What is a muon?

Oh that's what you mean. Well, electrons are just excitations of the electron field.

>Could one classify the balls travel as being wave like?
No, the balls would be part of the medium in that case.

Is a muon just an electron made temporarily weird?

Or where does it's body actually come from.

Electrons exist.

You throw a bunch of stuff together near light speed, and in the detector you register an electron that acts a little different than an electron.... It has a litttlee more mass.

What are all the ways muons have been generated?

If an atom can have tons of protons and neutrons and be open to recieving like 50 electrons, why can it not receive a muon and hold it?

It's not a little more mass, it's a lot more mass. It's around 200 times heavier. An atom could hold a muon, but remember the muon is unstable, so this would eventually decay.

Why heavier variants of the lighter particles exists is still a completely open question. Why does the universe have three generations of each particle? No one knows. It's a bigger physics mystery even than what dark matter is.

You're supposed to push the buttons with the pictures of food on em

>Why is it randomly 200 times heavier?
We don't know.
>bubble chambers?
No one uses them anymore today
>And single muons are detected? I can't believe single electrons are detected, are they?
yes to both
>It's just intersting this in atom orbitals there is that type of person that is adament that electrons aren't particles, but spread out around the atom, of course my gut reaction is that is another simpleton example of mistaking sciences probability theory for geussing the best they can what might happen for, reality itself existing as a super imposed probability.
That's the same wave-particle-dualism as with photons. And quantum physics isn't just "a simpleton example", the electron is described by a wave function. The probability only plays a role once you measure.
>Oh god they even think their stance is further justified by saying like yeah it is a particle spiraling in the detector because it's wave function was collapsed by detection
Literally what? If you want, you can consider electrons as excitations of the electron field. But for particle detectors the particle picture is much more useful.

>What is the evidence a single electron is not a paritcle, before it is measured?
That's a very specific thing to ask evidence for, when it follows from general quantum mechanics. If QM is correct, the electron is a wave.

It's both

Your choice of words suggest an ill intent.
If not: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wave_function_collapse

I'm pretty sure that's heresy.

What are you talking about?

No, it has nothing to do with wave packets. The video doesn't show light as either wave or a photon. The camera just registers scatters from a short pulse of light moving from a bottle, that's it, nothing special is happening in the video.

>If QM is correct, the electron is a wave.
That's not how any of this works at all. QM worked long before it was known electrons behaved as waves and wave particle duality had nothing to do with the construction of QM. Review your history.

Then explain interference if it's simply about probabilities.

Normal probabilities don't have a complex phase though. A wave function is more than probabilities. In fact, the probabilities drop out from the absolute square of the complex wave function.

Pulses of light are like a large particle made of many small particles (like a rain drop of water, a beam of light is like a hose of water, water is made of particles, interfering water waves is many particles formed into waves);

When the large particle collides, it's many smaller particles ooze out and exhibit the properties of a crashing reverberation wage

H20 is quite particle like, particular. Defined local location area extent stable existing thingness.

Water waves would not exist without this particle ness, the stability and existence of these many seperate parts, connected, acting as a whole.

A raindrop is a big particle composed of little particles.

When it collides, the little particles are exposed, and because all the little particles don't collide equally at once; the timing, locations of landing, reverberatory effects, are wave distribution like.

Imagine throwing a water balloon at a bullseye target, it is a single particle, colliding with the target but the little particles that make it up, land different places on the target.

So what motivates the assumption that before it is measured, an electron is a wave (there are many types of waves, what type is electron thought to be?)?

>The fact that it shows wave-like properties like self-interference
After it collides with an object.

There are different types of waves, what type of wave is it believed an electron is before it is measured?

>why can it not receive a muon and hold it?
atoms CAN hold muons. this is actually the way to do cold fusion. the problem is they still decay so you never get muonic matter around long enough to do anything practical with it.

