ELECTRICITY/ MAGNETISM/ PARTICLES/ WAVES, Pre-discussions for TOE answers

Hi!

This thread is for discussing the nature/mechanisms of ELECTRICITY/MAGNETISM/PARTICLES/WAVES etc. in preparation for answering the questions in the "THEORY OF EVERYTHING BEGUN FROM ABSOLUTE CONCEPT" thread's relevant-STAGE QUESTION & ANSWER SESSIONS. Hopefully participants will use this thread to introduce/refine their insights/answers in these areas. Thanks.

RealityCheck.
.

This needs to start somewhere .. here goes..

QM = Quantum mechanics
ER = Einstein's relativity

Electricity.. flow of electrons

Electrostatic Force .. QM .. exchange of virtual photons
Electrostatic Force .. ER .. just happens ???

Magnetism.. QM .. exchange of virtual photons
Magnetism.. ER .. interchangeable with electrostatic force by change of frame of reference

Particles (with mass) QM .. can only be located with a degree of uncertainty - prone to changing into other particles/photons etc.

Particles (with mass) ER .. sensible sort of size, generally considered well behaved

Waves.. QM .. no such thing - probability is the best you'll get
Waves.. ER .. generally electromagnetic and well behaved until you look at the fine detail

etc.. ??? enough problems already

Comments suggestions welcome.
As many of the above are contraversial I would suggest picking one and sticking with the first post until Reality_Check moves us on - I hope that seems OK.

If I come under heavy fire I plan to edit in the new and obviously more sensible suggestions partly so I don't look completely stupid and partly to give newcomers a better start to the thread..

-C2

For the sake of supposition... "What if" all the seemingly different charges associated with particles became (on an atomic level) differences of potential. This is possible in a mechanical model. The results remain the same. The question then would become: What is the nature of the force that dictates mass/energy equivalence, seeming attraction and repulsion and relative particle size?

For sake of being specific about the phenomena we're referring to, let's call it current, and generalize to a flow of charged particles.

AFAIK, General Relativity (GR) is based on Maxwell's theories/laws of electromagnetics. These were based on the idea that there was a medium (call it aether, call it spacetime, it's a horse apiece), which charged matter interacts with in specific ways. EM in Maxwell's theories were very similar to gravity in Einstein's GR. Spacetime has an inherent "stretchiness" to it. Charged matter warps it in special ways, and this warping affects how charged matter and EM energy moves and flows.

I'd like to propose that we consider doing away with terminology like "aether" and "spacetime" (just a euphemism for aether) and just say that the "fields" and "forces" we see actually are the medium. The attraction of giving a special set apart name for spacetime is to have a "background", something to set our phenomena in, but something that they don't atually interact with. It's just sort of a mental crutch for our visual type of thinking. It's really just semantics. And it seems to be the point that both Maxwell and Einstein were heading toward in their theories. It's not exactly groundbreaking, and doesn't really introduce new physics. But it might help unshackle us from some of the chains of predisposition.

Hi Waterbreath,

I think I should edit in static electricity - stationary charge
and current electricity - moving charge .. I'll do it in one hit in case there's more to come.

I should make clear I am not here as a result of any clear conclusions of my own..

I fear these aethers are going to be extremely troublesome.

I propose we commence with electrostatic attraction/repulsion

With 3d + t and t already used for 'gravity' in ER aether there's not much left to warp or stretch (or is there?) . As far as I know it is generally considered that the force between between charged bodies/particles is considered to be a 'property' of space - the epsilon bit if you like - is that it? Stretchiness.. could you do a bit of hand waving here? Would it not be nice to go 'predictive' on this thread..?

A competing QM aether is full of virtual photons which are responsible for electrostatic force. To what extent these are metaphorical and to what extent 'literal' I'm not sure. It is reasonable to suppose that a system has to have some way of asserting 'this is my quantum state' so it and the universe can respond to a change (or resist a change) in that quantum state. With the increasing popularity of entangled quantum states it's becoming rather less than obvious quite how 'this is my quantum state' is really asserted and/or communicated. Entangled quantum states could turn out to be another cold fusion - at the moment I'm waiting for duplication of results from independent sources before accepting that this is a wave which will change 'everything'.

I am not qualified to comment on any explanation which alternative aethers may offer.

Jaro - if you are really interested in the project I suggest you show your commitment by registering on the site - present your views for consideration either as 'puzzling questions' or 'new theories' - and then bring the results here.
Best wishes, C2.

Sounds good.

Nor am I. I have to admit I am here largely for selfish reasons. I initially came to PhysOrg to be a fly on the wall and maybe learn something about accepted theory.

