Let's revisit magnetic fields . . . . OMG!!

Realizing upfront that there will be much derision on this thread . . . let's do some out-of-the-box (OOB) discussion of magnetic fields. It is understood from research that current thinking infers a 'static magnetic field' is just that - it is static, has no frequency, does no work, etc.

But, just for grins

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

. . . . let's visualize that such static magnetic fields DO have a frequency component. Here I am conjecturing (conjuring?) that static magnetic fields only 'appear' to be static, and that they MAY actually have a frequency component; and that frequency is perhaps the result of virtual photons induced by energetic subquantum (subplanckian) interactions in susceptible materials. The resultant frequency (based on f=E/h*) is simply propogated at too-high a frequency to be detected as a vibrational component and thus 'appears' to be manifest as a static phenomenon.

O.K. Scifora members . . . go for it!!! I would appreciate minimization of personal and professional insults.

(*h usage in the relationship actually only applies to quantal entities -not subquantal ones . . but we have to start somewhere familiar.)

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

OK . . . and thanks for the voluminous response (humor) . . . . . a question . . . . IF static magnetic fields have NO frequency (ie, f=0) . . . does this hold true for ANY static field (e.g., electrostatic, gravity, etc.)?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

A major problem is you don't know the 'in the box' thinking about magnetic fields, so you have no idea what is or isn't understood. including what magnetic fields are observed to do and their relationships to charges and electric fields.

A static magnetic field is defined as static, ie it doesn't change in time. You can't argue with a tautology. There's plenty of electromagnetics which deal with time varying magnetic fields, in fact one of Maxwell's equations explicitly describes the time dependence of a magnetic field in regards to it's electric field partner.

Well you're arguing with a tautology so you're absolutely certainly wrong. It's like saying "Consider a triangle. What if it had 4 sides?".

What you mean to ask if whether it's possible for time dependent fields to look, for all intents and purposes, static because we cannot detect their variations properly.

Considering you don't know what most of those words mean or how to use them properly you might as well be saying "perhaps the result of pink elephants induced by upside down happy tables".

I know you and most of the pseudo crowd don't understand terminology so you fall into the mindset that 'doing science' or 'discussing science' amounts to just throwing around fancy sounding words but that isn't how it works. You have to clearly define what your terminology means and then use it properly and clearly. Given terminology exists to convey specific concepts quickly and precisely misusing it then reduces any discussion to incoherence. If you want to appear as if you're discussing science by incorrectly throwing around buzzwords you don't understand and having others do likewise, fine. But don't for a second think you're doing anything constructive.

If you really and truly wanted to discuss things properly you'd not use terminology you don't understand and you'd not be so unwilling to find out what is currently known. Part of the reason 'old science' is taught to the young is it allows us to learn from the mistakes previously made, to see what paths have already been explored and to gain inspiration from methodologies. Rejecting the mainstream outright, refusing to learn anything about it but then trying to throw around terminology is disingenuous. If you really want to learn and have new ideas you'd not act the way you do. This obsession so many of you have with throwing around concepts you don't understand and pulling guesses on assumptions suggests you just want to 'play scientist'.

Is that all you want to do?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

You're just feeding the troll. He is putting out blatantly silly ideas just to get an opportunity to rant and rave about the evil mainstream. I hope wilminex doesn't really have a PhD, if true his advisor must be spinning in his grave...

 

True enough. The distinction between 'out of the box thinking' and 'making up random gibberish' is lost on him.

Quite. Wlminex's utter lack of understanding in regards to the scientific method, the role of terminology, the requirement to present reasoned argument for ones position and more besides is so glaring something's amiss.

 

That's O.K. boys (AN/Origin) . . . I expected no less than to give both of you (perhaps Prometheus, too) an opportunity to pat each other on the back and go into 'attack mode'. After beating up on me for a while and statisfying yourwelves that you've accomplished the SM mission, then just kill this thread and look for your next victim. Remember? . . . . Guess NOT . . . this IS a Pseudoscience thread!!

wlminex

 

It's not a research question, it's a definition. Static means not changing.

This is equivalent to imagining that a DC current has an AC component. If it did, we wouldn't call it DC. (It's called AC with a DC component.)

You are questioning what static means. It means "not changing".

Everything appears to be what it is by the same manner of analysis used here. Science isn't based on appearances, but on observations.

The sun appears to be shining because it burns holes in your retinas. A static field burns a flat line into the phospher on the screen where you may patiently spend your life waiting for it to begin wiggling. As sure as the sun will shine, that will not happen.

Or perhaps not. The best evidence says 'evidently not'.

. . . is not related to a static magnetic field. However it does have a lot to do with why the sun shines. As sure as the sun will shine, the static magnetic field does not create (or destroy) energy.

Two things:

(1) What do you think the highest detectable frequency is? Suppose tomorrow I reveal I have extended the limit of frequency detection. What are the implications? What can we infer about the source that emits a higher-than-detectable frequency?

(2) By your own formula above, where does the energy come from to emit this higher-than-detectable energy?