The lifetime does not depend on the temperature. Particles aren't yoghurt

I'm not him, but god damn you're stupid

you misunderstood my mention of milliseconds. the implication isn't that the muon is attached to the atom for milliseconds, moron. you talk a big game for knowing very little.
>but muh relativity
yes, even factoring in time dilation, the muon doesn't live for milliseconds, you ignorant frick.

cite the muon's lifetime for us, factoring in time dilation. then justify this moronic statement
>during the few miliseconds that a muon exists
you used "a few milliseconds" because you saw that i wrote a few milliseconds for the fat frick and the pullup bar, assuming that it meant the muon is also existing for that same time span. the fact you didn't realize muons don't live that long is embarrassing, and you should admit your error.

his point doesn't stand. that's not a trivial error, that's a critical misunderstanding.
>Do you even know how to do a back of the envelope calculation of how many times a muon orbits a proton before it decays?
do you? in the atomic world, it's negligibly small. it only seems large because you're using a moronic classical understanding, and also assuming it orbits the proton at the same radius as an electron would. and for what reason? bohr's model doesn't apply. so drop this pretentious charade, and shut your ignorant mouth. let the adults talk.

>You change the mass to the muon mass. That's it.
wrong. dig up any papers you want on the muonic atoms, and see just how critically wrong you are. if you want to pretend to be a big boy, i'll treat you like one and not cite any papers---you can find them yourself. i'm not surprised though, given you think that citing a muon lifetime as a few milliseconds is a "trivial mistake" and not a critical misunderstanding.

by the way, your silly game isn't even meaningful. neither electrons nor muons "orbit" the nucleus of an atom. this is beginner level quantum. put your big boy quantum pants on and stop being a moron---you're obviously acting pretentious as a way to conceal your ignorance.

>and also assuming it orbits the proton at the same radius as an electron would.
In fact, the "radius" is a lot smaller due to the mass. That's why you can probe nuclei with muonic x-rays

Half of the people haven't gone past Bohr's model, so I didn't want to deepen their picture that muons orbit around a nucleus

I know. I'm the guy who brought it up in the first place

cite the muon's lifetime for us, factoring in time dilation. then justify this moronic statement
>during the few miliseconds that a muon exists
you used "a few milliseconds" because you saw that i wrote a few milliseconds for the fat frick and the pullup bar, assuming that it meant the muon is also existing for that same time span. the fact you didn't realize muons don't live that long is embarrassing, and you should admit your error.

his point doesn't stand. that's not a trivial error, that's a critical misunderstanding.
>Do you even know how to do a back of the envelope calculation of how many times a muon orbits a proton before it decays?
do you? in the atomic world, it's negligibly small. it only seems large because you're using a moronic classical understanding, and also assuming it orbits the proton at the same radius as an electron would. and for what reason? bohr's model doesn't apply. so drop this pretentious charade, and shut your ignorant mouth. let the adults talk.

>You change the mass to the muon mass. That's it.
wrong. dig up any papers you want on the muonic atoms, and see just how critically wrong you are. if you want to pretend to be a big boy, i'll treat you like one and not cite any papers---you can find them yourself. i'm not surprised though, given you think that citing a muon lifetime as a few milliseconds is a "trivial mistake" and not a critical misunderstanding.

by the way, your silly game isn't even meaningful. neither electrons nor muons "orbit" the nucleus of an atom. this is beginner level quantum. put your big boy quantum pants on and stop being a moron---you're obviously acting pretentious as a way to conceal your ignorance.

lmao look at this homosexual moron

>it's a lot more mass. It's around 200 times heavier
Why is it randomly 200 times heavier? Why can an electron not be 5x 10x 20x 40x 60x....you get the picture, heavier?

Isn't that interesting?

Also what are all the ways muons are generated?

Oh, and Tau?

Muons are mainly detected in particle accelarators, bubble chambers?

And single muons are detected? I can't believe single electrons are detected, are they?

I've seen some images of accelerating detectors with the spiraling particles, those are individual electrons?

It's just intersting this in atom orbitals there is that type of person that is adament that electrons aren't particles, but spread out around the atom, of course my gut reaction is that is another simpleton example of mistaking sciences probability theory for geussing the best they can what might happen for, reality itself existing as a super imposed probability.

Oh god they even think their stance is further justified by saying like yeah it is a particle spiraling in the detector because it's wave function was collapsed by detection

>Why heavier variants of the lighter particles exists is still a completely open question
I think the interesting part about it is that its not 2x electron mass, 3x electron mass, 4x electron mass etc.... But only exactly around 200x?

