What is gravity, the electric and magnetic fields?

[junglelord]

thats where your wrong....long after your gone, Big Ben will still tell time.
Ding Dong.

[altonhare]

thats where your wrong....long after your gone, Big Ben will still tell time.
Ding Dong.

Ding dong is synonymous with telling time?

[flyingcloud]

cuckoo, cuckoo

is that better?

[moses]

>Anyone can see for themselves
>that time is an illusion and does
>not really "exist." Riposte

Things change, and time arises from this,
so because things do change then time
exists. Does consciousness grow old ?
Or is consciousness beyond time ? The
illusion is that consciousness is bound
by time.
Mo

[nick c]

I agree with Mo.
The issue of conciousness is the wild card in this discussion.

nick c

[junglelord]

I made a post that got deleted. Mad idea, but what if the field of consciousness was a real field and was involved in materials science at the quantum level>? Could advanced technology make use of such a field to become a symbiotic unit with a craft and the fields of ES, EM, Gravity> The rumour of Roswell, is such a technology....

At some point, consciousness needs to be accepted as a real field.


I believe if the introduction of ES charge as a fundamental field, into the SM, one would see that the gluon that fails to appear does not exist for a reason. EM charge is the field that makes a nucleus. The so called "weak force" is the proportional difference b/t EM and ES distributed charge geometry. This means that gravity would be the third force.
It would and should be shown that matter and anit matter repel with the gravity field. Therefore gravity is not a unipolar force...it is bipolar.

[Influx]

Some interesting thoughts, I had recently. As I am still trying to answer the question in the title of this tread.

Electrons and protons are easily manipulated by magnetic fields. Fact.

If electrons and a proton combine in a said field (make hydrogen) they are no longer effected by the magnetic field. Fact.

So what happens when the electron and proton combine? They somehow cancel out each others interaction with the magnetic field? So... What's up with iron then? The canceling effect is not complete in it's atomic structure!? Is that why iron is magnetic?

The electron is a massively small particle! But it is still effected by the magnetic field or force. So whatever the magnetic force is, it must be many times finer than the electron!?

The positron fly's backwards in the same mag field as the electron, weird... so close I can almost taste it. It is almost like the electron is a generator, or a electromagnet. The positron has its current flow reversed? Yet if the electron and the positron were simple electric and magnetic fields, wouldn't they be unable to interact with light. I mean how is light, a photon, supposedly absorbed by the electron, when light is not effected by the em fields of any kind?

[junglelord]

Hydrogen is affected by a magnetic field.
http://www.chemistry.mcmaster.ca/esam/C ... ion_2.html

Interestingly enough, that is what a MRI is all about.
http://people.ee.duke.edu/~jshorey/MRIH ... /work.html

[Influx]

Hydrogen is affected by a magnetic field.

Oops, I wasn't being clear, I meant hydrogen not being able to be trapped in a penning trap.

Both ATHENA and ATRAP produced antihydrogen by mixing antiprotons and positrons in electromagnetic "bottles" called Penning traps. Penning traps feature strong solenoidal magnetic fields and longitudinal electrostatic wells that confine charged particles. The antiprotons come from CERN’s AD, and the positrons come from the radioactive isotope 22Na. The whole process involves cleverly slowing, trapping, and cooling both species of particles (Amoretti et al.. 2002 and Gabrielse et al.. 2002). But here’s the rub: when the charged antiproton and positron combine, the neutral antihydrogen is no longer confined by the fields of the Penning trap, and the precious anti-atom is lost. The ATHENA experiment demonstrated antihydrogen production because it could detect the annihilation of the anti-atoms when they escaped the Penning trap volume and annihilated on the walls.

http://cerncourier.com/cws/article/cern/30577

I recently read the book Antimatter http://www.bookdepository.co.uk/book/97 ... Antimatter. Where they talk about neutral hydrogen and anti hydrogen escaping penning traps.

To me this is very interesting!

[Solar]

But it says that "when the charged antiproton and positron combine, the neutral antihydrogen is no longer confined by the fields of the Penning trap..."

