1. Well.. What if all of this is linked...

What if dark matter, dark energy, is just matter, but in another state of being.

I made these 2D models of atoms, just to simplify. Put the third dimension on by adding an hourglass figure, and i can actually predict gravitons, electromagnetic emissions, and so called tachyon particles (or anything that makes the universe age, electrons spin, and gravity waves pull matter (etc)).

With this i can say one thing. The universe spins rapidly, about lightspeed squared. Not sure to what direction, but because my model only includes 2D, makes it spin in all directions at once if i make it 3D.

It also explains why the universe expands in an accellerating rate, and why the universe grew so quickly in the first few picoseconds...

Not sure how to do math under these conditions though. Any thoughts?

2.

3. Originally Posted by Zwolver
Any thoughts?
Yep. Rather post personal ideas in the Personal Ideas section if you don't mind?

4. Originally Posted by Zwolver
Not sure how to do math under these conditions though. Any thoughts?
If the universe had net angular momentum, it would be described by a cosmological model called the Goedel Metric :

Gödel metric - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Since this is obviously not what we observe, the notion is trivially falsified.

5. Originally Posted by Markus Hanke
Originally Posted by Zwolver
Not sure how to do math under these conditions though. Any thoughts?
If the universe had net angular momentum, it would be described by a cosmological model called the Goedel Metric :

Gödel metric - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Since this is obviously not what we observe, the notion is trivially falsified.
Actually, because it is with lightspeed squared, and science knows and confesses that physics changes under these conditions, we can not tell if it is what we observe or not.

I am not even entirely sure we could observe this spinning even if it were true. Say the universe would lay on an infinitely small surface, then it CAN spin in every direction at once with the speed of light squared. But this is merely a result of the flow of energy, it is not a necessity of how the universe works.

I fear that if i post my entire theory here, i will see it published in a few years, and miss my 15 minutes of fame and fortune.. ( i know, it's a tower of cards, but i would like someone to prove me i am wrong with facts i don't know about yet )

6. Originally Posted by Zwolver
The universe spins rapidly, about lightspeed squared.
Two problems with that:

1. Spin is not measured as speed (the speed depends how far away from the centre of rotation you are).

2. Light speed squared is not a speed. So I don't see how it can relate to rotation, anyway.

7. Originally Posted by Zwolver
We don't know it's there
One of the things we do know about dark matter is that it is there. The density of dark matter throughout the universe can be measured and mapped.

8. Originally Posted by Zwolver
I am not even entirely sure we could observe this spinning
Yes we would and we could. Modelling a universe with intrinsic angular momentum is rather straightforward, and it would have easily observable consequences. The Goedel model is just one example, there are many others, such as the van Stockum dust solution for instance.

i know, it's a tower of cards, but i would like someone to prove me i am wrong with facts i don't know about yet
Well, the fact is that according to current models of gravitation, intrinsic angular momentum in the universe would be observable ( even with a very small amount of angular momentum ), and fact is also that we do not observe any such thing in reality. That is really all that can said here.

9. Originally Posted by Strange
Originally Posted by Zwolver
The universe spins rapidly, about lightspeed squared.
Two problems with that:

1. Spin is not measured as speed (the speed depends how far away from the centre of rotation you are).

2. Light speed squared is not a speed. So I don't see how it can relate to rotation, anyway.
I know about this, i just took lightspeed because it seemed like a rigid constant, under some conditions. And true, rotation is measured in RPM, but an infinitely small object, like i propose, or also infinitely big (same thing in my idea) can not spin, or will automatically spin at (near) infinite speed. I was making a model, not observing the facts, not right now at least.

One of the things we do know about dark matter is that it is there. The density of dark matter throughout the universe can be measured and mapped.
Nope, i was saying that even though we can measure it is there, it does not need to be there. I mean, is it really THERE, or do we just measure the effects it has on our plane of existence. As you can not hold it, use it, just measure some of it's effects. Is it really there, or is it somewhere else, and just smudging through the fabric of what we call our dimensions.