That's weird as heck.

But I geuss would have to do with ingredients in the mixture;

Like you can make a certain recipe of these ingredients of food, and it will have thresholds of tasting good if you add 1x an ingredient, and 10x but not 5x?

In the way that the interacting parts that allow muon to exist, are never brought together in the degrees required to make 2x mas electron, 4x mass electron etc.

The ability to get the ingredients with their qualities together in conditions only allows specific qualities of particles.

Also when vacuums are made in science experiments, are EM fields and gravity field removed in the process of making vacuum?

It's moreso just removing air molecules, so these particles have an even rawer interaction with the fields, and travel more freely in space, and something about how they may secondary collide

No.

you know that a ball oscillating back and forth draws out a beautiful sinusoidal pattern if you graph it

So? That's not a wave equation.

That has literally nothing to do with your ball on a string. You don't even know the difference between a wave and an oscillation. And you're awfully smug about it. I wouldn't mind explaining physics 1 to you if you were genuinely interested, but you're just trying to be clever and fail miserably at it. Even that you think of electrons only in the concept of bound to nuclei shows that you haven't had physics after 9th grade or so. I won't explain quantum field theory to you.

you know that a ball oscillating back and forth draws out a beautiful sinusoidal pattern if you graph it

A ball on a string is a single entity with a position dependant on time. A wave is not that. A wave is not a singular thing with a definite position but can be sampled at different positions at any given time. This is why

[...]
I have published papers I am not going to link here. But neither of them contains a ball on a string. I do, however, teach physics 1 where we explain the high school graduates the difference between the oscillation of a single oscillator like your ball [math]x(t)[/math] and a wave [math]xi (x, t)[/math]. A simple oscillation would follow from something like [math]ddot{x} + omega_0 x = 0[/math] with a solution [math]x(t) = A,cos (omega_0 + delta)[/math]. That would be your ball on a string. One thing changes its position x over time.
A wave can be expressed as propagating [math]xi(x, t) = f(x pm vt)[/math]. Your ball on a string does not propagate anywhere.

presents the ball's oscillation as a function of time while a wave as a function of both time and position.

If you really need to use bad analogies I can give you a better one. Instead of a ball on a string, you have a buoy on water. When the water is disturbed and there's a wave passing over where the buoy is, the buoy moves up and down along with the wave but it itself is not a wave. It shows the wave's oscillation at a specific point over time but the wave itself is at all points around as it propagates. A buoy has a defined position while the wave doesn't.

No. An electron is an ocean wave. The electron field is the ocean. An atom capturing an electron is a standing wave, like a seiche.
Don't confuse medium and wave. Water is not a wave. A wave is energy transport through a medium without transport of the medium. Sound is not wind.

Define physical nature.

In the same way the non excited electromagnetic field exists. What do you think, is the medium of electromagnetic waves/light?

>Periodic table of elements is very thorough, graspable, visual, sensical, witnessable, fathomable;

>Is the unexcited electron and em field equally so?

No. QFT is less graspable, visible etc. than sorting Elements everyone knows.

>Anyway, there is an order; 1, 2, 3, 4, 5..... Number of protons and neutrons and electrons. That is graspable; some system exists and has incremental changes in quantity.
Maybe the quantum harmonic oscillator could be somewhat graspable. It's quantised, you have different modes, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 etc.

>Is the unexcited electron field made of unexcited electron particles, of mass, spin, density?
Still confusing the field with the excitation. The unexcited "sound field" (pressure in air) does not consist of unexcited sounds (which doesn't exist, like unexcited electron particles).
>The unexcited EM field, field lines and such, seems to quite sit still, this implies the unexcited EM field possess mass?
I fell like to answer this fully I'd have to dive into vacuum energy etc. Yes, in principle there are such effects, but you first need to understand the difference between medium, oscillation and wave. If you go into QFT, thinking a ball on a string is a wave, you are going to have a really bad time. First go to waves in rope and then come back for quantum physics and then we can do QFT.

So does an electron in an atoms orbital maybe move about more like the stuff in a lava lamp than a baseball? And they geometric flubbery give of the body is what compells it to be called wave like?

