Noone really knows what an electric field is

[rockyshephear]

I think we know one when we detect one, understand many repeatable principles but no one really knows how a charge in xyz can say, repel another like charge a distance away without any mediating material in between them. If we knew that the electric field was an exchange of photons back and forth at the speed of light, that would be an acceptable explanation to me. But the what causes this exchange? And what's the cause of the cause?
Any thoughts?

 

[ZapperZ]

I think we know one when we detect one, understand many repeatable principles but no one really knows how a charge in xyz can say, repel another like charge a distance away without any mediating material in between them. If we knew that the electric field was an exchange of photons back and forth at the speed of light, that would be an acceptable explanation to me. But the what causes this exchange? And what's the cause of the cause?
Any thoughts?

Have you looked into quantum electrodynamics before you posted this?

Zz.

 

[rockyshephear]

Yes.

 

[Born2bwire]

Look harder. The electric and magnetic fields are the basis of classical electrodynamics, but in QED, the basis are the vector and scalar potentials, propagated by photons.

 

[ralilu]

QED sounds interesting. do Aerospace engineers learn about it?

 

[ZapperZ]

Yes.

Then assuming that you've understood QED, your question is very puzzling.

Zz.

 

[rockyshephear]

To save me some time, and to reiterate how clearly you all understand these concepts, quickly, what type of exchange of photons causes an electric field? Passing the ball back and forth at the speed of light?

 

[maverick_starstrider]

QED sounds interesting. do Aerospace engineers learn about it?

Most definately not.

 

[ralilu]

wow that's bad news. i'll prob end up taking a lot of extra physics classes while I'm working on my AE degree

 

[ZapperZ]

To save me some time, and to reiterate how clearly you all understand these concepts, quickly, what type of exchange of photons causes an electric field? Passing the ball back and forth at the speed of light?

What do you mean by "what type of exchange"? A photon exchange is a photon exchange. It makes use of a fundamental description of QFT. You can either visualize this via Feynman diagrams, or if you're a glutton for punishment, use the Tomonaga-Schwinger formulation.

Maybe it's time that you clarify why you're having a problem with QED.

Zz.

 

[rockyshephear]

I think almost entirely in analogy to understand complex concepts.
Let's say you have a point charge at x1,y1,z1. If there were no other ojbects in the universe would it still have an electric field? And why? What is this field made of how does it develop to a steady state, are photons moving and in what direction, things like that?

 

[ZapperZ]

I think almost entirely in analogy to understand complex concepts.
Let's say you have a point charge at x1,y1,z1. If there were no other ojbects in the universe would it still have an electric field? And why? What is this field made of how does it develop to a steady state, are photons moving and in what direction, things like that?

This doesn't really answer my question to you.

Based on your understanding of QED and QFT, where exactly is these two formulations that didn't quite answer your original question?

Analogies can be highly inaccurate. These are to be avoided when we are not dealing with the general public. Dealing with the exact theory is always preferable.

Zz.

 

[rockyshephear]

Exact theories don't give you a fundamental understanding of what's going on except in a mathematical sense. I can know the eq for F=ma and manipulate in problems etc but still not understand on a fundamental level.

 

[maverick_starstrider]

I think almost entirely in analogy to understand complex concepts.
Let's say you have a point charge at x1,y1,z1. If there were no other ojbects in the universe would it still have an electric field? And why? What is this field made of how does it develop to a steady state, are photons moving and in what direction, things like that?

I assume what you mean is that you don't know anything about QED (i.e. the actual stuff, not like pop-sci stuff). Certainly nothing wrong with that but just be clear about it unless you want someone pulling out second quantization and path integrals on you.

 

[maverick_starstrider]

wow that's bad news. i'll prob end up taking a lot of extra physics classes while I'm working on my AE degree

:( Unfortunately that won't get you to QFT of QED either. Normally the first QFT course one takes is only for people working in that area and would be during the first year of grad school. There wouldn't be an undergrad QFT course even for physics majors.

 

[ralilu]

That sucks! If only physicists got paid more i wud prob pursue a PHD...

