THE FIELD

screen-shot-2011-12-23-at-11-25-57-pm

  1. Space may be regarded as a theoretical “field” of zero frequency. It is still just like the undisturbed surface of a pond.

  2. When space is disturbed it splits into electrical and magnetic components just like the disturbed surface of a pond splits into peaks and valleys.

  3. The electrical and magnetic aspects of space transmute back and forth at a certain frequency just like the peaks and valleys of the pond’s surface transmute back and forth at a certain frequency.

  4. An electromagnetic field is “disturbed space.” This field is very dynamic, and it carries electromagnetic disturbances of frequencies that constitute a spectrum.

  5. The electromagnetic disturbance is three-dimensional, and it is transmitted to other parts of space just like waves on the surface of pond are transmitted to other parts of the pond.

  6. Photons are elements of electromagnetic field. In space they are continuous like waves, but they behave like discrete energy particles during interactions among fields. The “size” of photon is determined by the frequency of disturbance at that location in the field.

  7. More complex forms of fields are generated when basic electromagnetic fields interact with each other. These complex fields also have their energy particles of higher and complex frequencies.

  8. Thus we have the Standard Model of Particle Physics.

  9. Matter is basically an electromagnetic field, in which are embedded atoms. An atom is a more complex electronic field, in which are embedded nuclei. The nuclei seem to be a still more complex nuclear field. Matter itself is embedded in the very low-frequency field of cosmos.

  10. A field consists of gradient of frequencies. The complex electronic field has gradients between nuclei embedded within it. Such gradients provide a rigid structure in solids that bind nuclei.

  11. In liquids this structure is less rigid with nuclei farther apart. These nuclei are able to move relative to each other maintaining a certain distance.

  12. In ideal gases, the nuclei are far enough not to be bound by the electronic structure of the field. They act as atoms with their own electronic fields. These atoms interact through “collisions” of their fields as they dart around.

  13. Heating is essentially an interaction of incident infra-red rays with electronic fields of matter. Such interaction tends to increase the average distance among nuclei by weakening the bonds

  14. The distance among nuclei is constrained by electronic bonds in solids and liquids, but much less so in vapor, and not at all in ideal gases.

  15. In unconstrained gases, such as, the atmosphere around earth, the distance among particles is determined by a wider gravitational field. The interaction among particles then appears as pressure.

  16. In externally constrained gases, we have higher pressures and we may have a pressure field.

.

Post a comment or leave a trackback: Trackback URL.

Comments

  • Anonymous  On December 10, 2015 at 2:10 AM

    1. Space may be regarded as a theoretical “field” of zero frequency. It is still just like the undisturbed surface of a pond.
    Yes, but to clarify. An elastic medium like spacetime is needs a load in order to be disturbed. Think of sound. Sound transfers kinetic motion from molecule to molecule. If we just had empty space without molecules there would be no wave behavior of any kind. This is a little bit hard to understand. Empty space is full of dark matter.

    2. When space is disturbed it splits into electrical and magnetic components just like the disturbed surface of a pond splits into peaks and valleys.
    Not so. A impetus in one direction does not split into multiple directions, only in the direction of the impetus. The disturbance follows normal Neutonian mechanics. Read up on Newton’s laws of motion.

    3. The electrical and magnetic aspects of space transmute back and forth at a certain frequency just like the peaks and valleys of the pond’s surface transmute back and forth at a certain frequency.
    What you call electrical and magnetic aspects are generated following normal Neutonian mechanics. An electron, for example, is a very dinamic system. It is not solid at all. It is made of smaller particles that make a system that is in constant motion. It’s true size of the particle includes its surrounding field. Aligning molecules that have a dipolar nature results in a magnet. The field of all the alined tiny dipoles combine creating a field around a magnet that extends way beyond the physical dimensions of the magnet. This field is static in regards to its location. It is around the magnet. It is not static in motion and it logical to expect that if the electrons and protons in the atoms are themselves very dynamic systems, the field around them would also not be static. An electron that is associated with an atom, has linear oscilations vertical to the nucleus of the atom while it orbits the nucleus. This is the wave-like nature of electrons while associated with an atom. Free electrons do not oscilate that way. They travel in a straight line unless traversing through a magnetic field. The nucleus of the atom has an oscillation (a chaotic wave-like behavior) corresponding to the combination of interactions of electrons/protons.

    4. An electromagnetic field is “disturbed space.” This field is very dynamic, and it carries electromagnetic disturbances of frequencies that constitute a spectrum.
    Yes, but the field around a charged particle is not similar to a photon (wavepacket). This is very important. The motion of charged particles can create photons. But a charged particle is not like a photon. All one needs to do is look at the many videos that show the magnetic lines around a magnet or around the Earth to get an idea that the shape of the field around a charged particle is not a photon. The key here is to understand that the magnetic field of a charged particle is composed of many lines in space. These lines made of dark matter particles. To be honest, I think all matter paticles and their fields are made of smaller dark matter particles.