The wave likeness of an electron in an oribital, is like that lava lamp goo, having a consistent regular motion, a flapping flopping back and forth motion that paces laps around it's jail cell orbital?

And is it the nucleus and what the nucleus does to the local em field that forces the electron to wave this way?

how much of the electrons body naturally intrinsically cannot help but to constantly wiggle;
How much is it forced to wiggle by its surroundings?

Have you seen gold fish how they wiggle their bodies back and forth to move, or the tail of sperm, would you consider them waves?

>Do electrons bodies touch?
Simply said: No. More complex: https://www.cambridge.org/highereducation/books/modern-particle-physics/CDFEBC9AE513DA60AA12DE015181A948

no i didn't, you fricking moron

Then you didn't touch her, because your outermost boundry is electrons and hers is electrons

define surface

no, you can't pick and choose like that

either define everything strictly, or define nothing more closely than the human level and stop talking about electrons

on the deeply microscopic level, things never "touch", they just become more likely to affect each other and exchange forces more powerfully the closer they are to one another

>Ultimately surfaces, bodies, must be touching
Even in a pretty classic view, that's just dumb.
The potential is [math]frac{1}{4pivarepsilon_0} frac{q, Q}{r}[/math]. How close do you want to bring two electrons? Let's do a really rough back of the envelope calculation here. Let's assume, every atom has only one electron and let's ignore the rest as the field from the nucleus etc etc. Also, your foot consists of 10cm^2 of atoms in a rectangular grid with a pitch of 1Å. Makes your foot consist of 1e17 electrons. Let's say you want to go as close as the consistency of your foot: 1Å. Makes 230 mJ to get there. That's okay, but already like lifting a bar of chocolate by 23cm.
Let's get closer. Nuclei are 10^-15m in diameter. That must be a kind of surface, right? That brings us to 23 kJ, or 5.5kcal. That's over a gram of sugar. Per step? But we're still not at any surface. How deep do you want to go? 10^-18m? Now you're at a kilo of sugar.
You see, you can't just plug in 0, as then you'd divide by zero. You need to define what's a surface. My calculations are probably off by some orders of magnitude, but with just one foot, you easily reach macroscopic amounts of energy that are needed for each step.

>In "a pretty classic view," the electrostatic repulsion should ultimately be due to bodies colliding.
No. Your cat will attract packing peanuts from a distance. Magnets work over a distance. Electrostatics is not about collision or touching. Well, unless you mean conductivity.

What? Static electricity is super classic and contains remote forces.

How far in the past are you living?

I didn't mean classic as in Archimedes. I mean as in pre-quantum physics. I'm talking 18th and 19th century physics.

And you are aware that Coulomb's law was formulated in the 1700's? What makes you think they considered this "touching"

>What do you think Newton believed his inverse square law of gravity described?
Tell me. Was it planets fondling each other's moons? Gravity is a remote force that works without any physical contact.
>They all believed in a fluid permeating (touching, if you will)
Ohh, you're projecting your modern aether theory on poor 18th century physicists actually doing a good job.
But for real, two charged spheres do not touch and no one would ever think that. You're moving backwards 5000 years in scientific insight if you seriously believe that.

>Ohh, you're projecting your modern aether theory on poor 18th century physicists actually doing a good job.
Euler in his nova theoria lucis et colorum has a long introduction refuting the (so perceived) Newtonian theory of light corpuscules, in favor of light as a vibration in a fluid medium. I couldn't find an English translation (but I didn't try very hard, as it is more of a problem for you than it is for me), but literally the very first sentence is:
>Omnem sensationem fieri per contactum, quo in nostro corpore mutatio quaedam producatur, tam ratio quam experientia ita dilucide docet, ut nullum amplius dubium superesse possit.
>That every sensation is brought about by contact, by which some change is produced in our body, both reason and experience teach us so clearly, that there can no longer be any doubt.
http://eulerarchive.maa.org/docs/originals/E088.chp1.pdf

So yeah, you can bet that he believed that all force is transmitted by contact: he tells you so first thing he says.

>Weren't we talking about electrostatics and gravity?
Yes. You seem lost, want a recap?

