Action at a distance;

[infamous]

The best illustration that we have for this phenomenon is a simple bar magnet. Because we see no visual evidence that any surface has come in contact with another we conclude that a force field has been responsible for the attraction or repulsion that is observed. In all of physics this one principle of action at a distance is, I believe, the least understood and puzzling concept of nature that confronts the imaginations of man. In this thread, I would like for interested members to shed what light they may possess on this controversial subject.............................Please keep your offerings brief so that all of us can follow the rhythm of logic. My personal feelings are; If we could really understand the nature of space/time between the action and reaction, the knowledge would open up answers to a host of other unsolved or misunderstood phenomenon....................Infy

[dasraiser]

Hi inf,:)

 

There must be a mechanism similar to ocean waves carrying drift wood, if you find the right frequency and amplitude an object can gain momentum and surf, therefore gravity and magnetism must (i think) use the same mechanism but will probably require phased wavelengths (produced by billions of fixed frequency oscillators working together) to draw an object towards the source.

 

regards

[infamous]

Hi inf,:)

 

There must be a mechanism similar to ocean waves carrying drift wood, if you find the right frequency

 

Frequency is certainly a factor, however, in ocean waves or in sound waves we have a medium through which the wave can propagate. In the case of the ocean we naturally have water, and in the case of sound we all understand that it is air which carries or transmitts the wave. In the case of gravitational waves, it is exceedingly more difficult to define the medium of transport. This is where field theory comes into play. But even this leaves us with many unanswered questions. What is a field, and what is it composed of. Taking this idea of field to it's limit, action at a distance implys, in the final analysis, a transmission of information through a measure of nothingness. If nothing exists between these two states, even though it may be on the order of 10^-43 centimeters, it may as well be across the entire universe.

[coldcreation]

The best illustration that we have for this phenomenon is a simple bar magnet. Because we see no visual evidence that any surface has come in contact with another we conclude that a force field has been responsible for the attraction or repulsion that is observed. In all of physics this one principle of action at a distance is, I believe, the least understood and puzzling concept of nature that confronts the imaginations of man. In this thread, I would like for interested members to shed what light they may possess on this controversial subject.............................Please keep your offerings brief so that all of us can follow the rhythm of logic. My personal feelings are; If we could really understand the nature of space/time between the action and reaction, the knowledge would open up answers to a host of other unsolved or misunderstood phenomenon....................Infy

 

I thought this problem was solved long ago. It was shown that eather (ether) does not exist, that action at a distance was due to a field, not spooky magic. Thank Her Albert.

 

cc

[infamous]

I thought this problem was solved long ago. It was shown that eather (ether) does not exist, that action at a distance was due to a field, not spooky magic. Thank Her Albert.

 

cc

But the question is: What is a field and what is it composed of................In logical terms if you please.........understandable for those of lesser intellect like myself.

[CraigD]

To my thinking, fields are not physically real things, but useful abstractions, similar to but more precisely defined than “beauty”, “fun”, or (apologies in advance to Sheldrake fans) “morphogenic fields”. There must be an underlying, physically real thing that causes a particular kind of field. For magnetism, the Standard Model predicted boson – the photon of magnetic force – seems pretty convincing. For gravity, the tentatively proposed, controversial boson – the graviton – seems much more troubled. In either case, what’s real is the quantum wave function of the boson. A field is just a way to visualize potential measurements of this wave function.

 

Regardless of the goodness of any past, present, or future theory, I’m pretty sure magnetic fields aren’t ensembles of any physically real stuff - ether, particles, zero point energy, or what-have-you. Some interpretations of the Higgs field do involve such things, while other’s don’t – this is another area of the Standard Model that’s not yet compelling.

[CraigD]

It was shown that eather (ether) does not exist, that action at a distance was due to a field, not spooky magic. Thank Her Albert.

General Relativity, I think (tentatively - I’ve not given this twist much thought), addressed only action at a distance due to gravity, not magnetism.

 

Also, for all its beauty, power, and some agreement with general particle theory predictions, GR is a classical theory. We suspect to the point of near certainty that it’s only a special case of an underlying physical law that’s yet to be well (or even partially) understood, and won’t hold for some uncommon situation or extremely accurate measurement.

 

Still, thank you Herr Albert – Relativity’s a great special case theory! B)

[infamous]

In either case, what’s real is the quantum wave function of the boson. A field is just a way to visualize potential measurements of this wave function.

Thanks for the feedback CraigD. At the risk of belaboring the issue I need to ask a few more questions. Is it not a true statement that by necessity a wave must have a medium within which to propagate? I would assume that the medium which gravity propagates within would be characterized as the space/time manifold, or put in more logical terms; The fabric of space/time. It may seem as though I'm forcing the issue because I understand that this question may not have a significant answer as yet. For this very reason I'm asking it, only to drive home the point that when scientists speak of fields, they really don't have concrete descriptions to define the term, Field. At least when speaking of the gravitational field.

 

Regardless of the goodness of any past, present, or future theory, I’m pretty sure magnetic fields aren’t ensembles of any physically real stuff - ether, particles, zero point energy, or what-have-you. Some interpretations of the Higgs field do involve such things, while other’s don’t – this is another area of the Standard Model that’s not yet compelling.

I'll say, not compelling because when science asks us to put faith in "fields that aren't ensembles of any physically real stuff" the logical mind is forced to ask the question; "If it ain't real, then why am I putting any faith in it?"

 

For what it's worth, a satisfactory definition for space/time must apply the character of substance to the mix for a wave to be able to propagate through the essence of same.

