Physicists discover hidden aspects of electrodynamics

April 11, 2017, Louisiana State University
LSU Department of Physics & Astronomy Assistant Professor Ivan Agullo's new research advances knowledge of a classical theory of electromagnetism. Credit: LSU

Radio waves, microwaves and even light itself are all made of electric and magnetic fields. The classical theory of electromagnetism was completed in the 1860s by James Clerk Maxwell. At the time, Maxwell's theory was revolutionary, and provided a unified framework to understand electricity, magnetism and optics. Now, new research led by LSU Department of Physics & Astronomy Assistant Professor Ivan Agullo, with colleagues from the Universidad de Valencia, Spain, advances knowledge of this theory. Their recent discoveries have been published in Physical Review Letters.

Maxwell's theory displays a remarkable feature: it remains unaltered under the interchange of the electric and magnetic fields, when charges and currents are not present. This is called the electric-magnetic duality.

However, while electric charges exist, magnetic charges have never been observed in nature. If magnetic charges do not exist, the symmetry also cannot exist. This mystery has motivated physicists to search for magnetic charges, or magnetic monopoles. However, no one has been successful. Agullo and his colleagues may have discovered why.

"Gravity spoils the symmetry regardless of whether exist or not. This is shocking. The bottom line is that the symmetry cannot exist in our universe at the fundamental level because gravity is everywhere," Agullo said.

Gravity, together with quantum effects, disrupts the electric-magnetic duality or symmetry of the electromagnetic field.

Agullo and his colleagues discovered this by looking at previous theories that illustrate this phenomenon among other types of particles in the universe, called fermions, and applied it to photons in electromagnetic fields.

"We have been able to write the theory of the in a way that very much resembles the theory of fermions, and prove this absence of symmetry by using powerful techniques that were developed for fermions," he said.

This new discovery challenges assumptions that could impact other research including the study of the birth of the universe.

The Big Bang

Satellites collect data from the radiation emitted from the Big Bang, which is called the Cosmic Microwave Background, or CMB. This radiation contains valuable information about the history of the universe.

"By measuring the CMB, we get precise information on how the Big Bang happened," Agullo said.

Scientists analyzing this data have assumed that the polarization of photons in the CMB is not affected by the gravitational field in the universe, which is true only if electromagnetic symmetry exists. However, since this new finding suggests that the symmetry does not exist at the fundamental level, the polarization of the CMB can change throughout cosmic evolution. Scientists may need to take this into consideration when analyzing the data. The focus of Agullo's current research is on how much this new effect is.

Explore further: The mysterious missing magnetic monopole

More information: Ivan Agullo et al, Electromagnetic Duality Anomaly in Curved Spacetimes, Physical Review Letters (2017). DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.118.111301

Related Stories

The mysterious missing magnetic monopole

August 9, 2016

You've probably heard of the Higgs boson. This elusive particle was predicted to exist long ago and helped explain why the universe works the way it does, but it took decades for us to detect.

Magnetic monopoles in spin ice crystals

November 12, 2015

Today one of the major goals of physicists is to unify the forces of nature into a Grand Unified Theory that could portray a more elegant and comprehensive representation of the Universe. One step towards this big theory ...

'Material universe' yields surprising new particle

November 25, 2015

An international team of researchers has predicted the existence of a new type of particle called the type-II Weyl fermion in metallic materials. When subjected to a magnetic field, the materials containing the particle act ...

Recommended for you

The subtle science of wok tossing

November 19, 2018

Wok tossing is essential for making a good fried rice—or so claim a group of researchers presenting new work at the American Physical Society's Division of Fluid Dynamics 71st Annual Meeting, which will take place Nov. ...

Making X-ray microscopy 10 times faster

November 19, 2018

Microscopes make the invisible visible. And compared to conventional light microscopes, transmission x-ray microscopes (TXM) can see into samples with much higher resolution, revealing extraordinary details. Researchers across ...

79 comments

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

Chris_Reeve
Apr 11, 2017
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
ecommbrewer
not rated yet Apr 11, 2017
"Scientists may need to take this into consideration when analyzing the data. The focus of Agullo's current research is on how much this new effect is."

Of the more terrible sentences I've read lately, the worst this one is. So bad the state of editing is. When so poor is the writing, makes me wonder how legitimate the research is.

Cheers,

Is.