You said that the idea of bodies having to "ultimately touch" (i.e. all forces are ultimately contact forces) was "pretty dumb", "even in a pretty classic view" when it comes to electrostatics.
I told you, "that's a pretty modern view of physics that you're projecting onto the past".
You responded that static electricity and gravity are remote forces and thinking otherwise is the physics of "Archimedes", not "pre-quantum physics", "18th and 19th century physics".
You asked what made me think that they considered these forces as "touching", and I responded "their words", that they thought it was due to contact forces in a fluid. You doubted this as me projecting "modern aether theory on poor 18th century physicists".
So I gave you what these people thought of remote forces in their own words. Newton (17th century) thought it was a medium. Euler thought it was a medium and explicitly states my point. I got lazy on Maxwell and Faraday, but they thought the same. Proving:
1. I did not project anything, it was you who did, as I said from the start.
2. The rejection of remote forces is not "Archimedean physics", but "pre-quantum", "18th and 19th century physics", as you denied, and I contested.
3. Your "pretty classic view" of physics is not pretty classic at all, but pretty modern, as I affirmed from the start.

The argument stands for whatever reasonable definition of "touch" and "surface" you may like. You started talking about "classic views" you know nothing about, and you were wrong.

Schizobabble post

the answer is in the fact that "things" are also fields

.... no. Are you the guy with the satellite above the poles? Although your understanding is really far from reality, I respect your interest and I hope you learn more about physics. You seem curious and creative, that's great. Now you only need knowledge, which is the most trivial part.
I recommend:
https://www.feynmanlectures.caltech.edu/

>The EM field..... Whatever the heck it is...... Is NEVER not in-between every single subatomic particle.
To some small degree, then the question comes, what is that smallest degree of possible EM field that can be made to exist between two particles?

And why can it not all be squeezed out between them?

First of all, these are all models and not how the world is. The electromagnetic field is simply defined at every point in space. In the particle picture, electrons are point-like. Due to the Pauli principle they can't be in the same location.
Now you need some maths. Let's say you have two real numbers, x and x+ε, with ε>0, but as small as you want. So if you choose a really small ε, that corresponds to bringing them really close. You can prove that there are infinite numbers between x and x+ε. So the field is defined at an infinite amount of points between the two electrons.

We don't know. Everything we do is models and theories.

We don't, we just don't make claims we cannot fulfil.

>could've responded to the question with their best guess
So they would have dodged the question and answered a different one instead.

No. I give you the honest answer that I can't tell you what electrons and electromagnetic fields are, or look like. My current best understanding is quantum electrodynamics. I linked a book on this topic earlier.
But that doesn't answer the question "what is...", but the question "how would you describe and explain...". And I hope you understand why I'm not going to explain grad school theoretical physics on IQfy. In the end it is just a theory, not the absolute truth.

Sophistry is the essence of physics. If you don't care if the world is really like this or it's just a theory, then you're back to
>Why did physicists stop caring about how the world is?
If I answer your question how the world is with my guess, I'd give up caring about how the world really is.
Well, this, and like I said, it would probably take years to explain QED in a way that you would really understand it. I'm not calling you dumb, it took me years as well. It takes Richard Feynman ~100 pages to explain it to the general public. Why should I attempt to do the same, only with less text and worse? I'm happy to answer questions, but only to a certain degree. I'm not giving a lecture on theoretical physics.

Then avoid physics.

>If I answer your question how the world is with my guess, I'd give up caring about how the world really is.
You can speculate and educatedly geuss, and it wouldn't be held against you, the great theoretical physicists of history didn't get it right first try every try. Broken eggs to make omelettes and all that

K this is the main part we are up to now and I don't know if Feynman touched upon it;

Subatomic particles Can be brought closer together.

This implies EM field can be made to move out of the way.

It is stated, EM field ultimately cannot be made to move entirely out of the way.

What is the minimum amount of EM field that can be made to remain between 2 of any subatomic particles brought closer and closer together?

And, why, physically how, can that last bit not be made to move out of the way?

>>This implies EM field can be made to move out of the way.
>No.
You are holding a particle at one end of a football field, I'm holding another at the other end.

