|
Magnetic fields do not curve space; only gravity curves space-time and we have as yet been unsuccessful in combining EM with Gravity (as Forces). Now a strong EM field will attempt to flatten curved space, but gravity wins every time. Don't expect to see the battle unless you're hanging out near a neutron star or trying to measure Hawking radiation.
How EM affects particles depends on the type of particle. EM only affects particles with a charge, and the effect is seen because the particle’s charge is reversed by the EMF.
Electrons can be organized (like in a TV) by directing the path of the electron through its interaction with the EMF. A photon has no charge, and so is unaffected by the EMF.
Now, very strong EMFs can cause quantum scattering, which causes individual photons to emit a pair of particles, but they quickly undergo energetic exchange with each other and are suddenly a single photon again.
Under some super extreme conditions, the charged particles might suddenly transform into individual photons!
Also, don't confuse field effects with entanglement. Newtonian mechanics allow that everything is entangled (though he didn't call it that), but just imagine what might happen if the sun suddenly disappeared. Newton believed that the sun would instantly disappear from the sky, and the planets would immediately (instantaneously) careen off into space.
What he didn't know is that nothing in the universe can outpace light, including gravity. This means that we wouldn't see or experience (from the loss of the solar gravity well) the disappearance of the sun until 8 minutes after the fact.
Gravity travels as a field effect no faster than c. EMFs likewise, and also act as a field-effect, so the action happening from the magnet to the affected particle happens once the effect has reached the nexus of the EMF wave and the affected particle, and never simultaneously.
Here is a short video explaining what is meant by the exchange of photons/gauge bosons as a model to describe force/action at a distance (be it electromagnetic, strong/weak nuclear or gravity).
Minute Physics - Every Force in Nature (Theory of Everything, Part III)
|
|
What is a magnetic field made of?
There are 16 elementary particles broken into bosons and fermions, based on their spin. Positively or negatively charged particles repel one another, but opposites attract (ha, ha). When these opposing charges come near one another (think Planck scale nearness) they produce an electromagnetic field.
When charged particles move through the field, they experience EM force.
An EMF and an MF are essentially the same thing, and whether it’s a changing EMF or a static MF depends solely on your relative observation of the field.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
What is a magnetic field made of?
Well, according to the gauge boson model of forces, the magnetic field is made of a sea of virtual photons that interact with charged particles by transferring momentum to and from them. The net momentum transfer is explained as a force which is exerted by the field on the charged particle.
|
|
Well, according to the gauge boson model of forces, the magnetic field is made of a sea of virtual photons that interact with charged particles by transferring momentum to and from them. The net momentum transfer is explained as a force which is exerted by the field on the charged particle.
After squaring individual values and ignoring individual magnetic moments. What keeps the photons from going in every direction?
|
Well, according to the gauge boson model of forces, the magnetic field is made of a sea of virtual photons that interact with charged particles by transferring momentum to and from them. The net momentum transfer is explained as a force which is exerted by the field on the charged particle.After squaring individual values and ignoring individual magnetic moments. What keeps the photons from going in every direction?
Except if you regard the sea of virtual photons as: {m^n} then you transfer energy to the sea of photons by doing this: m^(n-1)+{m^n} then you must extract from the other side by doing this: m^(n-1)+{m^n} or j^(k-1)+{j^k} or what ever you like because A is different from B simply by change in possibility which is what separates any two points.
That is string theory. The Photon isn't being transferred. It already exists there - in the transfer state (lets call it superposition) and you merely gave it limits by doing this: m^(n-1)
|
|
Except if you regard the sea of virtual photons as: {m^n} then you transfer energy to the sea of photons by doing this: m^(n-1)+{m^n} then you must extract from the other side by doing this: m^(n-1)+{m^n} or j^(k-1)+{j^k} or what ever you like because A is different from B simply by change in possibility which is what separates any two points.
That is string theory. The Photon isn't being transferred. It already exists there - in the transfer state (lets call it superposition) and you merely gave it limits by doing this: m^(n-1)
Yes, but you math is off. You can't use simple binomials--you have to solve for k in a Hilbert space even if you're using imaginary time. You still have to square your values against the wave function.
|
|
I'm not describing a wave - I'm expressing an applied limit to something that consists of every possible value simultaneously. Because the nature of that applied Limit defines a cyclic projection is irrelevant.
Ohhhhhh. You're describing a single particle in superposition, which you'd do anyway if you're ignoring an individual moment [insert head slap].
I understand, but now I think you have to solve for p = mrelv / mrestc2 because your SUSY part is at rest. A SH valuation tool isn't going to work.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I <3 physics
|
|
I'm not describing a wave - I'm expressing an applied limit to something that consists of every possible value simultaneously. Because the nature of that applied Limit defines a cyclic projection is irrelevant.Ohhhhhh. You're describing a single particle in superposition, which you'd do anyway if you're ignoring an individual moment [insert head slap].
