| View previous topic :: View next topic |
Ishmael
In: Toronto
|
|
 |
|
| DPCrisp wrote: | | Otherwise, I am tempted to think you wish us to credit you with ideas developed by others. |
The answer then is not to credit the man -- Komori clearly doesn't want it -- just the idea. |
I am interested in Komori's ideas. If I knew before-hand he was posting a section from some book he read, I'd simply skip the post. If I wanted to read that book -- I would have.
|
|
 |
|
 |
|
Mallas
|
|
|
|
If it were possible to create a perfect vacuum i.e. the concept of no-things in a given 3 dimensional area. We place an earth magnet into this vacuum. Would the magnet generate a magnetic field?
What I am asking is, can a magnetic field be produced where no-things can be affected by the field.
Why/Why not?
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Brian Ambrose
|
|
|
|
Hi Mallas,
Assuming your question is not of the 'if a leaf falls in the forest and there's no one there...' variety, my answer would be, yes, a magnet generates a magnetic field in a perfect vacuum. Particles in the atmosphere are not the medium for conduction of the magnetic field; for example, the strength of a magnetic field does not reduce as you create more and more vacuum. So there is no reason to think it would suddenly switch off in no vacuum at all.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Komorikid
In: Gold Coast, Australia
|
|
|
|
Not quite right Brian. An electric field creates a magnetic field and vice versa. Anywhere free electrons are moving an electric field can be generated.
The concept of a particle-free vacuum is impossible. Even an evacuated chamber has some particles left in after the suction pump has apparently removed all the air.
There are no true perfect vacuums. You can have Space with no atmosphere but not Space with no particles. There is nowhere in the universe where nothing exists in a three dimensional area.
Neutrinos form the underlying fabric of space. As they have mass (even though it is a very small amount) they can interact with other particles.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Mallas
|
|
|
|
Hi Brian.
I think you mean "If a tree falls in the forest...". But no, that is not what I was getting at.
I would assume the same thing, that "fields" do not require particles or matter to operate.
Komorikid;
I was creating a hypothetical situation, that is why I said "If it were possible to create a perfect vacuum".
You said:
"Neutrinos form the underlying fabric of space. As they have mass (even though it is a very small amount) they can interact with other particles." - Yet I clearly remember having a discussion with you where you said "No one has ever seen an electron/proton etc". You state this as if it is fact?
It makes a lot more sense to me that Gravity/Light/Magnetism are all different types of "fields" which affect matter and create "waves".
You can not see gravity or magnetism and it is a common misconception that you can "see" light. But IMO this is wrong. You only see the effects light has on matter. Otherwise you would literally be "blinded by the light".
I found a very interesting website http://www.glafreniere.com/matter.htm - This described matter made up of waves.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Brian Ambrose
|
|
|
|
KK said:
| An electric field creates a magnetic field and vice versa. Anywhere free electrons are moving an electric field can be generated. |
But we were talking about magnets, not electro magnets. As far as I know, swirling electrical currents are not detected within a magnet.
| The concept of a particle-free vacuum is impossible. Even an evacuated chamber has some particles left in after the suction pump has apparently removed all the air. |
Which doesn't change the logic I presented the least bit. The magnetic field does not decrease to near-zero as you pump out the chamber.
| Neutrinos form the underlying fabric of space. As they have mass (even though it is a very small amount) they can interact with other particles. |
I don't believe in particles anymore.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Mallas
|
|
|
|
| Brian Ambrose wrote: | | I don't believe in particles anymore. |
Careful when you use the word 'belief'. Beliefs are a lot harder to change than 'ideas' and indicate you had faith. Science is not about faith but ideas.
I am with you Brian. The idea of particles does not make any sense to me.
I am liking the field/wave ideas though.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Brian Ambrose
|
|
|
|
| Careful when you use the word 'belief'. Beliefs are a lot harder to change than 'ideas' |
Thanks Mallas, and I agree of course, but surely your cautionary words are misdirected since I have divested myself of a 'belief', which by your reckoning must be an unambiguously good thing, eh?
As for science not being about faith, one could argue that science is based on faith (that there is order in the universe, that things are explicable, that things operate consistently, ideas originally established by men of faith because of their faith), and whatever the laudable aims of 'science', the evidence is that apart from a few awkward people through history, most scientific endeavour is designed to buttress the existing paradigm (ie belief system) and pay the mortgage. But this is Mick's speciality, he can no doubt provide the statistics.
Still, none of us would get by day-to-day without our beliefs.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Grant
|
|
|
|
Brian Ambrose wrote
| I don't believe in particles anymore. |
Fascinating, but what's your alternative?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Komorikid
In: Gold Coast, Australia
|
|
|
|
Mallas wrote:
| "Neutrinos form the underlying fabric of space. As they have mass (even though it is a very small amount) they can interact with other particles." - Yet I clearly remember having a discussion with you where you said "No one has ever seen an electron/proton etc". You state this as if it is fact? |
I agree with you about light, in fact I'd go say far as to say that most if not all of what we experience is the effect of waves of one form or another -- electricity, magnetism, light -- but not gravity.
My point about neutrinos is that if most of it is the product of waves -- something has to wave. You can't have a wave without a medium in which it can travel.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
DPCrisp
In: Bedfordshire
|
|
|
|
| An electric field creates a magnetic field and vice versa. Anywhere free electrons are moving an electric field can be generated. |
Do you mean anywhere free electrons are moving a magnetic field is generated? There is still always an electrostatic field around a charged particle, right?
| The concept of a particle-free vacuum is impossible. Even an evacuated chamber has some particles left in after the suction pump has apparently removed all the air... There is nowhere in the universe where nothing exists in a three dimensional area. |
Let's say we can evacuate a 1 litre vessel down to one particle per cubic centimetre: a thousand particles. Are there not then something like a thousand three-dimensional areas between the particles, one cc each, with no particles whatsoever in them?
