Virtual electron-positron pairs are hard to separate, taking huge electromagnetic fields to do so.I understand there are lots of positrons produced in lightning. Maybe I'm confusing lightning with magnetic reconnection. There are lots of gamma rays produced in lightning also.
Virtual electron-positron pairs are hard to separate, taking huge electromagnetic fields to do soNo it doesnt.
I don't think there is any laser that can do that yet-Research first then post.
I was meaning above direct laser separation of virtual particle pairsNo you were meaning
taking huge electromagnetic fields to do so-And I don't think that
taking huge electromagnetic fields to do soand then says
Look, I know what I was meaning above. Calm down. It's no big fuss anywayTranslation: I just CAN'T say 'You're right - I didnt know what I'm talking about' so I'll pretend I was saying something different and then say you're angry so I'm right and THEN say my being wrong was no big deal so this is your fault.'
@Gigel
I have never seen a publication proving pair generation by a laser in vacuum either.
Magnetic reconnection takes place when the magnetic field lines embedded in a plasma—the hot, charged gas that makes up 99 percent of the visible universe—converge, break apart and explosively reconnect.
However, observation shows that rapid reconnection does exist, directly contradicting theoretical predictions.
Plasmoid instability, which breaks up plasma current sheets into small magnetic islands called plasmoids
We know that the neutron is composed of protons and electrons.I thought it was composed of one up quark and two down quarks.
If you could sell this fakery to the free world you could probably take it over without firing a shot. Worth a try I guess.We know that the neutron is composed of protons and electrons.I thought it was composed of one up quark and two down quarks.
The fact that magnetic field lines do not really exist is irrelevant, as long as what they describe exists.How can the misunderstandings, which many have been laboring under becuse of such mistaken belief in 'mag field' be in any way helpful in understanding what is actually happening in reality, mate?
You are fighting windmills, RC, and I too have lost count of the number of pointless posts from you on this subject.
@RealityCheckNo no no! :)
In fifth grade we took iron filings and put them on a sheet of paper then we sat the paper with the filings on it on a bar magnet and the filings moved into an arch shape. Now you are saying that the magnetic field doesn't exist, what a load of crap.
You're right, magnetic field lines do not exist, and anybody who's studied electricity/magnetism at high school has been taught this salient fact.
I'm not a 'mainstreamer', but simply a person with a University education in a relevant subject, and not one to be easily hoodwinked by the stream of pseudoscientific claptrap hawked on this forum by far too many of the posters here who try to force their charms, potions, trinkets and snake-oil on all and sundry. That includes yourself, RC
those who know about these things will wince every time they see the words "magnetic field lines".
It doesn't require ToE insights to see the reality as it isCher, I am sure glad me to hear you say that. I for one Skippy was getting really tired of waiting for it.
increasingly confirming me correctROTFLMFAO
No comment. :)I leave it to your integrity to overcome your 'personal/ego' biasesStrawman argument. I don't have such biases.
The record shows I DID "knew it all along". I explained it to anyone who would listen without personal/egotistical biases, prejudices and beliefs in patently flawed 'peer reviewed' science/process which has 'passed' misleading claims/interpretations for far too long. Mainstream theorists/reviewers have been UN-scienti biased/dismissive; that was THEIR problem, not mine, FSC. :)accept the reality as is being discovered/reviewed by braver and more objective mainstream observers/reviewers/theorists who have finally shed all the 'mystery and metaphysics' which has for too long been infecting the cosmology observations/interpretations literature/exercises/claims etc.Scientists move forward, patiently unravelling the mysteries of the world around us, while wannabees like yourself look on and say "I knew it all along".
@aapCareful, FSC, you are 'echoing' the opinion of the same "aap" who fell hook-line-and-sinker for that Bicep2 crap, happily 'bashing cranks' with that obviously flawed 'work/claims'. I tried to warn him, but he attacked me instead. Egg on face. Learn.RC has been on here nearly a decade, and so far the number of people who have bought into him (or his claims of a theory) are a grand total of zeroWell, that comes as no surprise at all :)
Let's see. You/others know it exists; that I am finalizing reality-axioms-based maths to go with it; and that I will publish when I am satisfied as to its completeness. So defacto, you ARE 'waiting for it' to be published complete. Why split hairs, mate? :)You'll just have to wait for me to publish complete in my own time/my own wayTime for a reality check, buddy - nobody is waiting for you to publish anything, or to say anything, or to expand your baseless "theory", or indeed to do anything at all.