Read more at: https://phys.org/...html#jCp
rogerdallas
5 / 5 (3) Apr 11, 2017
I'm thinking of the principle of equivalence here, and then supposing that the symmetry must vanish in any accelerated frame. But a reference frame in free fall is also in a gravitational field, even though you might not know it-- does the symmetry vanish there as well? I can imagine a number of problematic thought experiments on this topic.
KBK
1.8 / 5 (5) Apr 11, 2017
The Maxwell's equations that are the norm, are not the full original Maxwell's equations.

They are edited.

The Original full equations contain complex mathematics to describe the minutiae of ASYMMETRY.

The asymmetry was removed, according to the reasoning at the time, concerning Oliver Heaviside...to simplify the math.. so engineers could make practical use of it.

So it's been there in full glorious regalia , in the original form of the math.

Oddly enough, the original texts were all but disappeared from the record --and only a few (5-10 copies!) of them in existence.

Almost as if someone worked hard to get rid of the evidence.

If we knew of the asymmetry 150+ years back...~imagine what we could have done~.

When one commits to the forensic examination of the scenario, it looks very purposeful. The evidence suggests intent to curb science and outcome.

Those who know of the asymmetry and investigate with open mind... this is what they invariably find.
antialias_physorg
5 / 5 (8) Apr 11, 2017
Arxiv paper can be found here:
https://arxiv.org...8879.pdf
Spaced out Engineer
not rated yet Apr 11, 2017
So scalar waves? Or are we talking magnetic charge? Can we use a compensator to cancel out the gravitational waves? Make a novo-vacuum?
KBK what are the original equations?

What do these monopoles say of super symmetry, spinor networks, and the moduli problem?

idjyit
not rated yet Apr 11, 2017
While spin makes the math easier to relate to, there comes a point where you have to accept that spin has nothing to do with action at a distance. Be it Gravity or Electromagnetism.

There is a better explanation, and maybe this paper is the start of a better understanding.

Without "spin" symmetry is irrelevant as well.
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (4) Apr 11, 2017
This is an interesting result.

The lack of symmetry between electric and magnetic charges can also be explained by realizing that magnetism is only present when an electric charge is moving; it is, therefore, the relativistic correction for the action of the electric force. Motionless electric charges do not have magnetic fields; only moving ones do.

This further implies that time is intimately involved, since time differences in the electric force can only arise if the charged body moves.

I will review the original paper and see what I see.
PhysicsMatter
4 / 5 (2) Apr 12, 2017
In fact the lack of magnetic monopoles is embedded into a set of classical Maxwell equations as DIV B = 0 , that also contains, Poisson equation DIV E = charge density times a factor , Faraday's equation, Ampere equation, continuity equation and momentum equations in a material propagation medium.

The old simplified question was: we know that electric and magnetic fields are affecting motion of medium and hence produce variable currents that "induce magnetic fields and consequently change electric fields as a measure if charge separation changed via medium flows. In other words charges move (current) inducing magnetic fields and change separation and hence lowering/increasing electric field.

What is the mechanism of electric/magnetic field induction in the vacuum where there are no material charge flows?

From that there was hypothesis that the space is already filled with electromagnetic fields that are being disturbed at the source and propagate.

GoodElf
1 / 5 (2) Apr 12, 2017
It is as good as far as it goes but this Black Hole asymmetry causes the source free field of electrostatic forces in the 2D to curl up into a 3D "ball", actually a pair of entangled solitons in higher dimensions. The expression of that "ball" for electrons is the electrostatic "point charges" in the electron and positrons etc. to be created from the initially quantum entangled paired BH chiral photons spawning particles, like a pair of Falaco Solitons in a swimming pool.

The same mechanism exists for all particles - antiparticles etc. on "opposite sides" of this Universe with our superfluidic condensate forming inside the primary black hole. In the sense that inside every proton, electron neutron etc. is a wormhole joining it to it's conjoined antiparticle pair, kept apart by being on opposite sides of the (sic) "pooliverse". The primary "force" is electromagnetism and "gravity" is a pseudoforce derived from the "electromagnetic symmetry breaking" alone... Baryogenesis asymmetry.
JongDan
5 / 5 (4) Apr 12, 2017
The Maxwell's equations that are the norm, are not the full original Maxwell's equations.

They are edited.


Correct.

The Original full equations contain complex mathematics to describe the minutiae of ASYMMETRY.

