turbo-1 said:
I'll bet you're popular at parties, Billy...
I am sorry if I offended or embarrassed you. Most people (at least 80%) who know a little about transformers tend to think that the current in the secondary has something to do with “line of flux cutting thru the conductor” etc. but as these lines do not exist, these “explanations” are just “empty words.”
Transformers work almost the same way light propagates. - an AC magnetic field creates an AC electric field, which in turns creates an AC magnetic field. In the transformer case, this second magnetic field opposes the first and makes the primary draw more current to maintain the first magnetic field. In the case of light, it is a little different. The collapsing magnetic field still creates the orthogonal rising electric field but when it collapses, the electric field drives the “displacement current” - a term that Maxwell added to the set of already known equations about electricity and magnetism. (That was his great contribution.) It is called a “current” because it plays the same role as a moving charge - I. E. it can and does make a magnetic field.
IMHO, there are many “empty words” published every month about “heaven” “souls” “angels” “spirits” etc, but I don’t care much about religion and they do make a lot of people “feel good” so generally I say nothing about this. (I am an agnostic, lacking the conviction, or ego, to be an atheist.)
I do however care about physics. When I read “empty words” in this area I tend to speak up. I may be abrasive and surely it was not nice to set a trap for exposing some “empty words” that most people, not just you, believe in and do feel good about. (“flux lines” helping you to “understand” transformers)
Because I may not be as smooth as I could be, I do offend and get reactions, like being called a “crackpot.” None the less, I will continue to question the validity of “empty words.” I am especially bothered when two entirely different sets of “empty words” are offered to “explain” the same physics!
Specifically in the case of small black hole, BH, evaporating (which I believe to be their true behavior):
(1) Some people will explain the mass loss as due to the entropy it has swallowed making the event horizon, EH, so hot that the (essentially) black body radiation from it is peaked in the gamma ray part of the spectrum.
(2) Other people explain the mass loss by the occasional capture of only one member of a virtual particle pair in the intense gravity gradient of a BH which prevents the normal mutual annihilation.
These two different “explanations”
conflict with each other, at lease in how the mass/energy is stored in our observable universe (photons or particles?).
Both “explanations” add mass/energy to our observable universe, at some point outside the EH. Both produce a mass loss at the singularity of the BH. Neither “explanation” says anything about how this “action at a distance” is achieved.
In view of these facts, which I think all agree to, is it fair to be derided as a “crackpot” for pointing out the conflict and inadequacy of the “explanations”? Physics, unlike religion, is too important to me not to comment on this.
I have repeatedly stated that I am willing to accept the consequences of the math that shows that small BHs do “evaporate” just as the math of quantum mechanics predicts quantum entanglement. That is, there are things in physics that no human is ever gong to really understand; but I refuse to claim I do, because of two sets of conflicting “explanations.” I prefer to honestly admit that some things in physics are just beyond human understanding. I.e. we will never “feel good” about what the math is telling us.
somewhere else.
