Towards Realizing the TPU

[pauldude000]

@loner

ignore the P.S.... Just found the info.

[Grumpy]

@loner

I am in complete agreement with the Grumpster. The jokers whom state fields do not have inertia ignore all of the evidence to the contrary. They create terms such as "carriers" or "virtual" to explain away the self-evident but contradictory facts.

Like Grumpy said... photons hint, hint...

Paul Andrulis

(P.S. Loner, are you going to post the papers you were talking about, or at least a link? I still want to read them.)

Yes, photons!

[Grumpy]

http://van.physics.illinois.edu/qa/listing.php?id=414

Magnetic field is made of photons

Q: My question is--What is a magnetic field made of? I’ve read a lot of things about magnets and the fields they generate, and even that electrons themselves have magnetic fields around them, but I haven’t as of yet come across anything saying what the field itself is made of. It is matter so it has to be made of something. Is there a name for these "particles"? Or are they simply electrons themselves?

-Douglas (age 35)
Louisiana USA

A: Hi Douglas,

The electromagnetic interaction is mediated by the constant exchange of photons from one charged object to another. The magnetic field is really just a classical approximation to the photon-exchange picture. In a moving reference frame, a magnetic field appears instead as a combination of a magnetic field and an electric field, so electric and magnetic fields are made of the same "stuff" (photons).

Some electromagnetic interactions involve "real" photons with definite frequencies, energies, and momenta. Electrostatic and magnetic fields involve the exchange of "virtual" photons instead. Very close to an electron is a dense cloud of virtual photons which are constantly being emitted and re-absorbed by the electron. Some of these photons split into electron-positron pairs (or pairs of even heavier stuff), which recombine into photons which are re-absorbed by the original electron. These virtual particle loops screen the charge of the electron so that far away from an electron it appears as if it has less charge than close by.

Normally we wouldn’t call any of these fields "matter", but it is true that the electric and magnetic fields which surround a charged object like an electron do store energy, and therefore have a rest mass, via E=mc^2 (in a reference frame in which the electron has no momentum).

Tom 

I'll water this down, but hopefully it will "click" in your head:

So, if a magnetic field is made of virtual photons and I make a rotating field of virtual photons - then I should be able to induce current into a toroidal coil if the virtual photon field is rotating within the coil.

Get it?

[Grumpy]

I should have used the term "momentum" rather than "inertia".

You'd be further along if you reviewed the Rowland, Roentgen, Eichenwald, and Wilson.  Few non-physicists are familair with them at all.

[pauldude000]

@Loner

No insult taken! This kind of theorization can be a bit much for anyone to wrap their head around, including me. However, your credibility has actually increased in my book, not decreased. 

I understand your basis, but what I put forth for your consideration is the fact that quantity cannot be removed from property, except in an equation. This is a cause and effect universe, with the effects tied inseparably to the root causes. The understanding of physics is geared towards gaining an understanding from a particular viewpoint.

I can state for a photon E=hf, and in such do not need to consider E=mc^2, for instance. Yet, does hf in any way negate mc^2 (ignoring the lorentzian transformation equations for simplicity)?

Ask yourself a simple question: why is mass coupled with c in ANY equation, considering that mass is by definition a property of matter only, and c is a constant for electromagnetic energy in a vacuum only. Einstein is still chuckling in his grave, as he understood full well the ramifications of this.....

(My guess is he left the concept unvoiced to allow the idea to become fully entrenched in physics before the revelation would HAVE to become both evident eventually, and irreversible logically, in order to stem off unnecessary traditionalist argument.)

Yet, a photons energy can indeed be found using hf, and the "virtual mass" can be figured with mc^2. I just state the mass is not virtual, that mass itself is another EFFECT of the existence of  not "matter", but ENERGY. Therefore, all energy would and does indeed demonstrate the mass based "effects". (momentum, inertia etc.)

It should not be surprising to anyone reading this truthfully, though I myself overlooked the principle for quite a very long while myself, and was more than puzzled for years. However, QM, String theory, Etc, models all show that "matter" never was what we considered as "matter" anyway, but instead are a confined "packet" of energy. Relativity actually encompasses the concept, as well as QM. It is only the old definitions and understanding of "matter" that is violated.

I hate to state it this way, but particle research and QM have already shattered the old notion of "solidity" anyway.

Loner, I agree that when trying to consider this from the classical viewpoint, the complexity is staggering. I just wish to point out that I think our understanding is what is at fault, for the unnecessary complexity. I actually think reality is MUCH simpler than we make it according to it base principles, but more complex than we CAN understand within this limited framework.

To quote you "You can state that all currents create a magnetic field". First, I do not think ALL currents create a magnetic field, in fact this is limited in my understanding of only one type of "current", namely the one associated with the flow of electrons.

Yet I propose that any charged particle can "flow" from an area of excess charge to an area of depleted charge. In essence, that any charge imbalance can equalize, no matter the charged particle type. For instance, the only non-charged particle I am aware of (some of my knowledge may be out of date) is the neutron. What about the thousands of "other" charged particles?

Each type, when flowing or moving in any way may well have their own associated  effects, in the same manner as the electron. Also, the flow of one may well affect the flow of another, due to field or charge interactions.

Now, you are absolutely right in that understanding these things do not necessarily affect on a large scale circuit designed for the lowly electron. However, understanding their interoperability, effects, and interactions may well be critical.

For OU purposes, OU may never be achieved except by accident unless these things are taken into consideration, as the electron is the best known of the bunch, and its rules of operation are the best defined and understood. Not all, mind you, but a good working model of operation.

@all

Sorry about this "DR GIGANTO" post... I couldn't say these things with any comprehension at all utilizing less wordage. I also think this is probably not adequately enough explained as it sits.

Paul Andrulis