Wave particle duality

[Sensei]

Is there anything you have said about these fields that can be measured or observed, and undisputedly considered as existing?

Cloud chamber, device which you can build for $30-$50 and see traces leaved by charged quantum particles...

 

 

 

Why on Earth, I have to repeat it over and over again, every person like you on this forum (and others)..

Couldn't it be learned in the primary school?

 

http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/92998-universal-evolutionary-process/page-4#entry900023

 

http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/92471-the-limits-of-physics/#entry894800

Edited November 16, 2016 by Sensei

[AbstractDreamer]

 

Similarly, you are not going to contribute anything to physics until you learn a lot more than you appear to know at the moment.

It became apparent i didn't know enough, I began reading in earnest. So I have been clicking on links and reading a lot of material, trying to absorb such a vast amount of information, and trying to make what little sense I can of it. I don't have much time left, unless i take sabbatical.

 

Well thank you for all that.

 

It makes it absolutely clear that not only do you you actually know more than you let on, you are misusing that knowledge for reasons of your own.

 

Knowing this enables me to waste no more of my time on your machinations.

 

Don't feed the trolls.

 

Then i learnt a few things and tried to apply my knowledge, and its presumed i know a lot more, and I'm a troll.

 

These equations have been successfully describing electromagnetic phenomena for more than a century; they've been used to make and improve motors and generators, power transmission lines, coils for stereo speakers and for noise reduction in signal lines, and many, many other things.

 

I am not questioning the accuracy of equations. Can you explain your point here?

You do not appear to be in a position to assert that you have a better tale to tell, given that you don't seem to know much about the physics tale.

 

At what point have i attempted to make such assertions, given that i don't deny I'm in no such position?

 

Of course they can be measured and observed. Do you really think that people made them up for no reason at all?

 

You may have heard of a guy called Faraday? And there are all sort of simple experiments you can do yourself. Go and buy a cheap compass or a magnet and some iron filings. And a battery and some wire. Or ...

 

If i understand correctly, observations on those iron filings only demonstrates conservation of momentum. I'm still reviewing vector calculus, so i haven't actually got around to looking at any of the EM equations yet. But i can guess its some function of the magnitude of the source charge, distance from source and maybe some other constants and variables i haven't considered like magnetic polarity. But I'm no where near ready to describe anything mathematically.

In English, I think the field exerts a force on the the filings (as long as the fillings are moving as you shake them, or drop them). This force translates that initial motion energy into the free electrons within an iron filing, ultimately causing the filing itself to "move" more than it would without the field, whilst conserving the energy in the system. I guess the lines you see are because its a dynamic system and there are other forces in play that cause the filings to stick together. As each each filing moves to find equilibrium in the EM field, they themselves create small EM fields that affect other filings nearby.

However is there anything here that demonstrates field lines exist, or a direct measure of the field itself?

 

Field lines are described by maths, which means that the "exists in mathematics" box can be checked; there's no legitimate objection to that.

 

A lot of lines can be described by maths. The field line "feels" like a temporal construct only* required to calculate the gradient of the tangent, for direction. Depending on how you perform and break down the calculation from EM equations to the direction of force, it doesn't need to exist. On the other hand, if there is any use in stopping the calculations before obtaining the derivative, and only to obtain the function of the curve - that is the field line - OR if the function can be used to measure something else, then i would concede. Is there anything legitimate in my beliefs?

 

Cloud chamber, device which you can build for $30-$50 and see traces leaved by charged quantum particles...

 

The observation of those traces leaved by charged quantum particles, simply demonstrate ionisation of the medium by free particles. If you subject the chamber to a magnetic field, that might cause the motion of charged particles to interact and move in a pattern that is a presentation of the field. Is this any different to the iron filings but with smaller particles in constant motion?

Edited November 17, 2016 by AbstractDreamer

[Strange]

 

However is there anything here that demonstrates field lines exist, or a direct measure of the field itself?

 

The iron filings (or charged particles) are moved by the presence of "something". That something is described mathematically as a field. The field is a mathematical construct to describe what we see happening.

[AbstractDreamer]

 

The iron filings (or charged particles) are moved by the presence of "something". That something is described mathematically as a field. The field is a mathematical construct to describe what we see happening.

Why quote me when your response doesn't answer my question?

[Strange]

Is there a direct measurement of the field itself?

Yes, the movement of iron filings, particle, compass needle, etc.

 

How does that not answer the question. Maybe you are asking a different question?

