Thread: Magnetism & Particle exhange

What is magnetism ?

Why does - to + attract but + to + or - to - repel ?

I think i read something once that said it was something to do with particle exchange between atoms. Can someone expand on this a bit more please (without formulas)

Thanks

ANYONE?

We only have mathematics to explain the phenomina or some models that approximate it, but really leo nobody actually knows!

Apart from me. :-D

Go on then farsight : - )

EXPLAIN

Originally Posted by leohopkins

Go on then farsight : - )

EXPLAIN

Since we can only explain things by relating them to what we perceive as physical reality the chances are there will never be an answer to that - even if a particle were to exist called say a mageton which attracted another the actuual force could not be explained, just like electric fields they exist, can be demonstrated and there just comes a point where you have to accept it. It's not like a clock where you can take it to pieces and see how the cogs interact, a force is just that, a phenomina.

The repulsion of +/+ and -/- and attraction of +/- can be explained you think of energy.
Nature allways tend to find the lowest possible energy since it is the most stable one.
When a charge is placed in space it has a electrical field around it, and that field stores some energy in the space.
If another charge of equal charge is placed there we got 2 identical fields in space and the energy increases even more. If those 2 repull each other then they will get further from each other and a lower energy will be stored in the space.
While if 2 different charges is placed we got 2 different fields that takes more or less out each other so no fields get present (or just a very weak one) so they attract each other since then the fields overlap each other more and more and energy decrease even further.

The magnetic field is the same just in that case the magnet generates both fields, just on different sides

I hope this help you

Okay....Can anyone tell me what force stops the electron being pulled into the nucleus of the atom where the proton lies ?

The uncertainty principle.
It states you cant know a particles position and momentum. The uncertainty in both multiplied with each other can never be less than h/2pi

But also the fact that electrons are both waves and particles makes it so that they dont have a specefic place in space. So even if they were to go right into the proton they would still miss it cause they arent at one point but rather like splatted out all over space with a certain probability of bieng found.

This is QM stuff

Okay, neutrino's are as numerous as photon's are they not ? If not, even MORE so, yes ?

Okay, neutrino's are as numerous as photon's are they not ? If not, even MORE so, yes ?

They are probably less numerous but once created they live for a very long time and thats cause they dont interact by forces. Photons interact via EM.
What about it?

Okay, well for every cm3 on the planet and in space there are around 70 billion neutrino's

In order for a proton to turn into a neutron it has to gain some mass (as a neutron is slightly heavier than a proton) So...If the neutron had negative mass; its mass would not be 0 therefore it would still be allowed to change flavour. Furthermore, as the proton emits the neutrino to become a neutron, the proton would acutally gain mass as the emitted particle had a negative mass.

A negative mass particle would also suggest to me that its gravitational force would be the opposite of ours, so it would repel other mass particles and indeed themselves, and as they are created in every star and are travelling through matter; they repel it, it COULD be that neutrino's are small enough and in such number to travel inbetween the nucleus of an atom and its electron/s . and due to the nature of its repulsive gravity, would also help stop the electrons being pulled into the nucleus.

It could also be this repulsive neutrino gravitational force which is driving the expansion of space.

nope, neutrinos have posetive mass. It has been determend, their exact mass is unkown but they have a clue of how much it can at max/min be

How has it been determined ?

From what I am led to believe they had to give the neutrino mass to explain its ability to "change flavour".

What i'm proposing is that if the neutrino had negative mass (not zero) then mathematically, the neutrino woul dhvae no problems changing flavour and it would also explain some of the effect's the universe sees such as why a proton appears to gain mass but loose a prticle to become a neutron. negative mass couldbe the answer. By negative mass im not suggesting no mass at all, im merely suggesting that it has mass but that its value is negative.

Does anyone know what happens when a neutrino hits a neutron ?

How has it been determined ?

they used relativistic calculations studing neutrinos from a supernova.

From what I am led to believe they had to give the neutrino mass to explain its ability to "change flavour".

thats also one of the things but it has been calculated from data collected from observation of supernova neutrinos

By negative mass im not suggesting no mass at all, im merely suggesting that it has mass but that its value is negative.

the main reason why this is impossible is cause then beta decay wont work

Does anyone know what happens when a neutrino hits a neutron ?