Also, with regard to your earlier question it brings up an interesting and usually unconsidered relationship. "Conventional Current":

Although it is electrons which are the mobile charge carriers which are responsible for electric current in conductors such as wires, it has long been the convention to take the direction of electric current as if it were the positive charges which are moving. Some texts reverse this convention and take electric current direction as the direction the electrons move, an obviously more physically realistic direction, but the vast majority of references use the conventional current direction and that convention will be followed in most of this material. In common applications such as determining the direction of force on a current carrying wire, treating current as positive charge motion or negative charge motion gives identical results. Besides the advantage of agreeing in direction with most texts, the conventional current direction is the direction from high voltage to low voltage, high energy to low energy, and thus has some appeal in its parallel to the flow of water from high pressure to low (see water analogy). - Hyperphysics

It is also important to note that depending on the material, currents can flow in opposite directions at the same time. But for the sake of convenience consensus follows the direction of voltage potential - since the result are supposedly "identical" as stated above due to protons and electrons having the same amount of charge. Which seems to have implications for "Negative Electricity".

[Influx]

It is also important to note that depending on the material, currents can flow in opposite directions at the same time

.

Scientists regularly deal with "hole flow" in semiconductors, is this what the quote is talking about? But in bulk in a wire?

Like so?>>>>>>>>>>http://cdn-write.demandstudios.com/uplo ... /12428.jpg

I mean electrons flow in one direction and holes flow in the other direction! But can holes do work? I think its just an illusion.

[Solar]

Scientists regularly deal with "hole flow" in semiconductors, is this what the quote is talking about? But in bulk in a wire?

Like so?>>>>>>>>>>http://cdn-write.demandstudios.com/uplo ... /12428.jpg

I mean electrons flow in one direction and holes flow in the other direction! But can holes do work? I think its just an illusion.

You bring up an interesting set of questions.

Hole flow is the same thing as electric current, which is in the opposite direction of the actual flow of electrons. The term hole flow is usually only applied to semiconductor physics.

By the time science understood that electric current was the movement of negatively charged electrons, it was too late to change the standards, the textbooks, the schematic diagrams, and the generally accepted theory. The direction of current flow was set as opposite to the actual flow of the charge carriers, which we now know flow from areas of negative charge to areas of positive charge.

Now here is the part related to accepted consensus convenience:

... it doesn't really matter that everything is backwards, because the standards and models still work. The behavior of the circuit is predictable. It doesn't really matter which direction the electrons are moving, because the concepts of voltage drop, electric fields, magnetism, and all the physical world that they interact with behave as we expect them to.

It was important to understand that the negative charge carriers were the ones that were moving ...

But, as relates semiconductors:

From this, we can see that the difference between current flow and electron flow makes a big difference in truly understanding the physics behind semiconductor operation. To maintain the positive to negative flow standard when talking about semiconductors, we need to talk in terms of hole flow. That is, rather than discuss the direction the electrons are traveling (which would be the opposite direction of the electric current), we discuss the direction the holes are "traveling". This is very counter-intuitive, as empty space obviously does not actually move, but necessary to maintain the standards set by Benjamin Franklin back in 1752. - Hole Flow

I'm reminded here of discussions in the Superconductivity thread wherein "pinning sites" (mesas) were 'tunneled' into material were the magnetic field lines intersect the material. At the location of the "pinning sites" individual vortices could be seen and manipulated. So it sounds as if negatively charged electrons are progressing from "pinning site" to "pinning site". It suggest that the "pinning sites" are what they are referring to as "holes". Not that the "holes" are actually moving, the positive "charge carriers" appear to be moving in the opposite direction of the negative electrons.

Thoughts?

[Solar]

These ideas are also in relation to "Covalent Bonds":

Covalent chemical bonds involve the sharing of a pair of valence electrons by two atoms...

And

Electron-Hole Pairs

When an electron jumps from the valence band to the conduction band it leaves behind a hole, or missing electron, in a covalent bond. This hole can easily be filled by an electron from an adjacent covalent bond, so the hole can move through the lattice. Thus an intrinsic semiconductor conducts electricity by means of negative charge carriers (electrons) and positive charge carriers (holes). - Electron Hole Pairs

Which seems to contradict the earlier quotes from my previous post suggesting that the "holes" are moving.