    5. The electromagnetic disturbance is three-dimensional, and it is transmitted to other parts of space just like waves on the surface of pond are transmitted to other parts of the pond.
    Yes indeed. It takes a while to start thinking three dymensionally. But remember that a motionless magnet does not generate an electric current on a wire. Only when the magnet or the wire are in motion is a current incuced.

    6. Photons are elements of electromagnetic field. In space they are continuous like waves, but they behave like discrete energy particles during interactions among fields. The “size” of photon is determined by the frequency of disturbance at that location in the field.
    Close explanation. The correct statement is size of the photon is the wavelength, not the frequency.

    7. More complex forms of fields are generated when basic electromagnetic fields interact with each other. These complex fields also have their energy particles of higher and complex frequencies.
    Fabulous. That is the correct way of thinking about particles. A particle is complex system with complex internal motions. No particle in the standard model of particle physics is solid.

    8. Thus we have the Standard Model of Particle Physics.

    9. Matter is basically an electromagnetic field, in which are embedded atoms. An atom is a more complex electronic field, in which are embedded nuclei. The nuclei seem to be a still more complex nuclear field. Matter itself is embedded in the very low-frequency field of cosmos.
    As I commented in point number one of your essay, the direction is always in the direction of the force providing the impulse. The exception to this rule is the natural elasticity of matter which causes it to snap back if the impulse is short lived and does not overcome the natural force on the particle to stay at a given location in the material. This is what gives temperature to materials.

    10. A field consists of gradient of frequencies. The complex electronic field has gradients between nuclei embedded within it. Such gradients provide a rigid structure in solids that bind nuclei.
    Great insight. I think you are on to a good explanation of the strong nuclear force. I wish you could overcome the idea that an electric field is something that surrounds a particle. Instead, it is the motion of the particle that causes disturbances. Also, start thinking that a particle is much much bigger than the nucleus of the particle. It includes an invisible field that is also known as its inertial frame of reference. You can’t talk about electric and magnetic fields, without first understanding what gives mass to particles. You should start by understanding mass, inertia, and gravity. Those are the basic three. Otherwise what I am saying about electric and magnetic fields won’t make sense.

    11. In liquids this structure is less rigid with nuclei farther apart. These nuclei are able to move relative to each other maintaining a certain distance.
    Yes, temperature/pressure/atomic structure/molecular structure all play a role when determining the state of the material.

    12. In ideal gases, the nuclei are far enough not to be bound by the electronic structure of the field. They act as atoms with their own electronic fields. These atoms interact through “collisions” of their fields as they dart around.
    Yes, that is the correct concept. A collision does not necesarily means contact between subatomic parcles, atoms, molecules, or even large objects. Photons regularly bounce off materials. That is what gives color to everything.

    13. Heating is essentially an interaction of incident infra-red rays with electronic fields of matter. Such interaction tends to increase the average distance among nuclei by weakening the bonds
    Yes, the kinetic energy of photons are transfered to the material adding kinetic energy to the molecules. When a photon passes through a susbstance or material without transfering its energy, the material is unchanged.

    14. The distance among nuclei is constrained by electronic bonds in solids and liquids, but much less so in vapor, and not at all in ideal gases.
    Constrained by magnetic bonds. Which is the same thing as saying electrical charges. You are still thinking it is two different things.

    15. In unconstrained gases, such as, the atmosphere around earth, the distance among particles is determined by a wider gravitational field. The interaction among particles then appears as pressure.
    Gravitational attraction is not pressure. Gravitational attraction is what gives weight to an object. It is in the direction of the gravitational source. While pressure is omnidirectional. We bundle the two as one thing because both are caused by the effect matter has on spacetime. But the acceleration of a distant object toward a gravitational source is not pressure. This is extremely difficult to understand and explain. Just remember that your points 7 through 14 talks about a field that keeps things together, giving the material its natural consistency. Please don’t think that pressure keeps a rock together. Pressure formed the rock.

    16. In externally constrained gases, we have higher pressures and we may have a pressure field.
    I am not an expert on gases. Not sure about this point.

    • vinaire  On December 10, 2015 at 6:30 AM

      Your comment on 1.
      “An elastic medium like spacetime is needs a load in order to be disturbed.”

      .