10. Originally Posted by Markus Hanke
Originally Posted by Zwolver
I am not even entirely sure we could observe this spinning
Yes we would and we could. Modelling a universe with intrinsic angular momentum is rather straightforward, and it would have easily observable consequences. The Goedel model is just one example, there are many others, such as the van Stockum dust solution for instance.

i know, it's a tower of cards, but i would like someone to prove me i am wrong with facts i don't know about yet
Well, the fact is that according to current models of gravitation, intrinsic angular momentum in the universe would be observable ( even with a very small amount of angular momentum ), and fact is also that we do not observe any such thing in reality. That is really all that can said here.
This whole thing about this is, that we have no mass, we just observe mass because we are a channel of the upper and lower energies (hourglass), this flow makes us, every atom, the entire universe spin, and because of the chaos of the spin, makes us totally still. Without this spin, logic would claim (in my eyes) that the core of an atom wouldn't be round, electrons would not simply circle the core at random positions, but would slowly form a lane around the atom, which would make it unstable and fall apart.

We need each and every one of our atoms to spin, and because this spinning could be affected by other atoms, it needs to be a constant flow of energy. Just scraping the electrons would slow an atom down make it unstable etc.

11. Originally Posted by Zwolver
This whole thing about this is, that we have no mass, we just observe mass because we are a channel of the upper and lower energies (hourglass), this flow makes us, every atom, the entire universe spin, and because of the chaos of the spin, makes us totally still. Without this spin, logic would claim (in my eyes) that the core of an atom wouldn't be round, electrons would not simply circle the core at random positions, but would slowly form a lane around the atom, which would make it unstable and fall apart.

We need each and every one of our atoms to spin, and because this spinning could be affected by other atoms, it needs to be a constant flow of energy. Just scraping the electrons would slow an atom down make it unstable etc.
I'm afraid I have no idea what you are trying to say. It doesn't appear to be making any sense in the context of established physics.

12. I get the impression that Zwolver might be posting from a "coffee shop" ...

13. Originally Posted by Markus Hanke
Originally Posted by Zwolver
This whole thing about this is, that we have no mass, we just observe mass because we are a channel of the upper and lower energies (hourglass), this flow makes us, every atom, the entire universe spin, and because of the chaos of the spin, makes us totally still. Without this spin, logic would claim (in my eyes) that the core of an atom wouldn't be round, electrons would not simply circle the core at random positions, but would slowly form a lane around the atom, which would make it unstable and fall apart.

We need each and every one of our atoms to spin, and because this spinning could be affected by other atoms, it needs to be a constant flow of energy. Just scraping the electrons would slow an atom down make it unstable etc.
I'm afraid I have no idea what you are trying to say. It doesn't appear to be making any sense in the context of established physics.
I understand that. It's not easy for me to explain this. And no, it does not make sense in the context of established physics. However, i found the current model of physics contradicting itself.

I asked myself the question, why an atom was round in the first place. A planet is round, because gravity presses it to be round, a meteor is usually round because it is the shape the constant battering of rocks, rays of the sun, and the normal rotation motion would make it round. Some pebbles in the rivers, are round because they spin when the water runs over them, and continuously drags them along. An atom has none of those, none apparent ones.

Then the problem with the expanding universe, from seemingly nowhere. The rapid expansion in the beginning, etc. The big bang. Also how come electrons spin, what happens when matter is fused, and how to predict the energy, how gravity is formed. It all comes from this model. And to me, it explains everything. Yet i need help getting the math together

14. I admire your calmness and patience, Kalster and Markus, with scum like this that say IN ONE SENTENCE that he "doesn´t understand physics" but has found that "current model is contradicting itself".

15. Originally Posted by Zwolver
I asked myself the question, why an atom was round in the first place
Atoms aren't round; where did you get that idea ?

A planet is round, because gravity presses it to be round
It's spherical because that is the shape which corresponds to the lowest possible state of potential energy for the system.

Also how come electrons spin
Because it's a fermion; the intrinsic spin is due to symmetry considerations - see "Dirac Equation".

what happens when matter is fused
I presume you mean nuclear fusion. That is a very well understood process.

and how to predict the energy
You calculate it using the laws of quantum mechanics.

how gravity is formed
It's a manifestation of the geometry of space-time, which in itself depends on energy-momentum.

Then the problem with the expanding universe, from seemingly nowhere.
This is the only one of your questions that we cannot definitively answer, since we do not yet have a consistent model of quantum gravity. This is an area of very active and ongoing research.