In the valence band, a lack of an electron is called a "hole" and it is treated as an electron with positive charge and negative mass. Electron-hole pairs are created when an electron in the valence band gains enough energy, due possibly to optical excitation or thermal excitation , to jump up to the conduction band, leaving behind a hole. These electron hole pairs are also obliterated when an electron in the conduction band loses energy and falls back to the valence band. When this happens in intrinsic semiconductors, they will frequently release a photon (conservation of energy) equal to the energy width of the band gap. - Band Gap

But this is interesting:

So here comes the tricky part. Valence electrons can acquire enough energy to contribute to current. We shall say that these electrons have left the valence band--an energy band that contains bound, nonconductive electrons--and joined the conduction band--an energy band that contains "free electrons." All of these terms have rigorous physical meanings, but we can treat them simply as terminology. When an electron leaves the valence band, a hole is said to be left there. Strangely enough, this hole behaves like a positively-charged particle and contributes to conduction in a similar way to the free electron! Again, an explanation for this phenomenon requires quantum mechanics and I hope the reader can simply accept it. I will put it another way--thermal and optical energy cause the generation of electron-hole pairs. The electrons and holes act as independent "carriers" of current. - Semiconductor Physics

The "hole" - "behaves like a positively-charged particle". So unless we understand rigorous quantum mechanics we are asked to simply accept that a vacant "space" is only said to 'move' as an of expression of terminology because it acts like a "positively charge particle". Quite relativistic. If I were relatively 'stationary' with the 'flow' of the negative electrons; from that perspective I would see a bunch of moving "holes" relative to my 'stationary' perception. It's imaginative "electron hole" physics that seems to get results.

[seasmith]

~
Solar wrote:

I'm reminded here of discussions in the Superconductivity thread wherein "pinning sites" (mesas) were 'tunneled' into material were the magnetic field lines intersect the material.

So in this this special case (contrary to EU convention), where we are accepting the existence of actual magnetic field "lines" ?

This whole 'hole and electron' dichotomy has the aroma of a particle participle, but i can't quite put my finger on it.
Something like electron and "hole" are resonant standing waves & the apparent intervals between;
with the participate "positrons" [do they have their own holes?) then being the inverse/reflux action.

DC current is probably an illusion.
~

[Solar]

~
So in this this special case (contrary to EU convention), where we are accepting the existence of actual magnetic field "lines" ?

Nah... not willing to go that far.

Point of fact if you’ll recall Dendritic Flux Avalanches wherein a film was placed perpendicular to a magnetic field the “avalanches” took the form of ‘lightning’ strikes. This “flux” penetrates the matter and “… suppresses the superconductivity locally, and the current flows round the flux line. This is called the "Vortex".

That is an electric current.

Here is the post graphically portraying the ‘pits and mesas’ around the base of which flow “supercurrents” when “magnetic flux” penetrates superconducting material. It is the “supercurrents” that produce the star-like patterns shown in that post.

This whole 'hole and electron' dichotomy has the aroma of a particle participle, but i can't quite put my finger on it.
Something like electron and "hole" are resonant standing waves & the apparent intervals between;
with the participate "positrons" [do they have their own holes?) then being the inverse/reflux action.

DC current is probably an illusion.
~

We're on the same wavelength with the "resonant standing wave" idea. The “holes” of superconductivity that "behaves like a positively-charged particle" are an analogy – a conceptual and mathematical tool similar to the “black holes” of cosmology in that they are a concept. A theoretical mathematical construct.

The problem, is that 'something' is 'behaving' "like a positively-charged particle". There may be some sustenance to those suspicions though. They stuck it at the very bottom of the page:

Holes in quantum chemistry
An alternate meaning for the term electron hole is used in computational chemistry. In coupled cluster methods, the ground (or lowest energy) state of a molecule is interpreted as the "vacuum state"—conceptually, in this state there are no electrons. In this scheme, the absence of an electron from a normally-filled state is called a "hole" and is treated as a particle… - Electron Hole

*nefarious grin*

What is that 'something' doing ('behaving') that they are in need of having to supply a cause ("holes") in order to account for observation and/or measurement? And why do they have to consider them to be 'moving'? Something "anomalous" must be occurring.