Can Magnetic Fields Exist in a Perfect Vacuum?

[Tonyo]

Hi,
So this question might be a little simple, or not. But I was wondering about the exact nature of magnetic fields. Now obviously magnetic fields work in a vacuum(due to the fact that it's not a perfect vacuum), but would a magnetic field exist in a theoretical perfect vacuum? Now I think this would be a rather difficult experiment to perform, in order to see if the field is there, we would have to insert particles into the space were we suspect the field might be. Is there a mathematical model or theory to prove of disprove this without altering the experiment itself? Or could this be a question along the line of "a tree falling in the woods without anyone around.. blahblah" Am I missing something fundamental? Any thoughts or insight would be peachy, thanks.

 

[dacruick]

why do you think magnetic fields don't exist in a vacuum?

 

[Tonyo]

Well, there is no real way to see if these fields exist in a perfect vacuum without altering or disturbing the outcome of the experiment. You see, if want to see if there is a magnetic field, you have to insert particles to the Perfect vacuum thereby making the vacuum not so perfect anymore.
I suppose the more appropriate question I am asking is, what is it exactly that makes a magnetic field? Now, I know in a magnetic field you have the E. field traveling through space and alternating magnitudes over time to create this 90 perpendicular magnetic field... Perhaps this magnetic field can only be thought of as a quantitative potential force that can act, and cause a reaction to particles, if they happen to come into it's field of effect, or within it's flux lines.

 

[dacruick]

okay so now we are getting into something. You said that you know magnetic fields and electric fields are hand in hand. So you would assume that a traveling electrical wave comes along with a magnetic wave. But a vacuum is a space void of matter. Can't you have electromagnetic waves without having matter?

 

[Tonyo]

Well yes, but that's kinda different... Isn't it? these EM waves we call light. A traveling packet of energy. An EM wave is just an EM field moving in space and time?... but the only way to get a magnetic component to the EM field is to have a varying E. field traveling through space and time? argggg! let's try this...

If say, we have a bar magnet, and there are particles within it's flux line, we use a special "thingy" to see the particles that will align themselves with/along the flux lines, thereby seeing the magnetic flux lines, by seeing the particles. If we clear this region of all matter- no more particles, we do not see these flux lines anymore?, but are they still there? If so what are they made up of?

 

[Dale]

If I understand your point then I believe the answer is as follows: if you have no detector you cannot detect anything. That seems to be rather self-evident.

 

[Tonyo]

Hmmm, perhaps that's the right idea Dale. The magnetic field is only made up of what it interacts with... There is a real possibility that the very logic is which I'm trying to envision these fields is fundamentally flawed, and that they have to be thought of differently.

 

[Bob S]

Hi,
So this question might be a little simple, or not. But I was wondering about the exact nature of magnetic fields. Now obviously magnetic fields work in a vacuum(due to the fact that it's not a perfect vacuum), but would a magnetic field exist in a theoretical perfect vacuum? Now I think this would be a rather difficult experiment to perform, in order to see if the field is there, we would have to insert particles into the space were we suspect the field might be.

How about this. Take an empty box with a theoretical perfect vacuum inside it, and wrap a coil with area A and N turns around the box in the x-y plane. Put the box in a large electromagnet and turn on the magnetic field B_z in the z direction. Monitor the coil with a voltage integrator circuit (to integrate the induced Faraday Law voltage):

V(t) = - NA dB_z/dt

Using a current integrator circuit*, we get the change in magnetic field inside the box to be equal to

ΔB_z = - (1/NA)∫V(t) dt = +(RC/NA) V_out

where V_out is the current integrator output.

*See current integrator circuit and theory about half way down in

http://www.allaboutcircuits.com/vol_3/chpt_8/11.html

Bob S

 

[cjameshuff]

Well, there is no real way to see if these fields exist in a perfect vacuum without altering or disturbing the outcome of the experiment. You see, if want to see if there is a magnetic field, you have to insert particles to the Perfect vacuum thereby making the vacuum not so perfect anymore.

It doesn't matter that the vacuum is no longer perfect. Charged particles will behave differently on entering the formerly-perfect-vacuum depending on whether or not it contains a magnetic field. It's empty space prior to the entry of the test particle, but there's clearly something different about it.

And besides, in the case of a single particle or small number of particles, what do you call all the empty space around the particles? Yes, magnetic fields can exist in perfect vacuum.

 

[pallidin]

I seriously hope that no-one here is suggesting that a magnetic field in a perfect vacuum does not exist, or that a magnetic field un-detected does not exist.
Silly me, of course no-one is thinking anything of the sort. Sorry.