3) re Dark Matter being ORDINARY EM-interacting stuff which was merely too faint to be detected by previous scopes (again, I long pointed out that as scopes improved we would detect PLENTY of Ordinary stuff 'out there' which would prove that all previous uninformed hypotheses/estimates/interpretations dependent on 'exotic', ie, non-EM-interacting, 'Dark Matter' un-necessary, grossly naive/misleading hypothesis/interpretation of the reality observed).I wouldn't bet the family farm on it.
As you (and the Wiki reference I quoted) point out, the concept, and depiction, of magnetic field lines is helpful in visualizing a magnetic field in 2D or 3D.Magnetic field lines, or more generally curves, are analogous to isobars of equal pressure except here we're also talking about spacetime density. Every point in space is on one of these isobars. The difference being pressure isobars don't have poles that I know of. If so I wouldn't want to be there.
@Seeker, there's so much wrong with what you've written, I'm not going to waste my time going through each point where you make glaring errors. I'll just say: phooey, ya boo sucks - you're in my little black book as a POP.Sounds like it's over your head. Sorry.
It's already happening, mate. :)3) re Dark Matter being ORDINARY EM-interacting stuff which was merely too faint to be detected by previous scopes (again, I long pointed out that as scopes improved we would detect PLENTY of Ordinary stuff 'out there' which would prove that all previous uninformed hypotheses/estimates/interpretations dependent on 'exotic', ie, non-EM-interacting, 'Dark Matter' un-necessary, grossly naive/misleading hypothesis/interpretation of the reality observed).I wouldn't bet the family farm on it.
More recent discoveries/reviews in astronomy/cosmology have found many times the ordinary stuff previously assumed to be 'exotic'; hence making all previous 'exotic' DM 'needs', 'interpretations' and 'claims' absolutely moot.No 'exotic' stuff required. DM doesn't need any because there is no such thing. For example filaments between galaxies detected by lensing are actually caused by the gravitational force between galaxies stretching spacetime between them and increasing the effective index of refraction for the stretched spacetime. I know. It's sounds crazy but we'll just have to deal with it.
Anything goes in your fantasy world, you can say space is expanding, and time does this, and atoms do that ("Iron filings are relatively long and stiff on an atomic scale"=truly meaningless garbage), and therefore something else: none of it backed up by any math or formal quantitative analysis, and hence incapable of providing testable predictions.Formulas won't help that much if you have no grasp of iron filings or never heard about expanding space.
That world exists only inside your head.So enlighten me, if that is your agenda.
@baraknbut pops out as a very real term simply by converting equations of motionhmmm - "appears as a term which needs to be taken into account when in a non-inertial frame of reference (FOR)" would be more correct. But it's not thereby to be considered "real", any more so than centrifugal force is "real", except as a force experienced by those in a non-inertial FOR (think passengers in car being driven through a tight curve at speed).
-FineStructureConstant
Per Einstein, object trajectories appearing to be bent by the "force" of gravity are actually moving inertially in curved spacetime.So Einstein thought that spacetime was curved because the path of objects moving through it inertially were curved. It seems much of physics is stuck with this anachronism. A better term would be warped. The curved idea leads us to talk about such things as flat (not curved) spacetime. Uniform density on the average would be better than flat. Anyway a curved light path means it is being curved by refraction in a medium of different refractive index. The refractive index determines how fast light travels through the medium. Actually the speed of light is constant but the medium is stretched or warped by gravity (not curved please) so light has farther to travel. In the case of eyeglasses the speed of light is constant but its path through the lens is increased because it has to work its way around the atoms in the lens. Hence refraction.
...none of it backed up by any math or formal quantitative analysis, and hence incapable of providing testable predictions. And hence, not science, but a heap of horse-pucky.You mean like DM particles?
That world exists only inside your head.As long as you have one you might as well use it.
Virtual electron-positron pairs are hard to separate, taking huge electromagnetic fields to do so. I don't think there is any laser that can do that yet. Anyway, if it happens there should be a gamma-ray signature at about 0.5 or 1 MeV from the annihilation of electrons and positrons at the moment of reconnection.I don't think there's any annihilation going on. Rather creation of real particle pairs. Electrons line up their spins to make normal magnetic fields. Positrons are smelly I understand. I don't know if they would reconnect anything.
Seeker2
Nov 22, 2016