16. Originally Posted by Zwolver
Yet i need help getting the math together
Maths for what, exactly ?

17. Originally Posted by Strange
I get the impression that Zwolver might be posting from a "coffee shop" ...
...where they sell pot? Absolutely.

18. Originally Posted by Markus Hanke

Atoms aren't round; where did you get that idea ?
Every single textbook. I know they are not perfectly round, but they are not forming weird tendril structures, they stay apart. This has a reason, and i am simply looking for this reason

It's spherical because that is the shape which corresponds to the lowest possible state of potential energy for the system.
Yes, i know that.

Because it's a fermion; the intrinsic spin is due to symmetry considerations - see "Dirac Equation".
This i didn't know. And i don't understand it either, will have to read, maybe my house of cards falls, would be nice.

I presume you mean nuclear fusion. That is a very well understood process.
Well, i didn't only mean nuclear fusion, but thats a part of it yes. And no, the parts about fusion i read, were not explanations of why this happens the way it does, that it does not happen spontaneously. I know we understand fusion, but not the things i wanted to know about it. I can not explain where the energy comes from as in most fusion, all parts stay the same. Also, how electrons can take up energy, and move an orbit, what particles arrange this. Physics is build on assumptions, and while i want to know more stuff, people like Gere call me ignorant. Yes i am not a physicist, but only a very few amount of physicists can actually come up with a theory that change anything.

You calculate it using the laws of quantum mechanics.
Again you miss my point, i know how to calculate the energy, but i can´t find anywhere what determines this amount of energy. Say, i want to build a house, and you show me a picture of a house, while i want to know the measurements of every single brick, the angle of these bricks, and the wiring in the house itself.

It's a manifestation of the geometry of space-time, which in itself depends on energy-momentum.
I´m asking, when i ask for the gravity thing, which particles bump together to pull atoms towards it, or rather what do we build, in small to replicate gravity, as this has not been done yet, we don´t understand yet that which i am suggesting.

This is the only one of your questions that we cannot definitively answer, since we do not yet have a consistent model of quantum gravity. This is an area of very active and ongoing research.
Yet it is totally understandable if you consider that each and every atom is a conduit from A to B where B is the pressure of the space we live in. This pressure may decrease, but the universe has enough momentum to keep going.

To post #21, You don´t seem to grasp anything of physics either, else you would have commented on me like any civilized person would. I asked to be corrected, not to be judged.

19. Originally Posted by Zwolver
Every single textbook. I know they are not perfectly round, but they are not forming weird tendril structures, they stay apart. This has a reason, and i am simply looking for this reason
Due to the laws of quantum mechanics, the outer layers of atoms form orbitals, which give them a shape that very substantially differs from that of a sphere. Have a look here :

I can not explain where the energy comes from as in most fusion, all parts stay the same.
That depends what you mean by "parts". When you recombine quantum objects, their quantum mechanical potentials will change; this is modelled via the Schroedinger equation in quantum mechanics.

Also, how electrons can take up energy, and move an orbit, what particles arrange this.
Photons.

Physics is build on assumptions
No, physics is build on empirical data. Any model in physics must be in accordance to experiment and observation.

Yes i am not a physicist, but only a very few amount of physicists can actually come up with a theory that change anything.
Yes, because that is a very difficult thing to do. Any new model must meaningfully add to our understanding without rejecting what we already know to be true.

Again you miss my point, i know how to calculate the energy, but i can´t find anywhere what determines this amount of energy. Say, i want to build a house, and you show me a picture of a house, while i want to know the measurements of every single brick, the angle of these bricks, and the wiring in the house itself.
It's determined by the quantum mechanical properties of the particles involved. You are right, I don't get what you are trying to say; the exact amount of energy can be calculated, but it does depend on the boundary conditions of the problem at hand.

I´m asking, when i ask for the gravity thing, which particles bump together to pull atoms towards it
Gravity isn't modelled with particles, it is modelled using the geometry of space-time. This works for both macroscopic objects as well as for atoms, but in the latter case the effect is so small as to be negligible.

Yet it is totally understandable if you consider that each and every atom is a conduit from A to B where B is the pressure of the space we live in. This pressure may decrease, but the universe has enough momentum to keep going.
Space does not have "pressure" or "momentum", and neither does it have a boundary, so I'm afraid this makes little sense.