      Newtonian mechanics applies to matter only and not to field. Here is an excellent article from Einstein that lays out the difference between Matter and Field.

      http://www.relativitybook.com/resources/Einstein_space.html

      Spacetime is not some elastic medium. We are using “wave” as an analogy only. The similarity is only in terms of math. Math applied to waves may be applied to disturbance of spacetime with some modifications.

      In my opinion, the Higg’s field describes this spacetime only.

      .

    • vinaire  On December 10, 2015 at 6:38 AM

      Your comment on 2.
      “A impetus in one direction does not split into multiple directions, only in the direction of the impetus. The disturbance follows normal Neutonian mechanics.”

      .

      We cannot look at spacetime as we look at matter. Newtonian mechanics applies to matter and not to the field. Newtonian mechanics may turn out to be a special case of Field Mechanics.

      .

    • vinaire  On December 10, 2015 at 7:01 AM

      Your comment on 3.
      ” An electron, for example, is a very dinamic system. It is not solid at all. It is made of smaller particles that make a system that is in constant motion. It’s true size of the particle includes its surrounding field.”

      .

      Electron is a “particle” of electronic field. I do not see electron made up of smaller particles. It is an excited state within the electronic field. The electronic field results from “convergence” of electromagnetic field that is approaching the frequency of gamma-rays. This “convergence” needs to be explained better. That is an area of current research.

      Electron is more of an “energy particle” than a “spatial particle”. Please see

      https://vinaire.me/2015/12/07/particles-in-space/

      .

    • vinaire  On December 10, 2015 at 10:40 AM

      Your second comment on 3.
      ”Aligning molecules that have a dipolar nature results in a magnet. The field of all the alined tiny dipoles combine creating a field around a magnet that extends way beyond the physical dimensions of the magnet.”

      .

      The traditional thinking appears to be that the field extends from matter, and that there can be no field without matter. I see it the other way around. I see matter as the result of convergence and condensation within the field.

      Convergences of the electromagnetic field produces within it the electronic field. Thus we have “electrons” forming within electromagnetic field.

      Condensation of the electronic field produces within it the nuclear field. Thus we have nuclei forming within electronic field.

      .

    • vinaire  On December 10, 2015 at 11:01 AM

      Your third comment on 3.
      ”This field is static in regards to its location. It is around the magnet. It is not static in motion and it logical to expect that if the electrons and protons in the atoms are themselves very dynamic systems, the field around them would also not be static.”

      .

      The electromagnetic field is always pulsating at a certain frequency. The pulses are cycles of electrical to magnetic and back to electrical. So, the electromagnetic field is very dynamic.

      The electronic field is converged electromagnetic field. The electrical aspect seems to appear as some kind of complex frequency distribution within the field. The magnetic aspect seem to appear as some kind of rotation of that frequency distribution. Thus some discrete aspects start to form, which we identify as electrons.

      The nuclear field is condensed electronic field. This condensation of frequency distribution appears as mass. Similarly, the condensation of rotation appears as strongly binding nuclear bonds. The system still remains very dynamic.

      .

    • vinaire  On December 10, 2015 at 11:37 AM

      Your fourth comment on 3.
      ”An electron that is associated with an atom, has linear oscilations vertical to the nucleus of the atom while it orbits the nucleus. This is the wave-like nature of electrons while associated with an atom.”

      .

      That is the old matter-centric model. I find the following model to be more useful.

      I see electrons as regions within the electromagnetic field that have converged toward a center. As convergence occurs the frequency increases. So the frequency at the center of the electron is much higher than the frequency at the surface of the electron. There is rapidly increasing gradient of frequency from the surface of the electron to its center.

      As this disturbance increases, a nucleus starts to form at the center of this “electron” or electronic field. When the first stable nucleus is formed we have a hydrogen atom. There is no electron orbiting around the nucleus of a hydrogen atom. There is simply a homogeneous pulsating electronic field around the nucleus of a hydrogen atom. This electronic field has a high frequency gradient from the surface of the atom to its nucleus.

      .

    • vinaire  On December 10, 2015 at 11:49 AM

      Your fifth comment on 3.
      ”Free electrons do not oscilate that way. They travel in a straight line unless traversing through a magnetic field. The nucleus of the atom has an oscillation (a chaotic wave-like behavior) corresponding to the combination of interactions of electrons/protons.”

      .

      I see a free electron as an “atom without a nucleus.” A free electron is really an electronic field within an electromagnetic field, which, in its turn, exists within a cosmic field of “space”.

      As this electronic field grows it acquires a hard nucleus at its center and transmutes into an atom. How that happens is yet to be worked out in detail. We need to come up with better explanation for the quantum numbers related to an atom.

      Free electrons and atoms, of course, appear to move within the electromagnetic and cosmic fields. There is always a gradient of frequency from cosmic field to electromagnetic field to electronic field to the nuclear field of the nucleus.

