Total beginner - I have questions about particle wave duality and magnetic fields

Hi, I have always had a fascination with magnetic fields, what exactly
are magnetic fields and why are they invisible, how do they carry
energy?

Also, if particle's have wave-like properties, is it possibly that
particles are not "particles" but actually waves/energyfrequency
trapped by some kind of supersymmetry, thereby giving the
illusion of "particality"... I think of magnets when we try to put
two like magnets together you can feel "hardness",
help me understand... thanks

On Nov 2, 6:57 pm, Pana. P <[Only registered users see links. ]> wrote:

My physics teacher told me they're photons with zero frequency. Which
I suppose is correct in a way. These days they're meant to be caused
by virtual particles flying around. They don't really carry energy any
more than the leg of a chair carries energy while someone's sitting on
it. You have to change the field to get energy transfer.


Pretty much. But I wouldn't say 'supersymmetry' because I don't know
what it means in a physics context. An example that illustrates the
emptyness of particles is the nutrino. They fly through matter all the
time, right through the earth. They still have mass, still have a kind
of size defined by their wavefunction, just like electrons do, but
they go through other particles.


Yep. Particles aren't really solid, it's the electric repulsion of
electrons that causes macroscopic objects to bump into each other
instead of passing through. Well there's also the QM rules about two
electronc not being allowed to occupy the same state.

On Nov 2, 6:57 pm, Pana. P <[Only registered users see links. ]> wrote:

My physics teacher told me they're photons with zero frequency. Which
I suppose is correct in a way. These days they're meant to be caused
by virtual particles flying around. They don't really carry energy any
more than the leg of a chair carries energy while someone's sitting on
it. You have to change the field to get energy transfer.


Pretty much. But I wouldn't say 'supersymmetry' because I don't know
what it means in a physics context. An example that illustrates the
emptyness of particles is the nutrino. They fly through matter all the
time, right through the earth. They still have mass, still have a kind
of size defined by their wavefunction, just like electrons do, but
they go through other particles.


Yep. Particles aren't really solid, it's the electric repulsion of
electrons that causes macroscopic objects to bump into each other
instead of passing through. Well there's also the QM rules about two
electronc not being allowed to occupy the same state.

Dear Pana. P:

"Pana. P" <[Only registered users see links. ]> wrote in message
news:[Only registered users see links. ]...

Magnetic fields are electric charge and length contraction (from
charge motion).
They are invisible because only charges are affected by the tiny
relativistic effects... and individual photons have no charge.
They carry energy via the interactions between charges.


No. Neither "wave" nor "particle" is correct. Reality is not
what our common sense tells us. We are constructs of trillions
of atoms, still tiny in a Universe with some huge number of
atoms. And our perceptions are couched in terms of scales and
interactions we can comprehend, and have seen.

No wave-only model, such as the layman is familiar with, can
describe the photoelectric effect. No particle-only model can
describe diffraction. Nature is stranger than we know. The
question is, is She stranger than we need to know? Stranger even
than we *can* know?


Nah.

David A. Smith

Dear Pana. P:

"Pana. P" <[Only registered users see links. ]> wrote in message
news:[Only registered users see links. ]...

Magnetic fields are electric charge and length contraction (from
charge motion).
They are invisible because only charges are affected by the tiny
relativistic effects... and individual photons have no charge.
They carry energy via the interactions between charges.


No. Neither "wave" nor "particle" is correct. Reality is not
what our common sense tells us. We are constructs of trillions
of atoms, still tiny in a Universe with some huge number of
atoms. And our perceptions are couched in terms of scales and
interactions we can comprehend, and have seen.

No wave-only model, such as the layman is familiar with, can
describe the photoelectric effect. No particle-only model can
describe diffraction. Nature is stranger than we know. The
question is, is She stranger than we need to know? Stranger even
than we *can* know?


Nah.

David A. Smith

On Fri, 2 Nov 2007 06:00:32 -0700, "N:dlzc D:aol T:com \(dlzc\)"
<[Only registered users see links. ]> wrote:


Ok, so it's BOTH? or is that just a metaphor? When I think about
it hypothetically.... I ask myself this--> what if a wave was a
frequency of energy of it's own specific non-convertable type, we'll
got it "Frequency/wave energy" and a particle was a frequency of of
energy of it's own type, well call it "particle energy" and, the two
are exist in POINT of probabiliy, in which both occupy the same
point of space simultaneously. I am seeing this in my mind in
geometric fashion btw. I see point representing a point of
"instantaneity "(instaneous transfer), where space has two
properties, a wave space (to contain waves) and a particle space
(to contain solids) and they are joined by another node
called a - -"gate", in which the frequency of one energy can be
"super posed" on top of another, (i.e. pass through each other).