To post #21, You don´t seem to grasp anything of physics either, else you would have commented on me like any civilized person would. I asked to be corrected, not to be judged.
That isn't my post. In any case, I can assure you that Gere knows a lot about physics, more than most people here, actually.

20. Well, i´m here to learn. I can´t know everything, but i still try to know as much as possible. I have shown my model to some of my colleagues (astrophysicists & geologists) and they found it to be insightful and shows potential. However i know too little about the math between physics to actually confirm my model..

I don't know anyone with a decent background in quantum mechanics, so that's why i'm here.. Don't assume i know physics, i'm a freaking biologist, it's not my job to know.. haha..

21. Originally Posted by Zwolver
Originally Posted by Markus Hanke

Atoms aren't round; where did you get that idea ?
Every single textbook. I know they are not perfectly round, but they are not forming weird tendril structures, they stay apart. This has a reason, and i am simply looking for this reason

It's spherical because that is the shape which corresponds to the lowest possible state of potential energy for the system.
Yes, i know that.
And, if atoms are roughly spherical in their overall shape, then it is for exactly the same reason: minimizing energy. Actually, this principle explains most things...

22. True, but positive charges should repel other positive charges. Forming a snake like structure, maybe a donut. Relative to the length electrons circle the core, this shouldn't matter, right?

23. Originally Posted by Zwolver
True, but positive charges should repel other positive charges. Forming a snake like structure, maybe a donut. Relative to the length electrons circle the core, this shouldn't matter, right?
There are other forces (the residual strong nuclear force) holding protons and neutrons together in, for the usual reasons, a roughly spherical form. If that force were not there, then the protons would simply repel one another, not form snakes.

It sounds like you should read a good general introduction to physics. I'm sure pretty much all your questions would be answered. Alternatively, try and ask some simple, focussed questions (rather than jumbling them up with a lot of baseless speculation).

24. They cover residual string nuclear force theory in general physics? I studied physics for 2 years (yes i switched to biology), and never even heard of string theory on there. We just had basic calculations with orbits from electrons. The reason why atoms stick together is that it's because it takes energy taking them apart, and they haven't had the energy yet because they are still together.. Kinda chicken egg story, very annoying.

I never claimed atoms to be like this, i just proposed it had an extra force holding it together. Like a constant stream of energy that flows over every atom, like a waterfall.. Matter was created when the 2 dimensions crashed together, and started sharing their energy, by flowing it through our space. Matter itself is more like a byproduct.. Everything we know was created by this constant force of splashing water.. Which has to be some kind of energy.. and why not dark energy?

25. Matter was created when the 2 dimensions crashed together, and started sharing their energy, by flowing it through our space.
Stick with biology.

26. dimensions may not be the best term, but how else would you call a type of unknown energy, or mass, you can't touch feel and you may be able to measure it, but not sure what effect it has.

27. Originally Posted by Zwolver
dimensions may not be the best term, but how else would you call a type of unknown energy, or mass, you can't touch feel and you may be able to measure it, but not sure what effect it has.
If you can measure it, it has an effect, or else there'd be nothing to measure. As to what I'd call it, I'd call it energy or mass, rather than making up nonsensical terms.

28. Well, i am not sure if these are particles or not, at least no particles we can detect yet..

It would be perfect if dark energy and dark matter could be the grains of sand i was looking for in this hourglass..

Would there be a way to measure if one would increase and one would decrease in size/mass or amounts?

29. Dark energy and Dark matter are two completely different things, having no relation to each other. The only thing they have in common is the word 'Dark'.

30. Originally Posted by Strange
I get the impression that Zwolver might be posting from a "coffee shop" ...
Wow, let the secret go, how can you surmise its a coffee shop?

31. Originally Posted by Zwolver
They cover residual string nuclear force theory in general physics?
Sorry: typo. It should have been "strong force"!

32. Posted from PM's with Zwolver's blessing:

Originally Posted by KALSTER
Originally Posted by Zwolver
Originally Posted by KALSTER
Originally Posted by Zwolver
It's extremely hard explaining a physicist what i mean. They work way too much in absolutes, and equations. As a biologist, i think in reactions, flow of energy, and certain missing information.
I have to be frank and say that you don't have the knowledge to be coming up with viable physics theories. You might feel like it all makes sense in your mind, but what we read paints a picture of someone thinking he knows what he is talking about, but really knowing very little.