I dont think it interacts with the neutron unless it would be like it decays to a proton and a negative particle is released

Whoa, leo. You can't have negative mass. Really. It's like talking about negative length. You can have negative energy, but not negative mass. Also check up on your neutrons and protons. A neutron is more massive than a proton and decays into a proton plus an electron plus a neutrino. Neutrinos are very elusive and not properly understood.

I can explain magnetism. Well, I think I can. But I haven't got it down in a form that I'm happy with. I've got a lot on so it'll be a while yet. Sorry.

Energy and matter are interchangable.
They are one and the same (pretty much)

So if you can have negative energy, you are bound to be able to have negative mass, right ?

Originally Posted by leohopkins

Energy and matter are interchangable.
They are one and the same (pretty much)

So if you can have negative energy, you are bound to be able to have negative mass, right ?

Negative energy doesnt exist. Its just a concept that arrives from where we set energy = 0

Originally Posted by Farsight

You can have negative energy,

Sorry Farsight, that's bollocks it may change to a different form of energy but it is not negative.

its easiest to say a atom got 0 energy when it got no electrons so then when electrons arrive it will have "negative" energy only cause we set it to have negative energy at that point

Hmmmn. IMHO energy is basically stress, which is the same as pressure, though you have to multiply by a volume to get the units right. You can have negative stress. It's tension. A pull rather than a push. If you combined it with stress you'd get nothing. Hence negative energy is a bit more than just a concept, as is a hole or an overdraft. You can consider a gravity well to be a negative energy situation, because it costs you energy to get back to that zero level up in free space.

IMHO mass is different. If you think of mass as energy confined to some small location, you can imagine squeezing something down into a hard tight little ball. You're applying pressure, stress. If you apply tension instead, you're pulling, so you can't squeeze it down into a ball. So you can't have a negative mass. Besides, if you could, if you put your negative mass down next to a positive mass, the positive mass would attract the negative mass but the negative mass would repel the positive mass. You get a runaway situation where they move off together faster and faster. The logic falls apart.

Farsight,

e=mc2 right, so now bung in your 'negative' energy and you end up with negative matter, which you agree does not exist. A push or a pull is a positive force, it exists. it is only opposite in terms of vectors and not opposite in terms of existence.

A pull is merely a positive push with a negative coefficient.

Its vectors, vectors have magnitude and direction, but the direction is never negative

Guys, guys, what's all these negative vibes? Have a google around on the internet.

http://www.google.co.uk/search?hl=en...nergy%22&meta=

mass energy > 0
potensial energy = 0 at infinite distance
thats defintions they have set

I personally believe in negative matter; and I can also see no reason why negative anti-matter could not exist either.

Leo,

What about phase inverted negative anti-matter - is that on the cards as well?

I personally believe in negative matter; and I can also see no reason why negative anti-matter could not exist either.

im going to tell you like i have told many before.
What you belive is of no relevans to how it is.

I'd like to echo that sentiment, leo. You don't want to be having "belief" in things to do with physics. It suggests faith, unfounded unshakeable belief. Not good. If you consider the evidence to support some view, fine. But leave the "belief" out of it.

Yup, belief is the wrong expression to use.

Okay, given the evidence that I have seen thus far, I would say there is a very high chance that negative matter, thusly, negative mass exists.

Please bear in mind though that clumps of negative matter could not exist due to their negative gravitational properties; they would favour a possible uniform and symmetrical spread of space.

I have also read somewhere, on someone elses theory of possible negative matter, that it would move towards a pushing force and away from a pulling force. This is madness, and I dont believe that this is a property of negative matter.

Megabrain, im not too sure what you mean by "Phase inverted"

There's that word again leo.

You're going to have to do a bit of googling on this.

Okay, given the evidence that I have seen thus far, I would say there is a very high chance that negative matter, thusly, negative mass exists.

1: There is no evidence or theories supporting this that is valid
2: Just cause something is likly doesnt mean it exists.

Please bear in mind though that clumps of negative matter could not exist due to their negative gravitational properties; they would favour a possible uniform and symmetrical spread of space.

npoe, negative mass wouild clump toghater like ordinary matter do but stay away from normal matter
-1*-1=1
1*1=1

Dont come with claims and say they got support since negative mass dont have any support. Id suggest if this continue that this would be split into its own topic and put on pseudoscience

I have started a new thread in pseudoscience regarding negative matter so please add anymore stuff you have to say there.