We walk towards each other and meet at the middle. Shake hands with the particles. There was an amount of EM field inbetween the particles when we started at either end, when we got to the center, is there not less amount?

I anticipate the answers that try to deny that being a yes, but I'm not sure they are entirely acceptable.

>the field gets stronger if you push charges together. Asking for a minimum when you bring 1/r towards r=0 seems very odd.

I geuss im asking less about comparative field strength and more about general raw field existence.

The field does ocupy the space between the large distance, so when the distance is cut, the raw quantity of field that exists between the two particles is of a less amount of field volume?

So we bring the particles closer and closer, and bring out the fancy machines, and try to hold the particles steady and push them closer and closer, and they are really are getting closer (compared to where we started at either end, and a few steps towards, and a few steps towards, ... Etc)

(You don't consider walking the particles from one end of field to meeting at center as the particles moving EM field out of the way; but what not being able to move EM out of the way really means, is not being able to move the particles any further, as in this minimum distance example)
So there is finally a minimum limit as to how far the particles bodies surface can be brought near one another... because ...

There is some minimum amount of field that exists between subatomic particles that can not be moved out of the way.

Unless that part is just the frayed ends of untied theory, past the limits of experimental ability to hold two particles with tweezers and makes their surfaces touch.

>Quantum fields are, as described above, characterised by the exchange of quanta (in this case, photons). But then again, there's no distance that's too small to exchange a photon anymore.

When you bring two magnets N pole to N pole closer and closer together, they are exchanging photons as you say? Is the repulsion you feel the exchange of photons?

If you have very strong hydrolic machines that hold two of the strongest possible magnets, and bring them closer and closer together, and then at some very close distance, hold them in place; while they are being held in place, are photons continously being emitted?

>You repeatedly have failed to define the surface of a particle.
An electron has a radius. A radius implies the distance from a center to a surface.

>Virtual photons, yes. You don't need the strongest magnets and hydraulic machines. Any magnet does it.
Do virtual photons have energy? Momentum? Mass? Frequency?

It's more fun to imagine the strongest most extreme cases; because that helps to then consider and imply the greater difficulty in bringing them closer together, and what is happening that makes it more and more difficult to press the magnets together.

You cannot probably push two of the strongest magnets same poles together, so that's when the hydrolics come on. To paint this picture of just how powerful and strange of an activity that is going on here, and I hope this is all being considered in vacuum, because it would be more understandable if the magnets attracted air inbetween them that helped in making it harder to push together .

>>Do virtual photons have energy? Momentum? Mass? Frequency?
>All of that, most notably mass unlike real photons
What is the mass of a virtual photon?

And how many estimated virtual photons exist in the universe at any given time?

What's the estimated total virtual photon mass in the universe on average?

That didn't seem to say Virtual particles are on shell.

Anyway. In order for you to go anywhere in space, and repelling magnets work, proves that actual existing real physical EMness exists at every point in space.

It's not that the repelling felt between the magnets is solely a product of the magnets bodies themselves that are projecting or projectiling stuff at each other, is it?

Either real physical EM existence exists at every point and that is how light propagates across the universe (light is not a projectile that goes from galaxy to earth, there is actual EM existence between Galaxy and earth, and the galaxies stars violently shake, and that shake is propagated through the EM existence at every point from one galaxy to ours).

Or there are it fields at every point and space, and there are only corpuscular projectiles that are shot out from stars through vacumm.

You can't have it both ways. Fields/mediums which waves propagate in, or no fields/mediums projectile bodies shot from star to star

How does the EM field and the Gravity field exist EXACTLY at EVERY POINT in space equally?

And if they don't. How can gravity and EM function at any point in space?

The excited propagating EM waves, And the ever present non propagating EM field

The 'excited' 'propagating' Gravity wells, And the ever present non welled Gravity field.

To your point, temperature is local motion, pressure is local density (fair to say, maybe incorrect to say), does this analog to gravity field and em field? Relative motion and non motion (excitation and not), relative density and not (inside a gravity well is less dense gravity field than far from all mass equilbrium?)

There is the actual existing particle zoo whatever it actually is in some amount of the universe, that are like finite objects, and there is the EM field and Gravity field.