This is not to insult you. I know EXACTLY how that feels. I have my own little "theory" that I pursued with excitement at one stage. But I know now that it was naive and a waste of time. In fact, if I had been in a position to pursue a career in physics, then those ideas lingering in the back of my brain could have seriously jeopardized my education. We see many people here that fail to realise their mistake early on and eventually become half obsessed with their ideas and start to concoct all kinds of conspiracy theories about "science dogma" and efforts to suppress their kind of ideas and whatnot. Those are the people who turn into cranks.

One of the key things about physics is that there is no requirement for it to make logical sense. Just look at the field of quantum mechanics and you'll see what I mean. There are many elements in QM that makes no logical sense, but has been experimentally verified to extraordinary precision. The same goes for thinking about relativity in terms of the geometry of spacetime and the nature of more dimensions than the normal three we are capable of thinking of intuitively. That is why the maths is so important. You can't really think meaningfully about this stuff without having that mathematical basis.

Think about what you know about Biology. Can you honestly compare speculating about Biological subjects while having that knowledge base with what you are trying with physics now? There is almost no comparison.

If you are really serious about this, then your only course of action that would produce meaningful results would be to actually study the established physics and mathematics first. I will almost guarantee you that most of your idea will melt away as you study.
I am very very very stubborn, and enthousiastic. Which is my fault, and strength. And yes, i tried to understand physics like a physicist, but couldn't.. Tried the biology approach, and some ideas popped up, and some of it made sense to me..

I'm not trying to say the laws of physics are incorrect. Mine fit in perfectly, it just explains the laws we can't explain yet as well.. At least, it makes sense to me..
OK, but you have to realise that the fact that you couldn't grasp established physics should immediately disqualify you from having viable ideas in spite of them.
I feel that if you want to really get people involved in your ideas, that you would need to find some way of expressing your ideas better. As far as that goes, I know how you feel in terms of struggling to convey ideas.

33. Anyway, going nowhere i see.. Will just post the damned image.

Well it's extremely basic, putting in more details would only make it more nonsense.

It was actually based upon the models of black holes, and of regular gravitational field predictions.

34. This is just a first draft, i am thinking however that every atom is a conduit between those 2 locations. They may be out of phase, or another dimension, or some higher plane of energy, or even a lower one. I was hoping to uncover the most sensible conclusion.

This model could explain what was there before the big bang.. Namely, a pocket of energy/matter out of our reach, and 2 empty pockets (at least, there could be multiple, they could even be connected).

The "explosion" of the big bang would be a result for the penetration of this energy to our universe. When enough of a certain substance leaks through at a great enough energy, some constructs will be formed, protons/electrons/neutrons, etc.

35. Stick with biology.

36. Ever heard of overarching field of knowledge? Physicists are newts when it comes to anything practical, engineers build what physicists propose. However creating a theory like this, is not the job of a physicist alone.

You can't win a war with just soldiers.

Your comment is unsupported by facts and thus simply stating your own ignorance. I asked for feedback, maybe to better the theory, not to be judged as a scientist, or just as an analyst.

I know, you're just a troll, but still. Thanks for your response.

37. However creating a theory like this, is not the job of a physicist alone.
When it's a physics theory, it's the job of the physicist, not a biologist waving his hands in the air.

38. It's not really a theory, it's more like a model.. a plausible scenario of this reality.

I don't believe it is the truth (yet), but i can't seem to find evidence to say it can't be true, nor can i find evidence to support it. Other than that it does not influence current laws of physics (that i know of), and explains several problems current physics has to explain several phenomena. This actually coincides with string theory and general relativity.

But you can't get past the fact that i'm a biologist/biochemist, nor that i ain't an expert in physics. I know the basics, and you probably know more than me, so show me why i am incorrect..

39. This is just a first draft, i am thinking however that every atom is a conduit between those 2 locations. They may be out of phase, or another dimension, or some higher plane of energy, or even a lower one. I was hoping to uncover the most sensible conclusion.
Atoms are not 'conduits' between locations. There is no 'out of phase' (stop watching star trek) all things exist in all dimensions at once, (a dimension is only a possible direction of movement), There are no higher 'planes of energy'.

