Posted on 02/28/2003 2:59:02 PM PST by sourcery
Ahem: "Unified field theory"
Ahh, this is the core of the matter. I have long been familiar with the graphic image of the magnetic field propagating through space as a sine wave, with the electric field propagating along the same line but polarized at a right angle to the magnetic field. What I was really wondering is, what exactly is the medium through which the wave propagates? Because, as we all know, our conventional understand of waves and energy require that you can't have a wave formed of nothing; the wave is a traveling oscillation jostling gas (or other) molecules around, in the case of sound; or a mobile inequity in the depth of a body of water, in the case of surf.
Apparently, with electromagnetic waves it's some sort of transmissible inequity allowing energy to be stored and released sequentially, in a process that propagates at rate c, in space itself.
I'll have to look up that book.
Waves propagate by changes in the strength of fields over time. Fields change their strengths because of changes in the state(s) of the particles that generate the fields. To go deeper requires consideration of the meanings of concepts such as space-time, mass and energy. At that level, thought and communication become rather difficult, because analogies and metaphors with common experience become problematical, to say the least. Our culture, language, semantic models and perhaps even our very brains are not designed for it. We are lucky when we finds ways to model such things using some formalism (e.g., mathematical equations.) We are even luckier when the meaning of such formal models can be translated into common natural language.
Granted, a general discussion of field propagation is probably beyond me at this point. Failing that, could you name the particles relevant to propagating, say, a radio wave through vacuum?
Thank you. One more question... when the local FM radio station fires up its broadcast tower, or I turn on a flashlight, are the devices emitting bosons, or are they merely propagating waves through a soup of bosons already in place?
You are right, he did not.
the original statement was probably as correct as anything you, yourself, could say in a sentence or two.
As an engineer, and on a forum of nonengineers, I can live with approximate explanations. Were I a mathematician or talking to other techies, the distinction would be too great to blur over. The difference between applying an overt force vs. changing the momentum flux of a working medium are most definitely related, but not identical.
For example, a pure ramjet is an efficient air-breathing engine at high Mach. Ideally, it is an open cylinder (imagine a paper towel tube), that has burning fuel injected into the center of the cylinder. The problem with this design is it can't start from zero velocity, but if you could get the thing going fast to start with and then "turn on" the ramjet, it would work just fine. Clearly, the engine isn't "pushing" on the air flowing through this hollow tube. It is the burning fuel which raises the energy of the air in the tube, which makes it expand at higher velocity (momentum) out the back of the tube than it was entering at the front of the tube. It is, in essence a thermodynamic process, rather than a mechanical one, which is why the "pushing" analogy (a mechanical analogy) is not the best one to make.
It is not correct to consider the existence of fields, waves and particles as independent things. They form a unified whole, and work together as a system.
Force-transmitting particles are the wave quanta of their associated fields. In other words, waves propagate through a force field in discrete units of state change, and we call those wave-propagated quanta of field state change "particles." Force-transmitting particles exist because wave-propagated state change in fields is required to be quantized.
So the devices you mentioned are emitting vector bosons, not merely propagating waves through a soup of pre-existing particles.
According to MrLeRoy, the burden is on you to prove your point. I can merely say you prove nothing till YOU prove your point.
Actually, I got a new Webster's since then and it still says the same. Nothing has changed, except a lot of people seem to be questioning authority these days.
Question Authority!
Saw this today on the back of a Datsun stationwagon; sticker looked new, in better shape than the rest of the car.
Sixties bubble-gum for the mind, coming back. This time around we should respond with, "Why should I? Who are you to tell me?"
Question that someone is still driving a blue Datson B210. Or actually, don't bother questioning someone who plainly warns everyone: I Brake for Hallucinations.
Had a few dates with a lady who drove a B210, back when a B210 could be slightly used. Good memories. Don't know about the car, but she was nice.
I suspect there are more late-70s B210s on the road than there are early-80s Yugos. How do you make a Yugo go faster? Hitch it up to a tow truck!
I would guess, then, that bosons have no mass in the conventional sense.
So the devices you mentioned are emitting vector bosons, not merely propagating waves through a soup of pre-existing particles.
...implying, therefore, that the devices either turn electrons into vector bosons, or (more likely, as I see it) use the energy derived from an electrical charge differential to generate those vector bosons.
You know, I really should quit bugging you about this and read that book. Thus far, however, your information has been pretty darn fascinating.
Does anyone know the meaning of the m in y = mx + b? The classic equation of a straight line function. Why m and not a or s? Slope is the usual term, although sometimes it is called something else. Why the letter m in most of the textbooks?
A guess might be m representing to metron from Greek, possibly something Pythagorean, meaning the measure, but that is just a guess. Did Isaac Newton originate the m, or is it older?
Vector bosons have no rest mass, but thanks to the famous e=mc2, they do have relativistic mass.
...implying, therefore, that the devices either turn electrons into vector bosons, or (more likely, as I see it) use the energy derived from an electrical charge differential to generate those vector bosons.
An electron is a quantum of charge. When it oscillates, it creates waves in its associated electric field, resulting in the propagation of electromagnetic waves, which transmit energy that is quantized by the particle called a photon.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.