(Loosely roughly sacrilegiously akin to pebbles, and the ocean. )

Every where the electrons and quarks are not in the universe, the EM and gravity field must be occupying all that volumetric space; this is the controversial crux; no it's not occupying ALL the space, other stuff is squeezed in there too.

We take a sphere volume and wrap it around a section of space, what's the cross section of what exists there? Let's say for every space that does not contain electrons, quarks, neutrinos, etc

We take some steps, wrap a sphere around space, find out the exact cross section of actually everything that makes up that 100% sphere volume

Take some steps, close our sphere around space.

Take some steps, close our sphere around space, measure the cross section

Etc etc all the way across up down left right front back the entire universe.

Cntd

How do you explain magnets attracting each other even if you put a sheet of paper or your hand between them?

Mysteriously, the magnetic field must go through the hand. It exists in the same location as the atoms of your hand.

>And how many estimated virtual photons exist in the universe at any given time?
>What's the estimated total virtual photon mass in the universe on average?
Source of dark matter?

>Virtual photons, yes. You don't need the strongest magnets and hydraulic machines. Any magnet does it.
Do virtual photons have energy? Momentum? Mass? Frequency?

It's more fun to imagine the strongest most extreme cases; because that helps to then consider and imply the greater difficulty in bringing them closer together, and what is happening that makes it more and more difficult to press the magnets together.

You cannot probably push two of the strongest magnets same poles together, so that's when the hydrolics come on. To paint this picture of just how powerful and strange of an activity that is going on here, and I hope this is all being considered in vacuum, because it would be more understandable if the magnets attracted air inbetween them that helped in making it harder to push together .

>Do virtual photons have energy? Momentum? Mass? Frequency?
All of that, most notably mass unlike real photons.
[...]
>What is the physical meaning of charge, or a body possessing a quantity of charge
Charge is the requirement to interact via one of the fundamental interactions. Electric charge allows EM-interaction (coupling to photons), colour charge for the strong interaction and weak isospin for the weak interaction.
>Just because you can't measure something does not mean it has no mesurement.
It's not that we can't measure it. We have measured it and it must be at least seven orders of magnitude below the classical electron "radius".
>The idea of point particle is nonsensical and absurd.
Obviously it's a model and for many reasons it is nonsensical. The density would be infinite etc. but saying that it's 10^-15m when we know it can't be larger than 10^-22m is ridiculous.

Virtual particles don't exist. They're just a computational trick or device, like the method of image charges.

What's the reason for the need of a computational trick or device?

Because 'something' is phsycislly there that needs labeling?

>Measuring a shadow doesn't make it real.
Light is real, to measure a space which receives no light, in relation to a space that does, Is a real relation?

>Maybe maybe not, it needs labeling in order to be counted though. Otherwise physics could not be applied to it.
When you bring the Npole of a magnet to the Npole of a magnet. You feel a repulsion.

We must have a label for everything that exists. Apple, tree, sky, water, h20, grass, metal, magnet.

What exists between the 2 repulsing magnets, something or nothing?
How could nothing have any quality, how could nothing itself, prevent magnets from being brought closer?

We don't know how much actually empty space exists in the universe. We do know it's substantially not empty, because gravity and EM.

>>What exists between the 2 repulsing magnets, something or nothing?
>Does that have any relation to how they work? Would knowing how they work solve the issue of bothering to consider what's in between them in the first place? What if that has absolutely nothing to do with anything?

In free space; when 2 Magnets are same pole brought together; either their repulsion is caused entirely by aspects of the magnets body, leaping out of the magnet and both meeeting have way in the middle and pushing one another consistently sturdily;

Or, there is a real existing something field, in between them, that is.hard and sturdy when the poles are same facing, and free and easy when the poles are opposite facing.

Space is already certainly not nothing due to gravity, look at the moon, Nothing cannot be the cause of its remaining proximity.

So that helps us feel easier about considering the situation with light and magnets may be due to a similar invisible medium as well

In a vacuum in free space.

You bring Npole to Npole of two magnets.

Is there actually really something stuff in-between them when you feel their repulsion?

Or; do the electrons and photons at the end of the magnets jump out and crash into each other to prevent the magnet bodies touching

did I miss something? Which is it.

If it is the first one: what is the nature of that something stuff in-between the repulsing magnets? What is its substanceality, what and how is it made of?

>It's a field that extends without any medium
Semantics, potato potaato, field medium.

The field has a greater than 0 quantity of non nothing existence at every point.

Something is there!!!!!!!!

When you go in the ocean, water exists at every point.

When you go in the air, air exits at every point.

When you go in space, em field and gravity field exist at every point.

Water is not nothing
Air is not nothing
EM field is not nothing
Gravity field is not nothing

On average in vacuum, in a volume of 1 square foot how many points of 0 quantity of the non-nothing EM field would you exist?

We are getting to interesting territory

errrrr what...

Imagine you go out into space. And choose 3 or 300 let's say volumes of cubic feet.

Out of 100% total Planck lengths that occupy each of those cubes;

What percent of that 100% is composed of what, on average?

How much is EM field?
How much is gravity field?

7% is em field, 8% is gravity field and 1.2% is hockey field. The rest is reserved for future patches.

You didn't respond to this part

>The EM field..... Whatever the heck it is...... Is NEVER not in-between every single subatomic particle.
To some small degree, then the question comes, what is that smallest degree of possible EM field that can be made to exist between two particles?

And why can it not all be squeezed out between them?

That is the ribbons on top of the other section:

What:

Subatomic particles Can be brought closer together.

This implies EM field can be made to move out of the way.

It is states however, EM field ultimately cannot be made to move entirely out of the way.

What is the minimum amount of EM field that can be made to remain between 2 of any subatomic particles brought closer and closer together?

And, why, physically how, can that last bit not be made to move out of the way?

>Is just a constant process of refinement.
Scientific knowledge does not increase monotonically with time, because all
All the theorizing around geocentrism and epicycles had to be thrown out when the Copernican model came to be accepted, even though the geocentrists felt that their knowledge of the world was monotonically increasing with time.
The same happened with caloric, which replaced the ultimately correct kinetic theory of haet. They probably felt like their knowledge of the world had increased when they accepted the caloric theory of heat.

When scientific progress is felt as a process of refinement, that's the best sign that the current paradigm has stagnated.

I meant that the failures are as important as successes, or else we'll end up thinking that science progresses only by refinement. You may believe that it doesn't happen, but it's exactly what happens when people say that quantum mechanics didn't invalidate Newtonian physics. They believe in monotonically increasing knowledge.

>in this thread or another we were talking about the possibilities of physical meaning and interpretetions of electron field, what excitation and non excitation but *existing* field could mean,

*excited*

Calculate the energy you need to bring two electrons to zero distance.

I was walking outside on the grass earlier, the outer most shell of my feet are electrons (?) , The outermost shell of the grass blades are electrons (are the protons and neutrons relavant in this possible touching conversation, I geuss in the passing it on down the line, the electrons compress toward the nucelus, which repulses it ? Which push the electrons on the other side of the atom, into the electrons of the atom next to it, which repulse those electrons toward the nucleus and so on and so on a trillion times a second.

I felt the soft grass, and I felt the harder ground under neath. I thought my mass allowed me to feel that hard grass, whereas a grasshoopers didn't.

Where I stepped the grass bent.

Something must be touching something, ultimately. So what is it.

Either the bodies that compose atoms touch one another

Or

There is a real EM field that is like a cushion pad in-between all parts of all atoms, and when I walked; my mass being pulled down, results in the electrons of my foot, pushing the EM field that surrounds all things, into the EM field surrounding a blade of grass, which pushes the electrons of that grass down.

>There is a real EM field that is like a cushion pad in-between all parts of all atoms, and when I walked; my mass being pulled down, results in the electrons of my foot, pushing the EM field that surrounds all things, into the EM field surrounding a blade of grass, which pushes the electrons of that grass down.
>This
It's often said how much stronger EM force is than gravity, but this claim makes it seem without gravity, EM would hardly have it's oppurtunity to show it's strength

Without gravity making the grass feel my weight, the electrons of the grass would not be pushed by the EM field being pushed by the electrons of my foot.