Yes, by definition.

Yes, by definition.

 

Thanks (really!) for your thoughtful commentary Aqueous . . . I understand all that you said . . . I'm simply (for AN's benefit) trying to draw a discussion that goes beyond 'appearance' based on my 'speculations' that consider so-far undetectible very-high frequencies that are undetectible (with our current state of quanta detectors) because they are subplanckian (i.e., not quantize-able) in nature and based on the interaction of virtual photons at a subquantum (subplanckian) scale. And, yes, I know that the idea of static magnetism being due to virtual photons is NOT a new concept. I am simply (again) attempting to foster members comments in further visualizing the phenomenon.

BTW: A fun read: http://discovermagazine.com/2008/may/02-three-words-that-could-overthrow-physics

Humorous excerpt: “When you get right down to it, the mystery of magnets interacting with each other at a distance has been explained in terms of virtual photons, incredibly small and unapologetically imaginary particles interacting with each other at a distance. As far as I can tell, these virtual particles are composed entirely of math and exist solely to fill otherwise embarrassing gaps in physics, such as the attraction and repulsion between magnets.”

Thanks for your continued input - wlminex

 

The word I would use is lying. It's interesting why somebody would make a claim like that and expect it to be accepted as fact. It would seem he's definitely no Sherlock Holmes.

 

AN and Brucep: Please RE-READ my OP . . . . . . evidently you BOTH seem to have missed the context of the post . . .i.e., "let's visualize" (if you can!) . . . It appears (IMPO) that both of your visualizing skill sets appear to be severely lacking and do not extend far beyond the end of your respective noses! In my OP, I pose a "what if . . ." speculation (neither a hypothesis, or a theory, or a claim) and have simply asked members to discuss this 'visualization' within THAT context. The intent (if there is one) of the OP is to foment some honest, imaginative, Out-Of-the BOX (OOB), creative thinking - nothing more, nothing less.

 

I said you're a liar. You don't have a PHD. You're definitely not a creative thinker since all that comes out = bullcrap nonsense. The fact you claimed to have credentials that you OBVIOUSLY don't have makes me wonder about your ability to reason. Maybe you lost your ability to reason since you earned a PHD. If that's the case then I would apologize for doubting your claims.

 

Please visit 'About the Members' . . . . "Howdy! . . . This is me!" (Thread). And can you present any credentials for yourself? . . . If so, please post for the members' benefit.

BTW: Please re-read my last post . . . .

 

Brucep I think the problem is:

ehay ashay ostlay ishay abilityway otay easonray incesay ehay earnedway away PHDAY.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Origin: So . . . 'pig-latin' is your preferred method of attempting to communicate with the scientific community? . . . .Please link me to one of your professional (refereed) publications that is presented in that highly-relevant language . . . Thanks!!

 

(Humor here-->) For those members who still have trouble understanding most of Origin's posts . . . here is a link to the origins (no pun intended!) and structural use of 'pig-latin' as a communicative skill.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pig_Latin

 

And NOW folks! . . . moving back to the TOPIC OF THIS THREAD . . . -->MAGNETIC FIELDS<-- . . .!

Most physicists conclude (will get refs, if you want) that static magnetic fields are the product of virtual photon interactions. My thread speculation is that these 'critters' (virtual photons) viibrate at 'greater-than-currently-detectible' frequencies, therefore "appear" to be "static" at the scale/limits of our current detectors' capabilities. Here is an interesting link that discusses real and virtual photon properties.

Clip from: http://qed.sbytes.com/quantum-field
The Quantum Electric Field
“This interpretation implies an interesting comparison between a virtual photon and an observable photon. The momentum of an observable photon is given by the planck constant divided by the wavelength. The virtual photon's momentum is much less, (for equal wavelengths), being reduced by the factor alpha over 2PI, or 1/861.”

 

The greater the frequency of a photon the higher its energy. The highest energy photons we've detected have been cosmic rays at about 3.5 trillion electron-volts. These are so energetic that when they strike atoms of matter they destroy the atoms themselves, leading to showers of particles, antiparticles and hard radiation.

Needless to say if such photons (or even higher frequency photons) made up static magnetic fields - we'd know about it. Going near a magnet would kill you.

 

So? . . . how will we know . . . if we can't yet detect them? . . . perhaps your intimated "increasing cresendo of destruction with increasing energy" is not operative at such scales. I might offer some other scenarios, but I don't want to incite rebellion by the Sciforums 'talking heads' (<--humor here)

 

From the intense radiation and particle-antiparticle pairs being ejected from the static magnetic field.

What mechanism would you postulate to explain photons losing their ability to interact with matter?

 

ANS#1: So? . . . do we observe such phenomena . . . I don't think so (please provide links if you can) . . . so perhaps YOUR scenario would not occur.

ANS#2: Simply a matter of scale . . . virtual photons (not REAL photons) most likely emanate/source from subquantum scale mechanism(s). But for a few exceptions, there is little evidence that subquantum processes/mechanisms interact directly with observable (planckian, detectible) matter.