The asymmetry was removed, according to the reasoning at the time, concerning Oliver Heaviside...to simplify the math.. so engineers could make practical use of it.


Incorrect. They were edited because Maxwell was unaware of matrix notation (which indeed does automatically apply the symmetries), but the set of equations Maxwell wrote down is demonstrably exactly equivalent to the matrix form. I mean, one could fine-tune specific components but that again could also be done in matrix form.
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (2) Apr 12, 2017
That math's too deep for me. Guess I'll have to go with the article, and whatever else I can dig up around the 'Net.
Hyperfuzzy
1 / 5 (1) Apr 12, 2017
OK, Magnetism is derivative; there only exist the e field as the spherical field that exist from the center of the sphere to infinity, charge. This field is updated at the speed of light relative to the center. The changing field creates the magnetic, the motion of the center creates a changing field, the static field is everywhere and gives rise to gravity.

So says Maxwell with proper and pragmatic interpretation!
louiswilbur229
5 / 5 (2) Apr 12, 2017
My question is, did this study use two vector potentials in its calculation A_u and P_u (so that the electromagnetic field tensor is described by the Cabibbo-Ferrari relation) or only one potential A_u? If only one potential was used then if the entire paper at 1607.08879 is recalculated using P_u as well then will the asymmetry still be there? Since two spin 1 vector fields need to be quantized and analyzed for full symmetry between the E and B fields this is an important question.
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (2) Apr 13, 2017
@louiswilber, my review of the paper seems to indicate it was only A_u; I suggest you have a look since you seem more facile with the math, which was frankly over my head, and your P_u may be hidden where I can't see it. @antialias has posted a link to the arXiv version of the paper above which you may find useful in this effort. Perhaps you could give us an evaluation of what it says in less opaque terms.
louiswilbur229
5 / 5 (1) Apr 13, 2017
Okay, I did a quick scan of the paper and, unless I missed some subtle point, it looks like only one potential is in use. In that case, asymmetries between the E and B fields is to be expected since there is an asymmetry in how the E and B fields are defined in terms of first partial derivatives of A_u. Those asymmetries will remain when A_u is quantized and/or moved into a warped space-time. So, assuming only one potential, it seems to me that conclusions in 1607.08879 are correct but they are incorrect if a second potential is included.
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (1) Apr 13, 2017
Is it important that this is supposed to be an analysis of the source-free Maxwell action? I took that to mean the free space field without potential sources, in other words a free-moving field like a photon with no charges.
Hyperfuzzy
not rated yet Apr 13, 2017
Is it important that this is supposed to be an analysis of the source-free Maxwell action? I took that to mean the free space field without potential sources, in other words a free-moving field like a photon with no charges.

Empty space is only conceptual, charge occupies all of space. juz say'n
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (2) Apr 13, 2017
Empty space is only conceptual, charge occupies all of space. juz say'n
But positive and negative charges offset one anothers' fields.

Are you postulating that there was a net negative or positive charge created during the Big Bang? Or that one is created by some sort of continuous creation you espouse in its place to explain your steady-state cosmology conjecture? Because if not, then far from all matter, the net charge will be zero.

Either way, your statement is obviously incorrect.
Dingbone
Apr 13, 2017
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (2) Apr 13, 2017
@Ding, yes, saw that. I was not convinced that this would make a significant difference in the CMB polarization overall; neither are the authors of the paper, who said it requires further research. In order for it to make a significant difference in CMB polarization one would have to postulate that most of the CMB has passed close enough to matter to be affected, and given filamentarian cosmology (which is well established) this is by no means clear. Matter is actually quite sparse in the universe, even including dark matter.
Dingbone
Apr 13, 2017
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (1) Apr 13, 2017
Why difference - the authors imply, the existing CMB polarization can be explained just with this effect?
No, they don't. And I showed that they don't. Please read what follows your quote in the paper.

Matter density aside, there are also polarizations that are not influenced by this effect.
Dingbone
Apr 13, 2017
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Whydening Gyre
5 / 5 (1) Apr 13, 2017
If this is beyond DS's math ballpark, then I'm not even in the same town...:-)
However, I would like to handle this one in my own simpler (by necessity) way;
Is it important that this is supposed to be an analysis of the source-free Maxwell action? I took that to mean the free space field without potential sources, in other words a free-moving field like a photon with no charges.