Zelos, I really dont understand why you would think that negative matter would attract itself ?

It WOULDNT. Its gravitational pull would also be "negative".
Although, yes I think that positive mass matter WOULD attract negative matter but negative matter would repel the positive mass matter. SO...what we would have is a tug of war going on. However as negative matter could ONLY exist in single particles as they dont clump together due to their negative gravity. Generally speaking a proton or at least the beginnings of one would have a much higher quantum positive gravitational field than say a neutrino, which I think has a negative mass, therefore the proton could easily suck in the neutrino where it will stay, giving the proton less mass than the neutron until the proton decays into a neutron + an electron + a neutrino.

Now; lets take a photon which has NO mass. would it not be fair to say that a photon is possibly a mass AND a negative mass particle at the same time, giving its overall rest mass zero.

There are some theories out there which seem to suggest that anti matter is matter which is going back in time. this is complete rubbish;

However if it were found that negative mass exists and indeed a photon is made from a positive mass and a negative mass of equal values so that its net rest mass was 0. Could it be that negative mass is going back in time and therefore that is the reason why photons do not experience time as they are going forward in time and the same time as going backwards in time. So that a photon's net mass is ZERO and a photons net reference of time is ZERO.

Leo: Easy, tiger. There's been a lot of debate about the definition of mass in physics. One school of thought says that because a particle like a photon has energy, it has mass by virtue of E=MC2. The current prevailing view is that a photon has no mass because mass is "rest mass" rather than relativistic mass. Whichever view is right, there's no room for negative masses. And there is no way anything can travel back in time. It just isn't something you can travel in. Read TIME EXPLAINED for more info.

lets stop this discussion here and take it in pseudoscience. Megabrain can you lock this if it keeps up?

maybe its a bit like 2 jigsaw pieces.
if the parts don't fit, they leave an empty space inbetween.

sorta like this:

Originally Posted by dejawolf

maybe its a bit like 2 jigsaw pieces.
if the parts don't fit, they leave an empty space inbetween.

further explination is required, what is a jigsaw pieces?

added a bit more in-depth, pictures.
opposites attract because sames doesn't fit?

things without shape cant fit into each other

magnetism got shape.
take 2 magnets, and move them around eachother.
the magnetic field got a sort of ball-like shape.

and yet its so irregular if you look up closly

Hmmm.....

I like the idea of the jigsaw puzzle shape thing.
I am imagining now that as the "sames" don't fit and actually leave "space" in between that it is the EoS which could be the driving force behind the replusion.

It doesnt however explain the attraction between opposites.

i prefer the field explination where the different fields take out each other making more of a energitic vaccum between them. And as they approch each other the fields overlaps each other taking out each other more and more and making the energy stored in space less and less. the traditional movement to decrease energy. logical and works for eletrical fields aswell XD

while for opposite sides/charges the energy between them will increase and a movement away from each other will make the energy level less.

but any better explination that is better is of course alot more fun

well, i guess its far more complex than my little drawing eludes it not to be. but it might be a nice little stepping stone for understanding
the magnetic fields.
it doesn't take more than a few seconds to wrap your head around at least.

Originally Posted by dejawolf

well, i guess its far more complex than my little drawing eludes it not to be. but it might be a nice little stepping stone for understanding
the magnetic fields.
it doesn't take more than a few seconds to wrap your head around at least.

your picture doesnt improve understanding rather makes it harder

IMHO it's all to do with stress and distortion. You can't see it because you're made out of the stuff that gets distorted. It's like a rubber-sheet universe when you're a drawing on or in the rubber rather than walking around on top of it.

Originally Posted by Zelos

i prefer the field explination where the different fields take out each other making more of a energitic vaccum between them. And as they approch each other the fields overlaps each other taking out each other more and more and making the energy stored in space less and less. the traditional movement to decrease energy. logical and works for eletrical fields aswell XD

while for opposite sides/charges the energy between them will increase and a movement away from each other will make the energy level less.

but any better explination that is better is of course alot more fun

Can you expand on this a bit more, because I like that idea, it sounds interesting.

if you want this a bit more explained just PM me and i´ll explain it better and mathematical if youd like it