 

[ZapperZ]

Exact theories don't give you a fundamental understanding of what's going on except in a mathematical sense. I can know the eq for F=ma and manipulate in problems etc but still not understand on a fundamental level.

But what does that have anything to do with "analogies"?

There's a difference between having a conceptual understanding and analogies. You are insisting that these are the same thing - they are not!

So you are saying that you have a "mathematical understanding" of QED, but not a conceptual understanding?

Zz.

 

[Dale]

Exact theories don't give you a fundamental understanding of what's going on except in a mathematical sense.

IMO you have it completely backwards. The mathematical sense is the fundamental one. The analogies and interpretations are just superficial stories that we use to cover up the fundamentals.

 

[rockyshephear]

I neither have an understanding of QED or otherwise. Walter Lewin uses 'stories' so why can't I?

 

[Dale]

I never said the stories were not useful, just that the math is more fundamental.

 

[ZapperZ]

I neither have an understanding of QED or otherwise. Walter Lewin uses 'stories' so why can't I?

So you really haven't "looked" into QED, have you, and your answer in Post #3 is really not true.

Then don't you think it is rather arrogant to claim that "Noone really knows what an electric field is"? Because what is more accurate here is that YOU don't know what an electric field is. Your state of knowledge is not a reflection of the state of knowledge of the field.

Would you like for me to edit the title of this thread to make a more accurate representation of the current situation here in this thread?

Zz.

 

[TMFKAN64]

Walter Lewin uses 'stories' so why can't I?

The purpose of the 'stories' is to develop a more intuitive understanding of what the mathematics is saying. A professor such as Dr. Lewin uses them to help his students develop a better understanding of physical phenomena.

By themselves, they don't really have much meaning. I always think back when I first heard about quantum tunneling: the 'stories' sounded so strange and mysterious! However, as soon as I took my first undergraduate QM class and saw the mathematics worked out for two square wells separated by a finite barrier, things became a lot clearer.

 

[maverick_starstrider]

I neither have an understanding of QED or otherwise. Walter Lewin uses 'stories' so why can't I?

Walter Lewin teaches first year undergrad courses. QED is like a second year graduate course. Things quickly become very mathematical (even in second year courses) and it very quickly becomes impossible to think entirely in pictures and one has to hunker down and learn the math. Way of the universe.

 

[mikelepore]

Then don't you think it is rather arrogant to claim that "Noone really knows what an electric field is"? Because what is more accurate here is that YOU don't know what an electric field is. Your state of knowledge is not a reflection of the state of knowledge of the field.

But isn't QED a model that is offered as a plausible explanation, and not proven to be a set of facts? If so, I think "no one really knows" would be a true statement. Otherwise, how was the absolute certainty about the truth of the model obtained?

It also sound to me like to me like an abstract model to say, as many people do say, that if I merely wiggle one charged particle a little bit, this act causes the entire universe to be bathed in individual photons that will relay the signal of my act to every point in all of space. What we do know is that the photon is the quantized nature observed when electromagnetic energy is transmitted or received, but not necessarily during the long journey across the light years. I think that's equivalent to saying that no one knows what the field itself is.

 

[jtbell]

But isn't QED a model that is offered as a plausible explanation, and not proven to be a set of facts?

Which theories in physics have been "proven to be a set of facts?"

 

[maverick_starstrider]

But isn't QED a model that is offered as a plausible explanation, and not proven to be a set of facts? If so, I think "no one really knows" would be a true statement. Otherwise, how was the absolute certainty about the truth of the model obtained?

It also sound to me like to me like an abstract model to say, as many people do say, that if I merely wiggle one charged particle a little bit, this act causes the entire universe to be bathed in individual photons that will relay the signal of my act to every point in all of space. What we do know is that the photon is the quantized nature observed when electromagnetic energy is transmitted or received, but not necessarily during the long journey across the light years. I think that's equivalent to saying that no one knows what the field itself is.

If by "proven as a set of facts" you mean we got a post card in the mail from a divine entity who said "yep, you guys got it" no, science can never do that. If by proven as a set of facts you mean it has made the most accurate predictions ever made by any theory in all of human history? Yes, yes it has.