 

If you are asking what the thing we describe by the use of a field "really" is, then that has nothing to do with science. It is metaphysics and, as far as I know, most philosophers would agree that we can never know.

[AbstractDreamer]

Is there a direct measurement of the field itself?

Yes, the movement of iron filings, particle, compass needle, etc.

 

How does that not answer the question. Maybe you are asking a different question?

 

If you are asking what the thing we describe by the use of a field "really" is, then that has nothing to do with science. It is metaphysics and, as far as I know, most philosophers would agree that we can never know.

The meaning of my question has been consistent throughout. The only thing that has changed perhaps is that you now understand.

[Strange]

The meaning of my question has been consistent throughout. The only thing that has changed perhaps is that you now understand.

 

 

The meaning of your question has been obscure throughout.

 

So what IS your question? Is it about the nature of "reality"?

 

If so, that is not a physics question. And (outside of some religious ideas) there is no way of knowing. Are you happy with that? If you want to discuss it further, start a thread in the Philosophy (or Religion) forum.

[AbstractDreamer]

The meaning of your question has been obscure throughout.

 

So what IS your question? Is it about the nature of "reality"?

 

If so, that is not a physics question. And (outside of some religious ideas) there is no way of knowing. Are you happy with that? If you want to discuss it further, start a thread in the Philosophy (or Religion) forum.

 

My claim was about consistency. Obscurity is subjective and in the eye of the beholder. I did not initially raise the conceptual nature of field lines. My argument was that they are NOT real.

[Strange]

My argument was that they are NOT real.

 

 

And that is a philosophical opinion. It has nothing to do with physics. All we can do is observe, measure and describe. If the things we observe, measure and describe don't exist in "reality" then it makes no difference. The measurements and observations exist, and that is all we can know. We cannot, by definition, know anything beyond that.

[AbstractDreamer]

But my question on this board that concerns reality, was to ask if there was anything that WAS real.

 

Is this really so difficult for you to grasp?

[Strange]

But my question on this board that concerns reality, was to ask if there was anything that WAS real.

 

No one knows. The whole universe (and this forum) could just be a figment of your imagination. Or maybe the universe is exactly like we perceive (fields and all). But, as I say, that is a question for Philosophy or Religion, not physics.

[swansont]

I am not questioning the accuracy of equations. Can you explain your point here?

I refer you to the question you asked: "The field lines that you refer to, do they really exist in reality or even in mathematics?" (etc.

 

A lot of lines can be described by maths. The field line "feels" like a temporal construct only* required to calculate the gradient of the tangent, for direction. Depending on how you perform and break down the calculation from EM equations to the direction of force, it doesn't need to exist. On the other hand, if there is any use in stopping the calculations before obtaining the derivative, and only to obtain the function of the curve - that is the field line - OR if the function can be used to measure something else, then i would concede. Is there anything legitimate in my beliefs?

I can't really make heads nor tales of what you believe. The models built in physics are to predict/explain the behavior we observe. Mathematical constructs. Any time they actually describe reality, it's purely coincidental.

[AbstractDreamer]

My stance is neutral, therefore has no head nor tail. I do not have enough knowledge to feel i can make a decision. I have no beliefs on whether field lines exist in reality or even in mathematics.

 

(forgive my editing):

 

 

Field lines... ... "exists in mathematics" there's no legitimate objection to that.

 

I have only tried to argue why there could be a legitimate objection to the claim, and even tried to show when that objection might be illegitimised.

[swansont]

My stance is neutral, therefore has no head nor tail. I do not have enough knowledge to feel i can make a decision. I have no beliefs on whether field lines exist in reality or even in mathematics.

 

(forgive my editing):

 

 

 

I have only tried to argue why there could be a legitimate objection to the claim, and even tried to show when that objection might be illegitimised.

How do you argue that something represented by equations doesn't exist in math?

[AbstractDreamer]

How do you argue that something represented by equations doesn't exist in math?

 

Admittedly tenuous at best in #52:

 

 

A lot of lines can be described by maths. The field line "feels" like a temporal construct only* required to calculate the gradient of the tangent, for direction. Depending on how you perform and break down the calculation from EM equations to the direction of force, it doesn't need to exist. On the other hand, if there is any use in stopping the calculations before obtaining the derivative, and only to obtain the function of the curve - that is the field line - OR if the function can be used to measure something else, then i would concede. Is there anything legitimate in my beliefs?

Edited November 19, 2016 by AbstractDreamer