I generally try to stay away from being predictive, if for no other reason than that I don't know accepted theory in most cases well enough to avoid an idea that conflicts with past experimental result. But to clarify what I was going after with the stretchiness idea... the epsilon and the mu, permittity and permeability, act as, in my own terminology "constants of stretchiness" to express how a region will interact with EM energy/forces. It determines the amount of charge or EM energy it takes to warp space to produce a given force or an EM wave of a given frequency. As with the GR curvature of space, it's not an invariant property, because it changes in the presence of matter: the epsion and mu are different inside a crystal, for example, because of the EM properties and spacing of the atoms/molecules in the lattice.

This business of virtual photons is one of the areas of QM that I understand the least. I have a gut feeling that they are an artifact of inadequate mathematical models. Models that are "good enough" because they get the right answers in the end, but may be misleading about what is happening "in between". Feynman would tell us to "shut up and calculate", but I'm not interested in calculating. I'm interested in knowing the "how" and "why", in addition to the "what".

But anyway, I have no foundation on which to develop that gut feeling into something more substantial. I have yet to find a good free resource from which to get a good understanding of the deeper complexities of QM. And I have avoided buying books for fear they would turn out to be either fluff, or to assume that the book will be read in a school environment, where the book's flaws can be smoothed over by an "expert" professor. Possibly my less-than-ideal math background puts me hopelessly between those two options no matter what.

A real good book for you, or any of us, is "Road to Reality" by Roger Penrose. Nothing can top it for this project, in my opinion.

He starts with math, but explaining math, if you can imagine. This guy, sitting at the top of the physics and mathematics world, writes this 1100 page tome for people who want to, but have found no way to effectively gain an understanding and appreciation for the mathematical view of physics. It's great.

As for electrical, magnetic and gravitational subjects, I think we should start with what's wrong with current ideas; that is, look for contradictions. For instance, the electrical theory of matter, contradicts the theory of electricity, so it should give us some clues as to how not to think about these things. The charged electron that coexists with the oppositely charged proton, for instance, in the nuclear theory of the atom, is not easily removed from it, as indicated by the ionization energy required to separate it from the atom. Yet, the same electron is easily moved through a conductor by a small difference of potential.

The current of electrons flowing through the conductor easily passes through the spaces between the atoms of the crystal, but cannot escape into the completely free space of the surrounding environment. Something is really mysterious about all this.

Then there is Catt's anomaly. This should really give us pause, because it ties right in with the same model of the electron that causes the grief described above. Ivor Catt has challenged the entire intellectual community to explain how a charge can travel to the end of a transmission line (segment of a capacitor) at the speed of light. Of course, it can't and everyone knows it, yet the charge is there as soon as the pulse gets there. So, where does it come from? (see: http://www.electromagnetism.demon.co.uk/catanoi.htm)

The top dogs just ignore him, hoping that he will just go away, but his challenge is something tailor made for a project like this. However, we need to understand that the mishmash of current ideas have led modern science to a "period of utter confusion," in the words of David Gross. Therefore, this is the prime indication that "something fundament is missing" and that all indications are that it has to do with the nature of space and time. So, maybe this thread is premature, if it is thought of as a place to discuss new theories of electrical and magnetic phenomena.

We should use it to gather the failures of current theory (no pun intended).

Excal

Hi Excal

The post by Good Elf "The nature of "electricity" & "magnetism", are bubbles the answer?" may provide the answers you seek. Look closely at the model for an electron "Is the electron a photon with Toroidal Topology".

The model has both a magnetic field and an electric field at the same time, orientated at right angles to each other. There is also a spin involved. Think of the electron as having two poles one magnetic and one electric. The magnetic pole has a top and bottom orientated with the spin. The electric field has an inside and an outside. The electron has the negative to the outside while the positron has the positive to the outside.

Magnets are formed from materials where the electron is bound in the atom so the electric fields between the electrons and the nucleus contain the electric pole and only allow the magnetic pole to contribute to the overall magnetic field.

Electric conduction involves free electrons. An electric potential will cause the electron's electric pole to align with the applied electric field. The electrons have little mass so they can flip into alignment very quickly. The alignment of electric fields along with the speed of field propagation (permittivity of the conductor) in the conductor is what gives rise to near speed of light conduction.

This also explains the "right hand rule" for magnetic fields around conductors.

Moving electrons have collisions which generate heat.

Hi All,

I really like excal's idea of using this thread to isolate the problems. Hopefully one day we can start plugging in possible answers to those problems.

A lot of electromagnetism is covered in the puzzling questions thread - The nature of electricity and magnetism.
I've started one for Electrostatic attraction - hopefully concentrating specifically on the field, nothing more. A new Catt Anomaly thread (excal??) would give a further insight into problems relating to guided EM .



Best wishes, C2.

Thanks for the book recommendation. I will try to check it out.

They can escape. That's how the cathod ray tube (wikipedia link) in a TV or a computer monitor works. Electron "boil-off".