 

[dacruick]

tonyo, the notion of a magnetic field is simply a representation of what we see experimentally. You don't necessarily want to tie your mind up by even thinking about what a magnetic field is made up of.

 

[Tonyo]

Ok so this magnetic field will exist in a theoretical perfect vacuum even without an observer, or matter of any kind for it interact with. That's great, although I'm still not overly convinced. I was really kind of hoping that someone would have posted a real good though experiment to prove it's existence, without altering the very nature of the silly question.
Now, this question was presented to me by a very intelligent bio-chemist, who thinks in terms of particles, and mainly molecules, thinking in such a way can make it slightly difficult to think in terms of "fields of force", which I myself don't fully comprehend, upon being asked such a question.
This force is not so much like a gravitational/mass force, where it will warp the very fabric it exists in, or does it? I don't know if we can open up a whole new can of worms and suggest that such a field can warp the fabric of a unknown dimension which interact with our known(or observable) 4.
What is it precisely that enforces this magnetic force upon our universe?

 

[dacruick]

"What is it precisely that enforces this magnetic force upon our universe?"

Why would magnetic fields be so different from gravitational fields?

 

[dacruick]

I don't know how to answer your question but if I were you (which I might as well be), what about gravity do you understand that you don't about magnetic fields.

 

[Bob S]

Ok so this magnetic field will exist in a theoretical perfect vacuum even without an observer, or matter of any kind for it interact with. That's great, although I'm still not overly convinced. I was really kind of hoping that someone would have posted a real good though experiment to prove it's existence, without altering the very nature of the silly question.

What don't you understand about the experiment proposed in post #8 to prove the existence of a magnetic field in a theoretical perfect vacuum? The experiment relies on two simple and tested concepts; the Faraday Law of induction (based on Maxwell's equations), and a voltage integrator (common op-amp circuit). Is it one of these, or something else?

Bob S

 

[Tonyo]

Ok, so upon further research and discussions with some physicist co-workers, it appears as though the solution I'm looking for can be found in somewhat Dirac's theory, but mainly it's evolved form: Feynman's QED theory. I'm still not in full understanding of it right now, but if what precedes makes sense to anyone else please say so lol.
There are some particles/anti-particles/virtual particles(idk!) and energies which pop in and out of existence causing a disturbance in space. Virtual particles borrow energy from the future to create anti-virtual particles in the present, thereby interacting with the virtual particles, and both annihilate each other, thereby returning the future borrowed energy very quickly in the very immediate future or somewhat present, restoring the thermodynamical equilibrium. These energies are what will cause a electro-magnetic field disturbance in space, EVEN if there is no matter what so every in the perfect vacuum...

Does that make any sense to anyone? if not, I give up, and will go far away and find some kind of government desk job or something... good god...

 

[cjameshuff]

Ok so this magnetic field will exist in a theoretical perfect vacuum even without an observer, or matter of any kind for it interact with. That's great, although I'm still not overly convinced. I was really kind of hoping that someone would have posted a real good though experiment to prove it's existence, without altering the very nature of the silly question.

If you have a perfect vacuum containing a magnetic field, and fire electrons into it, their paths will curve. If you fire electrons under the exact same conditions into a perfect vacuum that has no magnetic field, their paths will not curve. The electrons didn't change, so clearly, there's something different about that volume of space, in spite of the fact that there was no matter in it before you shot an electron into it. Real perfect vacuums are hard to come by, but there's no sign of electromagnetic fields fading as vacuums are drawn.

What's unconvincing about this? Why do you need to complicate things by bringing in Dirac and virtual particles? I don't see what you gain by it...how can a low level theoretical model be more convincing than direct observation?

Now, this question was presented to me by a very intelligent bio-chemist, who thinks in terms of particles, and mainly molecules, thinking in such a way can make it slightly difficult to think in terms of "fields of force", which I myself don't fully comprehend, upon being asked such a question.
This force is not so much like a gravitational/mass force, where it will warp the very fabric it exists in, or does it? I don't know if we can open up a whole new can of worms and suggest that such a field can warp the fabric of a unknown dimension which interact with our known(or observable) 4.
What is it precisely that enforces this magnetic force upon our universe?

In GR, gravitational fields don't warp space-time, gravitational fields *are* warped space-time. Electromagnetic fields are treated differently, but I don't know why you allow space-time the geometrical attributes that allow gravitation, but balk at the idea of electromagnetic fields in a vacuum. Or why you prefer a QED theoretical description that doesn't include gravitation at all as an answer.