Everything you've come up with isn't even pop-sci, it's pop-scifi.

so show me why i am incorrect..
I think that's enough for now.

40. I agree on all fronts, atoms are no conduits between locations (i used the term locations because i tried to point to the 2 pockets of conceivable flow), they may however be a conduit of energy transfer of some sort. Out of phase, is simply not detectable by normal means, and only indirectly visible by monitoring its effects, and the higher plane of energy term i used was simply for lack of better words. I just mean an energy we can't detect. Actually those things were speculation.

And indeed i do watch star trek, but they never proposed this model there. I have looked at hypothetical models of wormholes though, and this looks like it, but both ends are not a different location, take in mind that i had to remove a spatial vector to be able to draw it, all of this is spatially on the atom itself.

But now at least i am getting somewhere..

*it's hard finding the correct words while i am not used to writing academic scientific reports focused on physics.

41. But now at least i am getting somewhere..
No, I'm afraid not.

42. Well, you could have said that because the Higgs boson is the particle that supposedly provides mass to the matter, that my theory of the stream of energy, visualised with that of a waterstream as the cause of mass in matter, that my whole model is incorrect. Then i would have believed you to be truthfully willing to participate.

But yes, unless i have a way to find out if the higgs boson is a particle, or a stream of energy, i have no ground to continue this theory. Although the collision and spray of the LHC detector indicates a particle, not a stream. And i'm not about to fight any confirmed laws of physics with this.

So thanks for helping me figure out what to do next.. However i can't do this, because it's impossible to find this out..

43. that my theory of the stream of energy, visualised with that of a waterstream as the cause of mass in matter, that my whole model is incorrect.
There is no stream of energy. Energy is not a thing, it's a property of entities.

'Prove me wrong' is the cranks mantra.

44. Originally Posted by AlexG
that my theory of the stream of energy, visualised with that of a waterstream as the cause of mass in matter, that my whole model is incorrect.
There is no stream of energy. Energy is not a thing, it's a property of entities.

'Prove me wrong' is the cranks mantra.
Entity in my eyes, is a living thing.. Of course because of the biology.

But how can energy not be a stream? Most (all) energies we know are in a wave, why wouldn't a stream be possible? (unrelated to my theory btw)

45. this is an idea or conjecture. it is not even hypothesis. there are only 4 matter states. solid liquid gas plasma

46. Originally Posted by Chucknorium
this is an idea or conjecture. it is not even hypothesis. there are only 4 matter states. solid liquid gas plasma
I am not proposing it is matter, nor do i propose it has mass, it just affects mass. But it's false unless the higgs boson is a stream, not a particle..

47. Most (all) energies we know are in a wave, why wouldn't a stream be possible?
Energy is contained by (excuse the term) entities. Photons HAVE energy. Electrons HAVE energy. Neutrinos HAVE energy. But for something to wave, it has to have a structure. Energy has no structure or existence apart from the objects containing it. There is no 'ENERGY', moving through space, just objects containing energy.

48. Originally Posted by AlexG
Most (all) energies we know are in a wave, why wouldn't a stream be possible?
Energy is contained by (excuse the term) entities. Photons HAVE energy. Electrons HAVE energy. Neutrinos HAVE energy. But for something to wave, it has to have a structure. Energy has no structure or existence apart from the objects containing it. There is no 'ENERGY', moving through space, just objects containing energy.
Okay, but if you say energy has a mass, which it could have, relative towards Einsteins formula, then it is the same thing. Then energy has energy, because it has mass.

I'll take a step back, i will now try to define my problems with simple magnetic fields, from a normal magnet, done in a vacuum.

I can not comprehend why a magnetic field, composed of no particles, nor does it change the properties of space around it (as suggested by quantum mechanics), could have an effect on other matter if it passes this field. I understand that this happens, how to create an EM field, and also how this is explained and calculated, but not the execution of the effect itself.

To me, it would be like shooting a duck, while using no bullet, or gunpowder, just using the gun. As a biologist, the ability to blame water, or air, for everything, as a conduit, and the vibration of the molecules, and simply the bumping of these to form other combinations, this makes sense to me.