[arkain101]

Is there a all around equation that defines the ratio of magnetic attraction. Strength and distance? Could we add it here aswell.

[CraigD]

Is there a all around equation that defines the ratio of magnetic attraction. Strength and distance? Could we add it here aswell.

Yes, there is:

F = K * (M1 * M2) / (r^2), where M1 and M2 are the magnetic strength of each pole, r is the distance between them, and K is a constant related to the permeability of the medium between them.

 

Although this looks much like the equation for gravity, it’s less easy to apply, since magnetic pole strength can be positive or negative, and depends on the shape of the magnet, where you consider the pole to be, and the permeability of the medium, making for some difficult practical calculations.

[arkain101]

Thank you. What is the number of K if I may ask.

[Boerseun]

Ahhhh... magnetism. Now there's something I simply cannot understand. B) Good thread, Infy. Hopefully someone can clear it up!

[geokker]

I think gravity is the sum of other forces - I had this brainstorm coincidentally this morning on the Tube while I was being crushed to death by fellow commuters. We (i.e. clever chaps) know that gravity is by far the weakest force, fridge magnets easily defy it. The gravitational force exerted by a single particle is almost non-existent. Collectively however, it can be immense and shapes the universe. I think gravity itself is the collective force of strong, weak atomic forces i.e. not the mass, the forces between mass.

 

So, things that don't have mass like photons and perhaps gravitons can have energy, which ties up that classic loose-end nicely. Action at a distance occurs through a soup of mass-less energy - gravitons?

 

I'll have my Nobel prize in soft blue please.

[arkain101]

I wondered about if you mix the string theory with aether (sp?)and I got this idea. Imagine the universe as a huge glob of source. Like a gigantic conciousness. We can think right.. On your side of your eyeballs lies the invisible you. A part of the invisible conciousness source. So this source which is incapbable of, in normal form (like empty space), of being something detectable. It would seem obvious that it would be impossible to find with using matter of which is made of this source, but can only be detected by using one tool and one tool only. Intelligent thought. That is the only way it can be contemplated to be there, by the invisible you behind your eyes.

 

Now this source which is invisible (invisible meaning that when it is not matter or energy it is not seen but is still there) collects to create a boson for example, yet it isnt an independent boson floating around in nothing, it is a boson existing in this imagination.

 

To get a mental picture of what What I am picturing talking about is to think of thing as this gigantic invisible you. But, when I require to make it visible I picture it as a huge transparent blue glow. Then when I imagine a boson (type object) I picture it becoming from this blue but it isnt an object indepent of anything it would need to be like a circular blur that is in this invisible thing. So if you were to imagine it moving it would look like blur moving through transparent glow.. but how to explain this it isnt somthing that passes through the glow it is a disturbance that the glow makes that creates the appearence of an object traveling through it.

 

Now this invisible thing of I guess u could call invisible energy, can collect to make a bunch of bosons that are all connected still one thing, now these bosons can collect to make quarks but everything is still connected as one, now these quarkes able to be aranged to make protons neutrons, but everything is still connected from the chain of invisible source. next, we got this so called electron cloud, then we have an atom. Now lets imagine for a second we excite the electron cloud, we do this by shrinking a different one and causing the other to expand a little. But when this cloud falls back down again it creates a disturbance in the source that passes through like a wave in water at a constant speed and is interpreted as light or energy when it interacts with areas that have come matter disturbances. Now we have the visible aspect of a collection of source which is matter/energy or which is a manifestation of source. Laws of physics now apply in this stage. I would picture gravity as like large concentration of source where it has- as if you imagine squishing an invisble base ball size of this source and as you compress it a little, some bosons form, compress it some more, and atoms form-created the imagination of matter, and so gravity becomes effect of where high concentration exists. The core of a planet for example is where it is really dense and this is where all that is matter and all that makes matter is most concentrated. So the more you create matter the greater a so called vacume forms around it. this is as if you imagine taking a very clear sphere and fill it with some air. If you had the ability to compress a few billion attoms in the center into a solid the air would have to take place of this lost volume. creating kind of a gravity reproduction. So when source is collected it makes room for somthing to take its volume creating kind of like a catch 22 situation, more collection more compression, more space, more collection. Creating a cycle of "Iwant."

 

I suppose you would call this idea something like, the concious source theory .. or somthing along those lines.

[Boerseun]

Mass = energy.

Mass makes a dent in spacetime, i.e. gravity.

If you take a star and convert the whole thing into energy, there's no mass left - there's just a heck of a lot of energy flying around in the form of gamma rays and other flavours of electromagnetic emmission. If this star had planets, they would all fly off into space.

If you take all the emitted energy (when you converted the star into energy), somehow get all the energy together, would there be any gravity? Does energy cause a dent in spacetime? Seeing as mass is just a different form of energy, I suppose the gravitational force is simply a manifestation of energy in the mass-form. There must be something here, unless energy also dents spacetime...

 

Heck - I missed my train of thought three stations ago...

[geokker]

I think we need to question the statement 'mass=energy'. Perhaps as I've suggested, 'energy=energy' and mass simply contains energy like mud contains water.

[infamous]

I think we need to question the statement 'mass=energy'. Perhaps as I've suggested, 'energy=energy' and mass simply contains energy like mud contains water.

Actually geokker, mass does = energy but it's a little more complicated than just putting the equal sign in between the two. Think of it like this; Energy travels in a straight line through space when uneffected by external influence. Now think of matter as that same energy orbiting about a central or local frame. According to present theory, matter is only energy in high concentration..................Infy