data from senses and instruments and experiments into symbols/math? So would you agree that the math which physicists absorb from nature, in an attempt to capture nature and truth, would you agree that math = a real physical nature that exists, real things, like apples and electrons and em radiation? Then would you agree that if you cannot describe or illustrate what the math says the physical and real reality must =, then the math is incomplete and you do not truly comprehend the answers to the questions I have been asking?

dragonridr
The electron isnt actually leaving its atom and going to the next one energy is being transferred by a magnetic field through a virtual photon. This virtual photons dont really exist until energy in space time causes us to see them.

Sorry but that does not explain it better. I have been very clear multiple times what I want to know, you have been skirting around the question and issue, and always changing your own perception and understanding and theories.

An electron is traveling in a large vacuum, we have another electron in a gun, and we fire it towards the electron traveling at a steady velocity in the large vacuum. As detailed as you can, as the two electrons approach one another (for this example they dont collide) what occurs? Im hoping this scenario I provided, an electron passing closely by another, alters their momentum and velocity resulting in EM radiation, I am not concerned with the story of what occurs with both of them, if you can focus on the acceleration of one of the electrons, and subsequent creation of EM radiation I will be thrilled. As detailed, and nanoscopic, and slow as possible, describe what exists in that space, any field there might be, how the fields might appear and change as the electrons near one another, what and when causes the EM radiation to come into existence, where it exactly is coming from, (I know you say virtual photons, so is this a virtual photon field...are you really trying to beat around the bush from admiting that the EM field or photon field or virtual photon field is a medium?) etc. My last 6 posts or so, these questions I just asked in this post, is all I wanted to know, please read this post line by line, question by question, and answer them to the best of your ability. These are the same questions I have been asking for the last 6 posts or so, if you had answered them prior, I would not even be in this thread any more, so if you take the time to answer them, we wont have to prolong this back and forth, rehashing the same things.

reply to post by ImaFungi





Well these are fun to play with and it will even show how alot of what we talked about through interactive computer simulations! Here is an overview of all they have great for trying to understand all kinds of principles.they are written in java and small.

phet.colorado.edu...

And this one is more specific you can actually se the waves forming as they get further away from a radiating charge.



phet.colorado.edu...

reply to post by dragonridr


Thanks thats pretty cool. How come before the E is moved, there are those lines coming out of it extending in multiple directions, what are those, is that field lines, do those actually exist in reality?

ImaFungi
reply to post by dragonridr

 

Thanks thats pretty cool. How come before the E is moved, there are those lines coming out of it extending in multiple directions, what are those, is that field lines, do those actually exist in reality?

Well yes when an electron is standing still it still has a negative charge. Everything involving energy has a positive or negative charge and what we are seeing is field lines. Notice when you move the e at the speed of light it forces them at right angles to direction of travel. Slower they are equally distributed around are energetic particle. The only time we see these effect is when we cause the particle to either vibrate or make it move faster than light.Thats what i meant by an electromagnetic field being an illusion. Only through a distortion of space time do we see this.

reply to post by dragonridr


What are the field lines, are they illusion? What are they made of, and how far do they extend in each direction? Is has been proven that each electron only has a small quantity of field lines attached to it? Id love to see the same simulation in 3-d.

reply to post by Mary Rose


Thank You for the thread Mary Rose

From this thread I think

A scalar wave is the oscillation of some physical property in a medium. The guitar string is a good example. The guitar string, when plucked, moves in one dimension, from a frequency point of view. Magnitude is one dimensional, bigger or smaller.

A wave in water could be called scalar because although the wave crest moves away, the water particles only move up and down, like the guitar string.

Nerve cells propagate a depolarization wave along their length, which is actually a scalar wave of chemical reaction.

Electric polarity at a specific point in an AC wire could be considered as a scalar wave as it changes from positive to negative and back to positive etc.

Transverse waves are all electromagnetic radiation

Longitudinal waves are pressure waves. They are scalar wave creations, perceived as moving objects, which need a medium in order to propagate. Sound waves are longitudinal waves.

I remember some confusion about waves by trying to directly use their definitions. Scalar wave sounds like an oxymoron.

Semicollegiate
reply to post by Mary Rose

 

The guitar string is a good example. The guitar string, when plucked, moves in one dimension, from a frequency point of view. Magnitude is one dimensional, bigger or smaller.

A guitar string is a transverse wave. It's a special case of a transverse wave on a bounded medium, and so, unlike many transverse waves, can have standing waves.

A wave in water could be called scalar because although the wave crest moves away, the water particles only move up and down, like the guitar string.

Waves within the bulk of the water are longitudinal waves (sound). When you have waves of this nature on the surface of a medium, the waves on the top of the water are something called a Rayleigh surface wave which is a combination of both transverse and longitudinal wave.

Nerve cells propagate a depolarization wave along their length, which is actually a scalar wave of chemical reaction.

It's actually a transverse wave of ion transport.

Electric polarity at a specific point in an AC wire could be considered as a scalar wave as it changes from positive to negative and back to positive etc.

It's a transverse wave of electric potential.

Transverse waves are all electromagnetic radiation

There are a lot of examples of transverse waves or combinations of transverse and longitudinal waves in physical media.

Longitudinal waves are pressure waves They are scalar wave creations, perceived as moving objects, which need a medium in order to propagate. Sound waves are longitudinal waves.

I remember some confusion about waves by trying to directly use their definitions. Scalar wave sounds like an oxymoron.

There are no scalar waves.