Can anyone explain how i can shoot this duck, without using a bullet, or gunpowder?

49. Originally Posted by Zwolver
I can not comprehend why a magnetic field, composed of no particles, nor does it change the properties of space around it (as suggested by quantum mechanics), could have an effect on other matter if it passes this field.
The electromagnetic field is present everywhere throughout space-time; the interplay of electric and magnetic components is just the result of the observer's state of relative motion. Also, it isn't correct to say that space-time isn't affected, since the EM field forms a source of gravity just like mass does, so such a field will have an impact on the local geometry.

The upshot is that no one is ever outside the EM field, since it is present always and everwhere, so it is hardly surprising that bodies are affected.

50. Originally Posted by Markus Hanke
Originally Posted by Zwolver
I can not comprehend why a magnetic field, composed of no particles, nor does it change the properties of space around it (as suggested by quantum mechanics), could have an effect on other matter if it passes this field.
The electromagnetic field is present everywhere throughout space-time; the interplay of electric and magnetic components is just the result of the observer's state of relative motion. Also, it isn't correct to say that space-time isn't affected, since the EM field forms a source of gravity just like mass does, so such a field will have an impact on the local geometry.

The upshot is that no one is ever outside the EM field, since it is present always and everwhere, so it is hardly surprising that bodies are affected.
An EM field is not the same as gravity, EM fields draw on EM conductivity through matter (shown by the warped fields through metals), or particles, or even photons. However they do work similar, we can not create a gravitational field as we can a EM field.

But it changing the space around it does help me with this. If space-time is affected i can comprehend this, but with a model of which i think of space as a sea of particles (which is not entirely true, obviously)

51. Originally Posted by Zwolver
An EM field is not the same as gravity
I didn't say that, I said it is a source of gravity, just like mass.

If space-time is affected i can comprehend this
Yes, it is definitely affected - the geometry of space-time is changed in the presence of EM fields, albeit generally by a small degree.

52. Originally Posted by Markus Hanke
Originally Posted by Zwolver
An EM field is not the same as gravity
I didn't say that, I said it is a source of gravity, just like mass.
So if i get this straight, A coil emitting an EM field, also has a greater gravitational pull than the same coil, not emitting an EM field. This actually seems spectacular to me.

53. Originally Posted by Zwolver
Originally Posted by Markus Hanke
Originally Posted by Zwolver
An EM field is not the same as gravity
I didn't say that, I said it is a source of gravity, just like mass.
So if i get this straight, A coil emitting an EM field, also has a greater gravitational pull than the same coil, not emitting an EM field. This actually seems spectacular to me.
Not when you consider that you actually have to add energy to the coil for it to emit an EM field in the first place.

54. Originally Posted by Zwolver
So if i get this straight, A coil emitting an EM field, also has a greater gravitational pull than the same coil, not emitting an EM field.
Yes, correct in principle. Both the rest mass of the coil as well as the EM field inside and outside of it will contribute to the geometry of space-time in this scenario. You can take this to the extreme and conjure up gravitational objects which are made up purely of electromagnetic energy, without any contributions of traditional mass, such as the Kugelblitz, which is basically a black hole generated from pure light :

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kugelblitz_(astrophysics)

This isn't the end of it, however, because it turns out that gravity ( unlike EM ) is self-interacting. This means that it is possible in principle to create topological constructs that are held together only by their own gravitational self-energy, without contributions of mass or EM at all; these are called geons :

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geon_(physics)

These are basically "objects" of pure space-time geometry. Cool, ey

55. Yes, very cool.. I will have to look into this because this was unknown to me before.. School usually doesn't teach that besides a magnetic effect by pulling magnetizing objects towards itself, it also pulls in general. Albeit slightly, but still something worth investigating. I would call this the EMP part on a nuclear bomb. It's a slight side effect, but it shows us much about the inner workings of the universe. Not sure if this makes my own test model inoperable, but i will see if it coincides.

Thanks

 Bookmarks
Bookmarks
 Posting Permissions
 You may not post new threads You may not post replies You may not post attachments You may not edit your posts   BB code is On Smilies are On [IMG] code is On [VIDEO] code is On HTML code is Off Trackbacks are Off Pingbacks are Off Refbacks are On Terms of Use Agreement