 

[Tonyo]

I think you missed some posts Cjames, or miss-read the very nature of the question.

 

[Born2bwire]

I think you missed some posts Cjames, or miss-read the very nature of the question.

Well you should explain it again because I too fail to see what the problem is. How is this any different from say gravitational or electric fields? What is wrong with Bob S' thought experiment? It's nothing more than a cathode tube being subjected to an applied magnetic field.

 

[Tonyo]

The very heart of the question is "what makes up a magnetic field"? The only reason we know they exist is due to the way they interact with normal matter. If we choose to remove all matter, how would we preform an experiment to quantify this field without subjecting the field to any kind of external variables. It's something of a thought experiment, one that cannot be done, obviously one cannot measure something without disturbing it. Placing a cathode tube in a magnetic field completely kills our perfect vacuum.
So the question becomes, does a magnetic field exist in a perfect vacuum void?? The answer can depend on how philosophical you want to be. Pallidin's reply hit the nail right on the head. If we cannot see something or interact with this something, then CLEARLY it does not exist...*sigh*...
It's my understanding now that a few theoretical physicists and mathematicians some 50 years ago were asking questions along similar lines, I think they were trying to find a unified quantum field theory, but in the end came up with QED. The QED explains this "field" and how to quantify it WITHOUT needing it to interact with any normal matter. I only have a few hours so far of researching this theory so I'm not going to pretend I have it completely understood, until I comprehend the maths involved. But it seems this is the mechanism which makes it so the field can interact with matter, the stuff a magnetic field is made up of. So even though we have a perfect vacuum, there is still "stuff" happening there. This then allows a field to exist in the absence of any kind of measuring apparatus.

 

[Born2bwire]

The magnetic field is a force field. How is QED adding anything in terms of quantifying what that field is? The magnetic field is a force that is produced by currents that acts on moving charges. Neither classical or quantum theory of electrodynamics makes any requirements upon the background material for magnetic fields to exist.

The question is completely arbitrary. Why magnetic fields? Why not electric fields? Why not gravitational fields? These are all force fields and both are fundamental forces.

Why would a cathode ray tube ruin the experiment? It's a vacuum tube.

If we place a moving electron in a magnetic field, how is the electron disturbing it?

 

[Tonyo]

Ok Born, I get your point, "The magnetic field is a force that is produced by currents that acts on moving charges". So if I put a permeant magnet in a total perfect vacuum- no atoms or electrons at all. Then the magnetic field simply does not exist.
The tree does not make a sound if it falls and nobody is around to hear it.

 

[pallidin]

Pallidin's reply hit the nail right on the head. If we cannot see something or interact with this something, then CLEARLY it does not exist...

Uh, Tonyo, you apparently misinterpreted my post. I do NOT believe what you said in the above quote at all.
That's OK, maybe I did not phrase my previous post correctly.

A magnetic field can most certainly EXTEND into a vacuum. With or without any observer.

However, I have a question: Does your notion of a "perfect" vacuum include the idea of NO virtual particles? If that is so, you might be correct that it would not be possible for a magnetic field to extend into that environment.
But, here's the kicker... there is no known ability to create a vacuum that does not have virtual particles.

Keep in mind, Tonyo, that whereas virtual particles are speculated to be responsible for a number of phenomenon, including the extension of magnetism in vacuum space, virtual particles have NEVER been shown to actually exist. Their very nature of existence excludes direct observation. They are INFERRED from reliable experimentation through mathematics.

In any event, a magnetic field does extend into a normal vacuum. Yes.
Extending into a vacuum that somehow excludes virtual particles? No.
However, that type of vacuum is not considered possible.

Hope this helps.

 

[mrspeedybob]

The whole point of physics is to develop the ability to predict what will happen given a certain set of circumstances. This allows us to determine what set of circumstances will have an outcome that we consider desirable. In other words, physics without engineering is pointless.

From this perspective if we decide that it would be desirable to deflect an electron from it's path we need to know what configuration of mater and energy will result in the electrons deflection BEFORE the electron gets there and needs to be deflected. So we set up an apparatus that produces a magnetic field, we can now say with certainty that a magnetic field exists in a specific volume of space because we know that if or when an electron goes through there that it will be deflected. Saying that the field doesn't exist if there is nothing for it to act on is like saying a wall doesn't exits until you walk into it. How many times are you going to walk into that wall before you accept that there is something real about it?

 

[Feldoh]

Perhaps you would be interested in the Casimir effect

 

[pallidin]

Saying that the field doesn't exist if there is nothing for it to act on is like saying a wall doesn't exits until you walk into it.