I understand, but now I think you have to solve for p = mrelv / mrestc2 because your SUSY part is at rest. A SH valuation tool isn't going to work.
Group theory is always applicable...
|
|
Group theory is always applicable...I'm not describing a wave - I'm expressing an applied limit to something that consists of every possible value simultaneously. Because the nature of that applied Limit defines a cyclic projection is irrelevant.Ohhhhhh. You're describing a single particle in superposition, which you'd do anyway if you're ignoring an individual moment [insert head slap].
I understand, but now I think you have to solve for p = mrelv / mrestc2 because your SUSY part is at rest. A SH valuation tool isn't going to work.
...and perfect for maintaining symmetry; plus the matrices are easier to keep track of, the more complex the values.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Thank you Gary it is much appreciated.
I was reading that the age of the universe varies depending on the strength of the gravity in your location. As gravity slows time in the spaces between galaxy's time is moving faster and the further out you get the further ahead in time you are.
|
|
I was reading that the age of the universe varies depending on the strength of the gravity in your location. As gravity slows time in the spaces between galaxy's time is moving faster and the further out you get the further ahead in time you are.
There's a physicist at CERN...I can't remember his name. He has a theory linking inflatons to the cooling of the Higgs field at 10^-35, which allows for a higher threshold for c and generally stronger gravity. Nonetheless, understood cooling rates and a uniform c should mean that my math for the age of the universe as calculated from Earth should exactly match Werdna's calculations done from orbit of The Monster at the center of the Milky Way. I wonder if he'll finish his calculations before I see him taffiate...?
You know, though, gravity across an anti de Sitter space would allow for actually different ages.
If any of you are on Google + Fraser Cain from Universe Today runs regular Google Hangouts with Astrophysicists and other star watchers such as Pamela Gay, and Phil Plait.
I was reading that the age of the universe varies depending on the strength of the gravity in your location. As gravity slows time in the spaces between galaxy's time is moving faster and the further out you get the further ahead in time you are.There's a physicist at CERN...I can't remember his name. He has a theory linking inflatons to the cooling of the Higgs field at 10^-35, which allows for a higher threshold for c and generally stronger gravity. Nonetheless, understood cooling rates and a uniform c should mean that my math for the age of the universe as calculated from Earth should exactly match Werdna's calculations done from orbit of The Monster at the center of the Milky Way. I wonder if he'll finish his calculations before I see him taffiate...?
You know, though, gravity across an anti de Sitter space would allow for actually different ages.
I am still looking for the article.... As I have no mathematical skills or talents I got a friend to explain.
He used the bowling balls on a trampoline analogy. (He also prefaced it with reality is a billion times more complex).
Time = golf balls
Gravity = Bowling balls
Universe= 1 mile by 1 mile Trampoline
You have a frictionless trampoline about 1 mile by one mile and you throw down a random group of bowling balls each sinks into the trampoline a little but the are all still rolling away from each other. Next you attempt to roll thousands of golf balls across in a steady stream. The golf balls as they come close to the bowling balls start rolling towards the bowling ball (because it is heavy and creates a depression in the trampoline) this alters and slows the course of the balls.
So the flow of golf balls (Time) where there are no bowling balls are (between galaxies) is faster than the flow near bowling balls.
I am still looking for the article. I will post it when I find it.
|
|
So, in essence, gravity is a roughly uniform (conformed) field whose graviton count increases at areas of localized mass. As the masses move through the universe, they perturb the field, affecting the flow of time proportional to the mass (p=mv): this is relativistic mass and is essential in explaining why we need four GPS satellites to get a GPS-defined location.
In a de Sitter space, the outer edges blur with the effect of gravity's pull on light (effectively slowing it down), and depending on how far you are from the center will affect your perception of time: the farther from the center, the younger the universe. In an anti de Sitter space, you get the same effect, but reversed, and your shape looks more toroid than saddle, causing observers on the extreme edge to believe the universe finite and ultra-young. Lucky for us we don't live in any type I or II de Sitter space, and C-Y shapes are invisible to our direct observation.
Observing the universe from Earth (or anywhere else), should reveal the same CBR in the same distribution. Spectrographic analysis of distant objects may show superficially varying times (in travel of light or Doppler shifts), but these will necessarily be irregular and accountable by that very irregularity.
Edit: Though the inside of a black hole, if you could survive the tension, should look and behave a lot like an anti de Sitter space; and it might be really, really hard at the center of superdense objects, like Jupiter or the Sun, to measure anything beyond the first horizon (S=A/4). That's something interesting to think on...
|
|
I have heard that the effective gravity field can vary a bit as one travels the world.
Gravity (and the Relativistic effects) can vary Planck-length to Planck-length.