Or should we say each particle counts as 1 cc in volume, so there are no gaps?
Do the particles move randomly? Isn't a given cubic millimetre empty most of the time, with a particle/ion/atom shooting through every now and then?
Does the electric/magnetic field only cross that cubic millimetre when one of the particles passes though it?
| Neutrinos form the underlying fabric of space. As they have mass (even though it is a very small amount) they can interact with other particles. |
Neutrinos don't exist in space then? They are not particles? What is their relationship with photons or EM waves?
Can space be clumped or bent as neutrinos are huddled or spread out?
What is the relationship between these 'real' neutrinos and the ones coughed up by mathematical cosmologists?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
DPCrisp
In: Bedfordshire
|
|
|
|
Mallas afore thought:
| Science is not about faith but ideas. |
You have missed your calling. This is pure comedy.
| I would assume the same thing, that "fields" do not require particles or matter to operate. |
"Operate" is an unfortunate term. All the fields we (think we) know about come from matter and are characterised in terms of their effect on other matter: they don't operate at all on their own. Some people would even argue that all fields operate through the exchange of particles (photons, gravitons, everything else they have to posit from that position...), but I can't get my head round that one.
| It makes a lot more sense to me that Gravity/Light/Magnetism are all different types of "fields" which affect matter and create "waves". |
It makes more sense for there to be multiple sorts of field...?
| The idea of particles does not make any sense to me. |
What, none? What about the photoelectric effect, thermionic valves, cloud chambers, Geiger counters, black body radiation...? We may not have a complete and satisfying sense of what particles are, but there is definitely something "particulate" to be explained, isn't there? (Even if we end up saying particles are bundles of waves or slack in a rope or something.)
| I don't believe in particles anymore. |
A new thread then?
| You can't have a wave without a medium in which it can travel. |
What if that's a field?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Brian Ambrose
|
|
|
|
| Grant wrote: | Brian Ambrose wrote
| I don't believe in particles anymore. |
Fascinating, but what's your alternative? |
Do I have to have one? Oh, go on then. But to take Mallas' cautions, I do not have anything like conclusions that could be said to be positive belief. I don't even have a theory, just ideas.
First, let's face it, particles cannot explain how things work at a fundamental level. For example, how (really now, please) can one believe that two objects can be attracted to each other by throwing things at each other? I'm afraid that's as good as it gets if you believe in particles. In my view, if you want to improve on that for an explanation of the fundamental behaviours of the universe you have no option but to put your belief in something that is not particles.
So, my alternative is that there is only energy, operating in the fabric of space (otherwise known as the aether). There are no atomic particles to see (which is of course a truism). Matter is composed of varying, stable, interconnected fields or waves in the aether, and what we try to (and cannot) pin down as atomic and sub-atomic particles, such as electrons, are the intersections of these fields/waves. Light is a wave, travelling in the aether, electrical fields are a change in pressure of some properties in the aether, particles are an interaction of waves, at motion but stable in the aether, gravitational attraction is a reduced area of pressure in the aether. Everything is composed of nothing but pure energy in various configurations. The aether is a medium that at the least supports instantaneous (longitudinal wave) and 'slow' (transverse wave) transmission of energy, gravity being at infinite speed, electro-magnetic effects such as light being slow. In a real sense, everything in the universe is directly connected, and everything in the universe instantaneously knows what everything else is doing (this seems to be an essential property at least for the inertial and gravitational universe to function). Yeah man, like, we're all connected.
So far, so much waffle. We can build a reasonable story around this, but the issue now becomes the aether; what is it made of? Well, one thing that it's not made of is a sea of particles (you'll recall we don't believe in them). All I can offer on this is to say it has the properties needed to support the workings of the wave functions that make up the universe.
Like I said, just ideas.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Mallas
|
|
|
|
Well I guess it all comes down to how we perceive the universe we live in.
Maybe we will never know/understand the answers we seek as our senses are limited in this physical form. Or we are just not asking the right questions.
In regards to creating a vacuum that leaves some objects/particles. This is how I see it. There is no space between any object/particle ever. I kind of see it like stretching a rubber band out. (I only said object/particle here because this is how matter was being perceived in this situation).
So say for instance, if you stretch liquid, it becomes gas. But that does not mean there is space in between.
I do not know how to scientifically describe what I perceive, but I will have another go.
Imagine you hear a constant musical note. Then you add another note being played constantly with the other note. Both of these sounds are still using the same area. Then you add another note, then another, you keep adding different notes. They are all still using that same area, even if a single note is not distinguishable does not mean that it is not there.
I am no scientist but this is how I perceive the Universe as just a lot of sound and noise, all we are trying to do is isolate single notes; when you have billions upon billions of different sounds, it might be tricky to isolate a single note.
Maybe listening (observing) and not asking questions is the way forward.
I am now reminded of a story I read about somewhere, I can not remember where. But when the Spanish galleons reached South America, the natives could not see them, the largest boat they had seen was a canoe. So their brains were unable to comprehend what was right in front of them.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Ishmael
In: Toronto
|
|
|
|
|
Hey. That was an awsome post. Some really good thinking there I think!
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
The Library Index 
FAQ 
Search
Register
Profile 
Log in to check your private messages 
Log in 