Empty space is only conceptual, charge occupies all of space. juz say'n

Empty space IS the charge.
If you wouldn't mind, please explain what you think that charge is made up of...
(For me, it's motion. Ergo - kinetic.)
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (2) Apr 14, 2017
Please, cite the sentence of article, which implies it.
Sure: "The quantitative details for phenomenological implications will be analyzed in a future work." It immediately follows your quote.

You just didn't understand the final remark about Hirzebruch signature (index) theorem. It's not different physical mechanism - but proposal of another formalism (I mean other than Fujikawa path integral on Chern-Pontryagin density invariant used in this study), which can describe it.
The next paragraph doesn't discuss CMB polarization.
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (2) Apr 14, 2017
Empty space IS the charge.
If you wouldn't mind, please explain what you think that charge is made up of...
(For me, it's motion. Ergo - kinetic.)
For these folks, charge is a "nebulous something" that exerts "mysterious influences," not a property of spacetime itself. That this is obviously inconsistent with experiment bothers them not one little bit, since they don't understand the difference between experiment and theory; watch them wander off into philosophy, using only that which eschews evidence, and making baseless indictments of reality because they don't want to believe what it tells us.
Whydening Gyre
5 / 5 (2) Apr 14, 2017
Empty space IS the charge.
If you wouldn't mind, please explain what you think that charge is made up of...
(For me, it's motion. Ergo - kinetic.)
For these folks, charge is a "nebulous something" that exerts "mysterious influences," not a property of spacetime itself. That this is obviously inconsistent with experiment bothers them not one little bit, since they don't understand the difference between experiment and theory; watch them wander off into philosophy, using only that which eschews evidence, and making baseless indictments of reality because they don't want to believe what it tells us.

Hope you weren't using me as an example...:-)
I just meant that it was my "derived" opinion, can be something else for someone else.
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (2) Apr 14, 2017
No, I think you're right: fields are an intrinsic part of "empty space."
TimLong2001
1 / 5 (1) Apr 14, 2017
The balanced charges internal to the photon determine its dynamics, including the speed of light (characteristic velocity of electromagnetic radiation) and its gradual decay resulting in the background red shift.
Dingbone
Apr 14, 2017
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (2) Apr 14, 2017
@Dingbone, I think you've confused two concepts. Spacetime is always curved; the curvature might be zero. There isn't some different or special spacetime that doesn't have any curvature; to say so is like claiming there will be no weather tomorrow.

In addition, in our universe, we see expansion; that means that in our universe, the curvature is never zero. It must always, in fact, be less than zero because otherwise it would be static or contracting. That's just not what we see.
Hyperfuzzy
not rated yet Apr 14, 2017
Empty space is only conceptual, charge occupies all of space. juz say'n
But positive and negative charges offset one anothers' fields.

Are you postulating that there was a net negative or positive charge created during the Big Bang? Or that one is created by some sort of continuous creation you espouse in its place to explain your steady-state cosmology conjecture? Because if not, then far from all matter, the net charge will be zero.

Either way, your statement is obviously incorrect.

The field of each charge is always present, with updates ate the speed of light. What the heck are you talking writing about?
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (3) Apr 14, 2017
The field of each charge is always present
Except it's not if it's canceled by other charges.

It's called the superposition theorem. You fail because you do not know the math. If you knew the math you'd understand why I asked whether you propose a universal unbalanced charge. I note you did not even attempt to address this point.
Hyperfuzzy
1 / 5 (1) Apr 15, 2017
The field of each charge is always present
Except it's not if it's canceled by other charges.

It's called the superposition theorem. You fail because you do not know the math. If you knew the math you'd understand why I asked whether you propose a universal unbalanced charge. I note you did not even attempt to address this point.

I have no idea what you are trying to do. The math has nothing to do with the existence of a charge. Take two charges that exist at the same point at the same time, the fields are still there, how else can they add? So you are confusing physics with magic!
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (1) Apr 15, 2017
The math is the description of the charge; and opposite charges cancel. Everybody knows that. Apparently you don't.
Hyperfuzzy
not rated yet Apr 15, 2017
The math is the description of the charge; and opposite charges cancel. Everybody knows that. Apparently you don't.

Nonsense, only mathematically. Anyway, where did you study?
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (2) Apr 15, 2017
No, not only mathematically. Hydrogen is neutral. The charges of the proton and electron cancel. That's experiment, not math.

You should actually bother to inform yourself about physics before you start trying to discuss it. You don't seem to have picked any up despite all the people trying to tell you where you're wrong, so good luck with that.
Hyperfuzzy
1 / 5 (2) Apr 15, 2017
No, not only mathematically. Hydrogen is neutral. The charges of the proton and electron cancel. That's experiment, not math.

You should actually bother to inform yourself about physics before you start trying to discuss it. You don't seem to have picked any up despite all the people trying to tell you where you're wrong, so good luck with that.

Yes, I get it. So what Newton sought as the source of the field we call gravity is not presented to us as diametrical spherical fields, never created or destroyed, extend from its center to infinity, charg! Charge has no mass. So I'll let you and your minions share the NOBEL for Higgs and such. You are out of your class! What's your axiomatic structure of charge, the standard model, LOL! End of argument: One side has no axiomatic structure; therefore, illogical.
Whydening Gyre
5 / 5 (1) Apr 15, 2017
The field of each charge is always present
Except it's not if it's canceled by other charges.

It's called the superposition theorem. You fail because you do not know the math. If you knew the math you'd understand why I asked whether you propose a universal unbalanced charge. I note you did not even attempt to address this point.

I have no idea what you are trying to do. The math has nothing to do with the existence of a charge. Take two charges that exist at the same point at the same time, the fields are still there, how else can they add? ...

Wouldn't they be ONE charge, then?
Da Schneib
Apr 16, 2017
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Seeker2
not rated yet Apr 16, 2017
@PM
What is the mechanism of electric/magnetic field induction in the vacuum where there are no material charge flows?
I think I recall reading something about the pi meson being the mediator of the strong force (actually the quark-antiquark pairs in the pi meson). Similarly virtual electron-positron pairs may mediate the emf. You might say there is a charge flow in the vacuum as these particles blink in and out of existence. When they blink out of existence they come together to neutralize as I understand. But if you can link to these virtual particles before they completely annihilate you can capture the attractive force between them. A whole string of these links could give you the magnetic field. Seems plausible anyway.
Seeker2
not rated yet Apr 16, 2017
@PM
What is the mechanism of electric/magnetic field induction in the vacuum where there are no material charge flows?
I recall reading something about the pi meson being the mediator of the strong force (actually the quark-antiquark pairs in the pi meson). Similarly virtual electron-positron pairs may mediate the emf. You might say there is a charge flow in the vacuum as these particles blink in and out of existence. When they blink out of existence they come together to annihilate. But if you can link to these virtual particles before they completely annihilate you can capture the attractive force between them. A whole string of these links could give you the magnetic field. Seems plausible anyway.
Seeker2
not rated yet Apr 16, 2017
cont
Note the quark-antiquark pairs are real particles, not virtual particles. So one would expect their attractive force when they come together and decay to be greater than that between virtual particles. Such is apparently the case, by a factor of 137 or so.
Hyperfuzzy
1 / 5 (1) Apr 16, 2017
cont
Note the quark-antiquark pairs are real particles, not virtual particles. So one would expect their attractive force when they come together and decay to be greater than that between virtual particles. Such is apparently the case, by a factor of 137 or so.

Wow! This is pure magic. Built upon a noncausal physics. Anything is possible. Not!
Seeker2
5 / 5 (1) Apr 16, 2017
cont
Sorry about the dup. Must have been pure magic.
Seeker2
not rated yet Apr 16, 2017
@DS
Matter is actually quite sparse in the universe, even including dark matter.
I asked Siri about dark matter and she said 23%.
Hyperfuzzy
not rated yet Apr 16, 2017
All jokes aside, all we see are these diametrical spherical fields, we can give names to as many manifestations you wish. But all comes down to repulsion and attraction. We see the fields beautifully, mathematically; yet, we seek to coerce the knowledge given to us as Maxwell into another paradigm. Yet we continue with prehistoric ideas and miss the point, "Why do we exist?" is better answered "We cannot exist from nothing; therefore "nothing" has nothing to do with it! Seeking Magic!

The "Nothing" is this "Maxwellian" Spacetime, we are a wonder! If you dare attempt to prove me wrong defend your instrumentation.
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (2) Apr 16, 2017
Both gluons and pions are involved in the strong nuclear force. In fact, two other mesons, the rho and omega mesons, are also involved.

Technically, the strong nuclear force is a residual of the color force, which is the force that confines quarks into hadrons (which include both mesons and baryons). The color force has three charges; unlike the EM force, which has only two that are the anticharge of the other, the color force also has three anticharges. The baryons have three quarks, one of each charge; the mesons have a quark and an antiquark, with a charge and its anticharge. Protons and neutrons are baryons, and are referred to as "nucleons," because they are the components of the nucleus.

What happens is that the color force is constantly changing the color sign of the quarks within a nucleon. Sometimes this results in the formation of a virtual meson, the above noted pion (pi meson), or rho or omega meson.
[contd]
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (2) Apr 16, 2017
[contd]
This meson only lasts for a very brief time before being reabsorbed by its nucleon (if it is a free nucleon), and cannot get far from its nucleon due to Heisenberg Uncertainty. In fact, its range is so short that nucleons must be very close to be able to interact via these mesons. Within the nucleus, however, adjacent or very nearby nucleons are within this range.

Should another nucleon absorb this meson, then as with all forces the momenta of the two nucleons are altered, in such a manner that they are attracted to one another, just like if a proton emits a virtual photon and that virtual photon is absorbed by an electron, then the momenta of the proton and electron are altered in such a manner that they are attracted to one another.

[contd]
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (2) Apr 16, 2017
[contd]
So the color force causes the mesons, and the mesons cause the strong force, and this is why physicists say the strong force is a residual force of the color force.

The real picture is quite a bit more complex, and there are complications involved because some of the mesons can carry electric charge and transmute a neutron into a proton and vice-versa, and further complications because of direct color force interactions between the nucleons. It is enough, however, to understand the strong nuclear force as mediated by the mesons, and in fact it's more-or-less correct, just rather simplistic.

Ultimately, the source of all the interaction involved is the color force, so it's also correct to understand the strong nuclear force as the residual of the color force.
[contd]
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (2) Apr 16, 2017
[contd]
The Wikipedia article at https://en.wikipe...ar_force goes into more detail, and shows one of the interactions in detail (the neutral pion exchange). Note however that it does not discuss the extra-nucleonic color forces, nor the neutron<->proton transmutations.

In addition, readers should note that the color force is confined; that is, bare color charges are never seen in nature. In this it differs from the EM force, where bare EM charges are commonly seen. The reasons for this are very complex and if you want to learn a lot about particle physics, this is a profitable line of research, though rather long and difficult. Maybe I'll talk about color confinement in a future post. As a hint, the fact that the color charges are not anticharges of one another, but each have their own anticharge, is very important to this.
Hyperfuzzy
1 / 5 (1) Apr 16, 2017
Both gluons and pions ...


No, a neutron is a containment of an electron and a proton, these diametrical fields are transparent and move according to coulomb, the motion causes motion within its field, and is dragged along and updated from it's center continuously at the speed of light. We only see the wrinkles as a spectrum or simply a shimmer of the object. The static field is what does the work. Imagine what states are possible as bundles, start with stable systems ...
Hyperfuzzy
1 / 5 (1) Apr 16, 2017
... anti charge, is very important to this.

False premise. "There are no electrons in the nucleus" is false except for H. Anti-is redundant and contains an undefined entity, the particle. There exist no axiomatic structure definitive, without assumption, to accept a particle as necessary and sufficient to define any field. The theory itself suggest such, self referent, wave and particle, illogical, the source is the wave, actually, only the shimmer, either way. Formal Logic? Not quite!
Hyperfuzzy
not rated yet Apr 16, 2017
Axiomatic Definition of Charge, charge has but one shape and charge has no mass, charge is the entire field, not just its center!
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (1) Apr 16, 2017
Sorry, @Hyper, after the word salad I don't see a great deal of point in arguing with a psychotic.
Whydening Gyre
5 / 5 (1) Apr 16, 2017
Axiomatic Definition of Charge, charge has but one shape and charge has no mass, charge is the entire field, not just its center!

But, I'd almost bet it VARIES within itself, the strongest part of a charge field being in it's center. Otherwise, there'd be no charge at all.
Whydening Gyre
5 / 5 (2) Apr 16, 2017
DS,
in an earlier post you stated something about electron and proton charges canceling eachother out, thereby making it "neutral"and having no charge.
Isn't there a residual low energy electron state of about 3 and some odd electron volts still there?
(Can't remember or find where i got that number)
Hyperfuzzy
not rated yet Apr 16, 2017
DS,
in an earlier post you stated something about electron and proton charges canceling eachother out, thereby making it "neutral"and having no charge.
Isn't there a residual low energy electron state of about 3 and some odd electron volts still there?
(Can't remember or find where i got that number)

Simple binary diametrical source, think of what it'll take to imbalance, almost anything; therefore, within a structure there has to be a containment. But suspect we don't have the entire spectrum, i.e. oscillations.
Hyperfuzzy
1 / 5 (1) Apr 16, 2017
we see the "neutrino" as a neutron splits, i.e. measurable temporale oscillation. All oscillations in the field are due to charge motion independent of QM ~inos or ~nons prediction and naming conventions, it's a field event, juz say'n
Hyperfuzzy
not rated yet Apr 17, 2017
The field center of each charge moves with respect to the summation of all fields everywhere that impact that point at that instant of time. The local field of distances that maybe from any given measurable range through each other, about each other, define your wobble for stability. These charges as the field is the only thing that makes sense. Their body moves as the center moves, the field is transparent, it only affects other centers. We live within a conglomeration of a single orbiter; therefore, a sort of self assembling stability. Thus us! Now we can blow it up!
Hyperfuzzy
1 / 5 (1) Apr 17, 2017
I think the space-time of dr.E is sort of correct; but, he lost me with the generality. I see an emitted wavelet length over the measured period as the speed of light. Not sure what Michelson and Morley were doing, looking at themselves in a mirror? Optics! Wow!
Hyperfuzzy
not rated yet Apr 17, 2017
A Mono-magnetic pole, that exist without its diametrical image that is formed with a current flow or/and a changing E field? Really? Do you understand the concept of magnetism, it's a function of motion. Now motion of what? A Mono-motion of a mono-magnetic pole? Just kidding, that makes no sense, juz say'n
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (2) Apr 17, 2017
in an earlier post you stated something about electron and proton charges canceling eachother out, thereby making it "neutral"and having no charge.
Isn't there a residual low energy electron state of about 3 and some odd electron volts still there?
Good question, @Whyde.

Because electrons do not remain still, but move from point to point within an orbital (though not in a simple geometric progression, like an object does in an orbit, but instead jumping from one location to the next stochastically), the electron forms a sort of "shell" around the proton. From a distance (and by that I mean perhaps a thousandth the width of the period at the end of this sentence), the combined charge fields of the (relatively) still proton and the moving electron result in approximately zero net field. This is called the "far field."

[contd]
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (2) Apr 17, 2017
[contd]
Closer than this, in what is called the "near field," there is some complexity in the interactions of the fields, and a slight tendency depending on the exact distance, and the exact composition of the atoms in question, towards either attraction or repulsion. This results in complex behavior and what are called "van der Waals forces," named after their discoverer.

However, none of this has to do with the 3 some-odd eV state you are talking about; this is a measure of the difference between two states of excitation of the electron orbital, not some intrinsic energy of the hydrogen atom itself. It is a difference in available states, not a measure of the "energy of the hydrogen atom."

I may be wrong; you could provide some more detail in what you're talking about. But given the magnitude I think I've nailed it.
Hyperfuzzy
not rated yet Apr 17, 2017
...
I may be wrong; you could provide some more detail in what you're talking about. But given the magnitude I think I've nailed it.


Now we're making sense. Think of the very, very near coulomb field. Now recall two pendulums, out of synch, with the same period. Ta, da! they synch up! Why not within the nucleus, the energy then is modal. Orbits, and loops and synchronous dances within crystals, all forms of ...
Whydening Gyre
5 / 5 (2) Apr 17, 2017

However, none of this has to do with the 3 some-odd eV state you are talking about; this is a measure of the difference between two states of excitation of the electron orbital, not some intrinsic energy of the hydrogen atom itself. It is a difference in available states, not a measure of the "energy of the hydrogen atom."

I may be wrong; you could provide some more detail in what you're talking about. But given the magnitude I think I've nailed it.
I was kinda referring to photon absorption/emission voltages, I guess. Isn't the electron orbital excitation a composite/result of the electron/proton interaction?
(Dang - now he's got ME doing the "/" thing... I'm supposed to be "Y"...)
Oh, and HF - slow down....
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (2) Apr 17, 2017
@Whyde,
However, none of this has to do with the 3 some-odd eV state you are talking about; this is a measure of the difference between two states of excitation of the electron orbital, not some intrinsic energy of the hydrogen atom itself. It is a difference in available states, not a measure of the "energy of the hydrogen atom."
I was kinda referring to photon absorption/emission voltages, I guess. Isn't the electron orbital excitation a composite/result of the electron/proton interaction?
Like van der Waals forces, or the strong nuclear force, it is a residual of the underlying force; the energy difference between electron excitation states is determined by the structure of the atom, not the underlying EM force. You can't determine the energy states in a structure-independent manner. Without the structure there are no states. It's like asking where the ice is in a dihydrogen monoxide molecule.
Whydening Gyre
5 / 5 (1) Apr 17, 2017
The field center of each charge moves with respect to the summation of all fields everywhere that impact that point at that instant of time.

Wouldn't that be triangulatable?
Whydening Gyre
5 / 5 (1) Apr 17, 2017
Like van der Waals forces, or the strong nuclear force, it is a residual of the underlying force; the energy difference between electron excitation states is determined by the structure of the atom, not the underlying EM force. You can't determine the energy states in a structure-independent manner. Without the structure there are no states.

Aren't Van der Waals forces just charge (energy) differentials?
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (1) Apr 17, 2017
I'd suggest you look up van der Waals forces, @Whyde.

I'll give another example: a sales executive finds out that his drones take 6 minutes on average to fill out a particular form in their software, and tries to order the software engineers to find the "6" in the software and turn it to a "3" to improve efficiency. They all quit and go find jobs working for someone sane. It's a category error.
Hyperfuzzy
not rated yet Apr 17, 2017
You are on the right track. Just don't seek to destroy your axiomatic structure unless you plan to redefine it. Just because you see something and are confused by your erroneous universal constants or something that popped out of a QM arrangement, it may be true, just understand the wave function from simulation using your physics. You might be surprised what is really going on in the near field and between surfaces in a vacuum. Call it what you want, remember, it's derivative.
Hyperfuzzy
not rated yet Apr 17, 2017
The field center of each charge moves with respect to the summation of all fields everywhere that impact that point at that instant of time.

Wouldn't that be triangulable?

As you can see motion reshapes the temporal field, also object's shape also will define the field, this is a megascopic measure due to an entire structure. Don't confuse the big scale with the atomic, be happy we can build "thangs" and have control. juz say'n,
Whydening Gyre
5 / 5 (3) Apr 17, 2017
I'd suggest you look up van der Waals forces, @Whyde.

I'll give another example: a sales executive finds out that his drones take 6 minutes on average to fill out a particular form in their software, and tries to order the software engineers to find the "6" in the software and turn it to a "3" to improve efficiency. They all quit and go find jobs working for someone sane. It's a category error.


that's why you've been on here so much lately....
You quit yer job...:-)
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (1) Apr 17, 2017
I'd suggest you look up van der Waals forces, @Whyde.

I'll give another example: a sales executive finds out that his drones take 6 minutes on average to fill out a particular form in their software, and tries to order the software engineers to find the "6" in the software and turn it to a "3" to improve efficiency. They all quit and go find jobs working for someone sane. It's a category error.


that's why you've been on here so much lately....
You quit yer job...:-)
@whyde
reminds me of this youtube video called "the expert"
https://www.youtu...rP55Aqvg
Dingbone
Apr 18, 2017
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Dingbone
Apr 18, 2017
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Whydening Gyre
5 / 5 (2) Apr 18, 2017
In the year 1936, radiation from a dipole antenna was shown to not be spherical. The transverse waves bend


It's similar situation like with https://thumbs.dr...4314.jpg at the water surface: at the small distance scales the fluctuations of underwater become prominent (Brownian noise). Once the ripple grows, then these fluctuations become negligible, ... And when the ripple grows too much, this cumulative effects destroys the regularity of wave spreading again. Note that the scope of this effect is proportional to wavelength and amplitude of the ripple used.

The origin of this behavior is in compressibility of water, which allows the interaction of underwater waves with these surface ones under formation of solitons at both small, both large scales. In the vacuum the solitons breaking the regularity of Maxwell waves at small scales are known for long time as a photons.

Zeph's Back!!!
Missed ya, pal!
Hyperfuzzy
not rated yet Apr 18, 2017
In the year 1936, radiation from a dipole antenna was shown to not be spherical. The transverse waves bend


Yes, when charges move the temporal field is reshaped. So?

Please sign in to add a comment. Registration is free, and takes less than a minute. Read more

Click here to reset your password.
Sign in to get notified via email when new comments are made.