That's not entirely true.
Interaction with virtual particles are required for the existence of a magnetic field in a vacuum, or so the current theories suggest... to my understanding that is.

But, you are correct: A wall is a wall, is a wall.
A wall does NOT cease to exist if no observer or external force is absent.

 

[Tonyo]

Heh thanks Pallidin, I did understand your first post, I tired to pull some sarcasm of my own.. guess I failed lol... Anywho, it seems like we might finally be getting somewhere with this post! my goodness.
I really don't know how to respond to your question, however I will make an attempt at it. Does the theoretical existence of virtual particles disturb my perfect vacuum... possibly; yes, however, If we are correct in saying that this virtual particle interaction stuff is responsible for extending a magnetic field in vacuum, then if they don't really exist(virtual particles) then neither will the magnetic field. So Physicists had to create mathematically imaginary "stuff" which is not possible to detect measure or observe in any way in order to explain things that we CAN detect but are not capably of fully understanding.
So I will not ask about eliminating the virtual particles in a perfect vacuum to make a "super perfect vacuum" since their very mathematical existence is a form of explanation.

And yes Bob, We can make a field producing device and put it in a vacuum and turn it on, and know exactly what it's going to do. But now with QED as an explanation, we can turn it on without knowing what it will do, but be able to predict it and somewhat explain it's operation mechanism via QED theory, even if it's in a perfect vacuum.

 

[Tonyo]

Ahh Feldoh, thank you very much for this reference on the "Casimir effect". It's something I've never heard of before, but it seems to be a part of QED, more precisely aimed at this electromagnetic field business.
I shall thoroughly enjoy reading it in more details, Much thanks to you Sir.

 

[Bob S]

A magnetic field can most certainly EXTEND into a vacuum. With or without any observer.

Agree

However, I have a question: Does your notion of a "perfect" vacuum include the idea of NO virtual particles? If that is so, you might be correct that it would not be possible for a magnetic field to extend into that environment.

Why are virtual particles required in order to have a magnetic field present?

But, here's the kicker... there is no known ability to create a vacuum that does not have virtual particles.

If there are no Coulomb fields, like electrons and nuclear Coulomb fields, can virtual particles be present? In most (all?) cases, strong Coulomb fields are required.

Keep in mind, Tonyo, that whereas virtual particles are speculated to be responsible for a number of phenomenon, including the extension of magnetism in vacuum space,

Oh really?

...virtual particles have NEVER been shown to actually exist. Their very nature of existence excludes direct observation. They are INFERRED from reliable experimentation through mathematics.

Not true. Virtual particles, in the form of vacuum polarization, create very large measurable atomic level shifts in muonic and pionic atoms. These atomic level shifts are necessary to get agreement with other experimental measurements of muon and pion masses. I think the argument is whether an existence proof based on indirect measurements is the same as actual proof of existence. Nobody has actually seen gravity yet either, but it exists...

Bob S

 

[pallidin]

Bob,

There is no current explanation of a magnetic force in a vacuum without the notion of virtual particle existence and interaction.

 

[pallidin]

Magnetism is NOT a solely emissive force.
Currently, it is a "loop" phenomenon.

 

[Bob S]

Bob,

There is no current explanation of a magnetic force in a vacuum without the notion of virtual particle existence and interaction.

Are we discussing magnetic forces or magnetic fields? The OP asked about whether magnetic fields could exist in a perfect vacuum. I associate a magnetic force (in this discussion) with the Lorentz v x B force, which does require a moving charged particle.

Bob S

 

[pallidin]

Sorry, I meant fields.

 

[Bob S]

Bob,

There is no current explanation of a magnetic [STRIKE]force[/STRIKE] field in a vacuum without the notion of virtual particle existence and interaction.

Aren't Maxwell's equations sufficient?

Bob S

 

[pallidin]

Well, I quess that's where I get confused.
A magnetic field can extend into a vacuum. This is widely accepted, and I accept it.
But HOW does it do this?

Magnetism is not fully emissive like a photon, in the sense that a photon of light can be emitted and never return to it's source, yet magnetism currently requires a return to source. No "magnetic laser" so-to-speak can be constructed(at this time) without the discovery and manipulation of "monopoles"... if they exist.

This is all so confusing to me.

I am under the impression that the extension of a magnetic field in a vacuum requires the idea of "virtual particles" as a transport medium/assist, since magnetism is not fully emissive.

Again, I don't know. I could be spouting BS for all I know.