Now here's two possibilities:

1) They can under certain circumstances interfere with each other
2) they can't, they can only occupy their have of the "movement node"
Which has a wave energy portion, and a solid energy portion.

I'm trying to understand.
..


So what we feel when we feel hardness is just "repulsion"?

But what is "repulsion"? since repulsion at a distance is soft (i.e.
diffuse) but as you get closer to the magnet, the field has a "surface
which contracts into something that fields like it is a planar-solid
(like the surface of the table from our macroscopic viewpoint).

On Fri, 2 Nov 2007 06:00:32 -0700, "N:dlzc D:aol T:com \(dlzc\)"
<[Only registered users see links. ]> wrote:


Ok, so it's BOTH? or is that just a metaphor? When I think about
it hypothetically.... I ask myself this--> what if a wave was a
frequency of energy of it's own specific non-convertable type, we'll
got it "Frequency/wave energy" and a particle was a frequency of of
energy of it's own type, well call it "particle energy" and, the two
are exist in POINT of probabiliy, in which both occupy the same
point of space simultaneously. I am seeing this in my mind in
geometric fashion btw. I see point representing a point of
"instantaneity "(instaneous transfer), where space has two
properties, a wave space (to contain waves) and a particle space
(to contain solids) and they are joined by another node
called a - -"gate", in which the frequency of one energy can be
"super posed" on top of another, (i.e. pass through each other).

Now here's two possibilities:

1) They can under certain circumstances interfere with each other
2) they can't, they can only occupy their have of the "movement node"
Which has a wave energy portion, and a solid energy portion.

I'm trying to understand.
..


So what we feel when we feel hardness is just "repulsion"?

But what is "repulsion"? since repulsion at a distance is soft (i.e.
diffuse) but as you get closer to the magnet, the field has a "surface
which contracts into something that fields like it is a planar-solid
(like the surface of the table from our macroscopic viewpoint).

Dear Pana P.:

On Nov 2, 2:10 pm, Pana. P <[Only registered users see links. ]> wrote:
....

Words have a meaning to each individual based on their experience.
The answer is probably, "it is NEITHER", since the words "particle"
and "wave" are metaphors to your own experience. A particle has some
features that are discrete (particle) and some featrues that we
consider continuous (wave).


But they are forever discrete, and separate from each other, and do
not constructively add as we know that classical waves do.


Rube Goldberg would be proud of you. Much simpler to realize we don't
have large things like particles in our natural environment, so we
need to learn more. Rather than devolve into string and paperclips to
make something that we think acts like it shoud.

3) The language your brain thinks in, does not have enough experience
in the quantum realm to help you.


Then you need to take some classes. Get your hands on stuff, and wrap
your brain about the logic necessary to understand what the stuff is
telling you.

....

Yes, based on our experience of what "hardness" is... electrostatic
repulsion.


I can compress the magnets together, without shattering them, until
they make physical contact. Your handwaving does not constitute a
hard surface, just a point that you give up pressing further.

David A. Smith

Dear Pana P.:

On Nov 2, 2:10 pm, Pana. P <[Only registered users see links. ]> wrote:
....

Words have a meaning to each individual based on their experience.
The answer is probably, "it is NEITHER", since the words "particle"
and "wave" are metaphors to your own experience. A particle has some
features that are discrete (particle) and some featrues that we
consider continuous (wave).


But they are forever discrete, and separate from each other, and do
not constructively add as we know that classical waves do.


Rube Goldberg would be proud of you. Much simpler to realize we don't
have large things like particles in our natural environment, so we
need to learn more. Rather than devolve into string and paperclips to
make something that we think acts like it shoud.

3) The language your brain thinks in, does not have enough experience
in the quantum realm to help you.


Then you need to take some classes. Get your hands on stuff, and wrap
your brain about the logic necessary to understand what the stuff is
telling you.

....

Yes, based on our experience of what "hardness" is... electrostatic
repulsion.


I can compress the magnets together, without shattering them, until
they make physical contact. Your handwaving does not constitute a
hard surface, just a point that you give up pressing further.

David A. Smith