Your little mental pictures of "wiggling" a charge and an infinitum of photons coming out is WHOLY inadequate in terms of what is going on. In addition, whether virtual photons are physical reality or a mathematical book keeping device is ultimately irrelevant from a phenomenalogical perspective.

At this point it basically seems like you've lost your point and are just back peddling to try and save face. If YOU would like to understand the electric field better than crack a textbook (not a pop-sci book) and look into it. However, don't be so arrogant to assume that NO ONE understands something since you don't even understand the basics of QM, not even the basics of the basics of the basics. The physics of the electromagnetic field are entirely well understood. If you are concerned with the metaphysics ("but WHY does the universe behave this way") then that's a philosophy question.

 

[ZapperZ]

But isn't QED a model that is offered as a plausible explanation, and not proven to be a set of facts? If so, I think "no one really knows" would be a true statement. Otherwise, how was the absolute certainty about the truth of the model obtained?

Show me another way to get the electron gyromagnetic ratio as accurately as QED when compared with experiment.

And where in physics do you have a "proven" set of facts?

Please do not turn this into a philosophical argument. If you have issues with QED, point out the PHYSICS exactly.

Zz.

 

[dx]

Exact theories don't give you a fundamental understanding of what's going on except in a mathematical sense. I can know the eq for F=ma and manipulate in problems etc but still not understand on a fundamental level.

It's possible to learn to manipulate equations without understanding the theory, but that would be your fault not learning properly. You may not like it, but our most fundamental and deepest understanding of nature is mathematical.

 

[maverick_starstrider]

It's possible to learn to manipulate equations without understanding the theory, but that would be your fault not learning properly. You may not like it, but our most fundamental and deepest understanding of nature is mathematical.

Says the guy whose avatar image is a fractal ;)

 

[mikelepore]

At this point it basically seems like you've lost your point and are just back peddling to try and save face. If YOU would like to understand the electric field better than crack a textbook (not a pop-sci book) and look into it. However, don't be so arrogant to assume that NO ONE understands something since you don't even understand the basics of QM, not even the basics of the basics of the basics. The physics of the electromagnetic field are entirely well understood. If you are concerned with the metaphysics ("but WHY does the universe behave this way") then that's a philosophy question.

How could I be "back peddling to save face" when I just noticed this topic for the first time, and I have never posted in it before?

Also, all the question marks in my post should make it obvious that I was asking questions. I guess the protocol here is when a new person joins a conversation and asks questions about it you're supposed to reply with a pile of insults.

--

EDIT: removed last sentence

 

[mikelepore]

Which theories in physics have been "proven to be a set of facts?"

Never, and that's my point. When the original poster inquired about "the cause of the cause" to understand what something "really" "is", I think the correct answer to his question would be that science isn't about reaching a finality about what something "really" "is". Science isn't about Kant's "the thing in itself." Science is about finding patterns that correlate measureables with other measureables, in a way that has been found to provide predictive power. Science continues to accumulate, and never completes the search for "the cause of the cause". But that's not what the other people replied to him. Instead, they replied to him that OTHER people HAVE reached the final understanding, and that only HE hasn't learned about it yet, that HE hasn't read the right book.

 

[rockyshephear]

Wow. Sorry gents for opening a pandoras box. I am merely maintaining that I and possibly others can obtain a better understanding of say...Maxwell's equations is they could be set to analogies. I firmly maintain that still. So, I was challenging the brains on this forum to come down to my level and to the best of their ability create analogies that can better explain the fundamentals than just knowing the formulae. A perfect example.
Del dot B=0
To you guys, you see this and think "Oh, there are no magentic monopoles." But to me that just double the questions I have. So what does it mean that there are no manetic monopoles and how does this statement relate to the equation. Now if an analogist with proper abilities could come along and say something like...

Del dot B=0 is like a belt with no seam. It has no beginning (source) or end (sink) it's divergence is 0, given that divergence related to sink and source. (not even sure this is correct but it still a point I'm making).

Then I could look at the equation and think of the analogy and it would help reinforce my understanding, memorization, ease of explaining it to others in a non-mathematical way, and possibly understanding similar equations, based on remembering my analogy.