As far as why it is "easier" for them to stick to the surface of the conductor instead of pop off altogether, this I do not know. It could simply be a matter of attraction. Free electrons in a conductor that is passing a current will repel each other as far as possible, to accumulate on the surface of the conductor. This leaves behind a core of positive charge density. If I had to guess, I'd say this net positive charge tends to hold them on a bit tighter, rather than allow them to pop off.... But that's just my pure logic guess.

Never heard of the Catt Anomaly before. I looked into it a bit and found it hinges on the concept of "displacement current". I have to admit that I don't remember ever learning about that before either, in any of the EM physics or electrical engineering classes I had in college. But, it has been a few years, so maybe I just don't remember. I will have to go back and check my textbooks and notes to see if we were taught in terms of "displacement current". But it seems to me we were simply taught that "changing electric fields create magnetic fields" as a fundamental phenomenon. Reading the Wikipedia page on Catt, it seems he claims a deeper explanation even than that... If this page is to be believed, it seems the EM physics community is divided with respect to Catt's ideas.

We might want to take a look at his proposals for possible insight in this discussion. The Wikipedia page briefly mentions them toward the bottom, and contains links to other pages on the topic.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ivor_Catt

I agree. It seems that picking at old flaws would be a good way to start looking for new answers.

Of course they can escape given enough energy, but that's not the point. The theory of electrical current views the electrons as moving through the interstices between the atoms of the conductor, but if they can easily move through the spaces between the atoms, then why not through the spaces between the outside atoms of the conductor? The explanation usually given is that there is a potential barrier keeping them from escaping and thus the idea of "boiling-off" electrons is compared to "boiling-off" molecules from a liquid.

However, there is a big difference between the escape of molecules that cohere to one another and the escape of charged electrons that actually repel one another. It seems more likely that it would be almost impossible to keep charged electrons confined to a conductor rather than having to supply enough energy to "boil-off" these critters. Something's not right in suburbia.

Of course they can escape given enough energy, but that's not the point. The theory of electrical current views the electrons as moving through the interstices between the atoms of the conductor, but if they can easily move through the spaces between the atoms, then why not through the spaces between the outside atoms of the conductor? The explanation usually given is that there is a potential barrier keeping them from escaping and thus the idea of "boiling-off" electrons is compared to "boiling-off" molecules from a liquid.

However, there is a big difference between the escape of molecules that cohere to one another and the escape of charged electrons that actually repel one another. It seems more likely that it would be almost impossible to keep charged electrons confined to a conductor rather than having to supply enough energy to "boil-off" these critters. Something's not right in suburbia.

Hi Excal, everyone.

Long time no speak, Excal! How's things?

I know what you mean about the difference between the 'ends' and the 'surfaces' regarding ELECTRON ejection.

I have also pondered that and have some time ago arrived at the following observation/hypothesis...

The Electrons being boiled off the electrode 'end' are being 'caught up' in the 'space current' (displacement current) set up BETWEEN the +/- ELECTRODE 'ENDS' however far apart those are 'across' so-called 'empty' space. Whereas....

For Electrons to 'fly off' the surfaces, IN THE ABSENCE OF SUCH A CURRENT which could carry them away from the conductor, will require some actual 'particle' (NOT CURRENT) to change their 'binding/associating' configuration/size etc, so that they are 'expelled' by virtue of the 'impinging' particle/component making the existing situation 'unbalanced/unstable' enough so that the Electron easily dissociates from the parent metal atom/crystal (much as an impinging Neutron changes the configuration/size of certain nuclei so that they either expel another Neutron and/or 'fission').

Anyhow, I have a more complete theory of Electricity and Magnetism in which this is merely a minor aspect compared with the displacement currents aspects etc. I shall in due course discuss my theories more fully as it becomes appropriate for the relevant TOE project stage which will involve such aspects. In the meantime, as I mentioned in my latest post in the PROGRESSIVE THEORY SUMMARY thread, I will soon provide a 'partial' explanation re: PHOTONIC form/propagation which I promised to Good Elf and others some time ago.

EVERYONE: Please read my latest post in the PROGRESSIVE THEORY SUMMARY thread for some new 'arrangements' info.

Anyhow, I will be catching up with everyone's interesting posts over the next few days, so I shall look forward to speaking to y'all later. Ciao!

RC.
.

Hi All,

I emailed Ivor Catt about use of material - he seems keen to have his ideas discussed so I'll post a 'Catt Anomaly' thread in puzzling questions very shortly.

Best wishes, Confused2.

On reflection I fear such a revolutionary theory would be unhelpful to all concerned. The best statement of the theory (that I know of) is at..
http://www.ivorcatt.com/2604.htm
-C2.

Could the nature of F be stated as distance and/or direction from center?

A/R being direction. M/E being both direction and distance (with the surface of one being more concisely defined than the other, although both only relatively defined. And RPS being distance. F also being distance and direction, although F is yet to be consicely defined.