      .

    • vinaire  On December 10, 2015 at 1:51 PM

      Your comment on 4.
      ”Yes, but the field around a charged particle is not similar to a photon (wavepacket). This is very important. The motion of charged particles can create photons. But a charged particle is not like a photon. All one needs to do is look at the many videos that show the magnetic lines around a magnet or around the Earth to get an idea that the shape of the field around a charged particle is not a photon.”

      .

      As I have explained above, photons are particles of electromagnetic field, and electrons are particles of the electronic field. The electronic field is a converged state of a high frequency electromagnetic field. This is all part of a disturbance model, which is different from the traditional model.

      In some way, the convergence at the surface of the electron and atoms seems to generate charge. Later, condensation at the surface of the nucleus seems to generate an opposite charge. This is all conjecture and needs to be worked on.

      .

    • vinaire  On December 10, 2015 at 2:14 PM

      Your second comment on 4.
      ”The key here is to understand that the magnetic field of a charged particle is composed of many lines in space. These lines made of dark matter particles. To be honest, I think all matter paticles and their fields are made of smaller dark matter particles.”

      .

      Lines of force depicting magnetic field are abstractions and should not be taken literally. Dark matter seems to be a mathematical object. It tries to account for gravitational field that cannot be attributed to visible matter.

      To me the field equivalent of mass in matter is frequency. There is much finer inertia and gravity associated with frequency. The gravitation effects of frequency are very small, but since the field fills the space where no mass exists, it is extremely large and all its gravitational effect adds up.

      In my view, the ideas associated with dark energy and dark matter can be explained in terms frequencies of the field that fills the universe. I believe that the gravity of the field is associated with gradient of changing frequencies in the field.

      .

    • vinaire  On December 10, 2015 at 3:38 PM

      Your comment on 5.
      ”But remember that a motionless magnet does not generate an electric current on a wire. Only when the magnet or the wire are in motion is a current incuced.”

      .

      It is changing magnetic field that generates electric field, and a changing electric field that generates magnetic field. That is implicit in the electromagnetic field as described above.

      .

    • vinaire  On December 10, 2015 at 3:42 PM

      Your comment on 6.
      ” The correct statement is size of the photon is the wavelength, not the frequency.”

      .

      Photon is not a “spatial” particle, therefore its size cannot be described in terms of space dimensions. I am making a distinction between an “energy” particle and a “spatial” particle.

      .

    • vinaire  On December 10, 2015 at 3:47 PM

      Your comment on 7.
      ” No particle in the standard model of particle physics is solid.”

      .

      The energy of nucleons corresponds to very high gamma frequency. The nucleons determine mass in matter. This is how we sense solidity of matter.

      .

    • vinaire  On December 10, 2015 at 8:15 PM

      Your comment on 9.
      ”As I commented in point number one of your essay, the direction is always in the direction of the force providing the impulse. The exception to this rule is the natural elasticity of matter which causes it to snap back if the impulse is short lived and does not overcome the natural force on the particle to stay at a given location in the material. This is what gives temperature to materials.”

      .

      As I responded under point number one it is an error to treat field and spacetime as if they are matter. It is the matter-centric viewpoint, which is limiting science at this moment.

      .

    • vinaire  On December 10, 2015 at 8:23 PM

      Your comment on 10.
      ” I wish you could overcome the idea that an electric field is something that surrounds a particle. Instead, it is the motion of the particle that causes disturbances.”

      .

      In the beginning there is no particle. The field comes about when Space is disturbed by Time. Then particles come about in the field. The particles are steep gradients of frequency in the field.

      So particles are not the basic elements. The basic elements are Space and Time.

      .

    • vinaire  On December 10, 2015 at 8:30 PM

      Your second comment on 10.
      ” Also, start thinking that a particle is much much bigger than the nucleus of the particle. It includes an invisible field that is also known as its inertial frame of reference.”

      .

      The actual scenario is that we have a particle within a particle within a particle. Nucleus is a condensed particle within the converged particle (electronic field). The electronic field is a particle within the electromagnetic field. The whole electromagnetic field could be a particle within the “space field”.

      The field acts as a relative inertial frame to its particle.

      .

    • vinaire  On December 10, 2015 at 8:39 PM

      Your third comment on 10.
      ” You can’t talk about electric and magnetic fields, without first understanding what gives mass to particles. You should start by understanding mass, inertia, and gravity. Those are the basic three.”

      .

      What gives mass to particles is convergence and condensation of the frequency as it gets higher and higher. The Higgs boson is simply looking at a single steep gradient directly between the “space field” and a nucleus without the intermediate steps of convergence and condensation.

      .

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: