User talk:Bill field pulse

Welcome!

Hello, Bill field pulse, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Unfortunately, one or more of your recent edits to the page Nuclear force did not conform to Wikipedia's verifiability policy, and may have been removed. Wikipedia articles should refer only to facts and interpretations verified in reliable, reputable print or online sources or in other reliable media. Always provide a reliable source for quotations and for any material that is likely to be challenged, or it may be removed. Wikipedia also has a related policy against including original research in articles.

If you are stuck and looking for help, please see the guide for citing sources or come to The Teahouse, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have.

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Again, welcome! AntiDionysius (talk) 17:41, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I realize that was a pretty good article and expanding upon spin there was probably unnecessary. It is good to see that some editing is done to ensure articles only improve. Bill field pulse (talk) 19:30, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please add references for additions to physics article.

Hi. I reverted several of your additions concerning quarks. Your additions are not supported by references which would allow me to check. I believe you are taking some understanding of quarks and applying it in cases that amount to WP:original research. I assume you are trying to help but without references these edits are confusing.

Johnjbarton (talk) 01:38, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

When I see a direct conflict between a Wikipedia article and a written source I agree with I shall reference appropriately.

My sources for quark velocity is now just memory based upon articles read about 10 years ago. I believe there is general consensus that quarks move close to the speed of light. As I recall, quarks in smaller atoms can move as fast as 99.995% of the speed of light but in very large atoms quarks can move as slowly as 80% of the speed of light. I will hold off on specifics until velocity numbers are entered in the Wikipedia quark page. Aside from Scientific American, You Tube and Wikipedia I do not do a lot of scientific reading these days. Bill field pulse (talk) 21:04, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I assume you think your edits are somehow helpful. They are not helpful. I urge you to stop before we take steps to ban your account.

Wikipedia is a community effort, not a venue for your personal crusade to "enlighten" science. Wikipedia requires sources to reduce arguments about what is or is not correct. If you don't want to provide sources, don't contribute.

Wikipedia is not a place to discuss ideas about physics. Try Quora or Physics stack exchange. If you want rant about stuff, use blog posts. Johnjbarton (talk) 00:14, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have highlighted important issues with several articles. At the very least talk sections are the appropriate place to voice issues with articles. To me the difference between electromagnetic radiation and electromagnetic field is very fundamental. It is my basic understanding of physics that there is a steady field always emitted by a charge in 3 dimensions. A charge is the source of a field. In contrast EM radiation is only emitted when an electron changes energy levels. This disagreement I have with you should not be characterized as ranting. The issues are important and I could be right. Bill field pulse (talk) 21:24, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your comments are not helpful because they do not specify what aspect of the article you are discussing and you do not include references to verify your claims. Johnjbarton (talk) 22:52, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am trying to be helpful. Though I am an old man, I am just a baby at Wikipedia. For now I am only working at agreement on simple concepts. I look forward to a time when we have agreement on basic concepts. If I may be so bold, like me, do you see an electron as being the origin of an associated EM field that it creates? Unfortunately, I am getting the idea that some see static objects as repelling by some mechanism other than physical EM fields even in clear cases when it is certain there is no radiation involved. Can some believe this? I need to talk to them to understand what they think happens. Bill field pulse (talk) 21:47, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

(Classical) electromagnetism models all macroscopic electrical and magnetic phenomena without the use of electrons, protons, and certainly not quarks. The theory is wildly successful and introducing elementary particles adds exactly zero physics. The reverse is not true: one can't make sense of electrons/protons without understanding electromagnetic fields. Lorentz developed his theory of the electron based on Maxwell's work long before QM. Johnjbarton (talk) 23:59, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed but here is the problem. I say an EM field is primarily stuck to its source charge. You can move a static charge and produce the EM field but the EM field never leaves the source. Charge cannot cease emitting the field. EM field radiation can be stopped and started. The articles do not adequately differentiate the two. Is it your opinion that the two articles must be merged? The articles should explain how they are related yet different separate phenomenon's involving electricity magnetism and charges .

Historically they were first seen as very different. Then Maxwell and others showed that they were related both involving charges electricity and magnetism. However, the two very different phenomenon's never really became one.

Perhaps most surprising is that both propagate at the speed of light that may be why some like to keep them together. Bill field pulse (talk) 22:40, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your claim: "You can move a static charge and produce the EM field" makes no sense to me. A static charge produces a static field; a moving charge produces a changing EM field.

Your claim: "Charge cannot cease emitting the field." makes no sense to me. Static charges means static field, no "emitting". Johnjbarton (talk) 23:29, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

My first claim is completely wrong. A static charge can never move. You are right there. Good point.

Regarding the second point you incorrectly assumed I mean a static charge but I did not say static charge. I said charge. Yes static charges never move so there can never be a change to the field. So there is no time interval and hence no velocity. But a moving charge establishes field close to the charge first and the field establishes at great distances later. Note my issue is with articles where charge movement is allowed.

Do you agree electric motors use EM Fields with no radiation and that minimal radiation if any occurs in motors. Bill field pulse (talk) 18:40, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The propagation of the electric field over time was established by Maxwell in 1886. See Electric_field#Point_charge_in_uniform_motion

No I do not agree, see Electromagnetic interference. Maybe you never listened to AM radio. Johnjbarton (talk) 19:06, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Maxwell was involved in ground breaking discoveries. What he called the "propagating electric field -- or electromagnetic field -- over time" is not electromagnetic field but electromagnetic radiation.

Electromagnetic interference is a phenomenon mostly related to electromagnetic radiation because no devices are perfect. Motors actually can have a percentage of their energy lost to EM radiation but 99 percent of the energy goes into the intended EM field which provides the powerful magnetic forces which turn the motor. Non radiant EM fields can cause a type of interference because they move the electrons in circuits in ways other than intended by the circuit designers.

Do you feel the EM field article and the EM radiation article help readers see that there are two articles for good reason? Bill field pulse (talk) 20:41, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"99 percent of the energy goes into the intended EM field" Really? So your claim is that the EM field in a motor grows proportional to how long the motor runs?

Perhaps what you meant was that 99 percent of the EM radiation is transferred successfully and only 1% leaks out in modern well designed motors.

Maxwell's equations cover both static and time-varying fields. When the source and sink of the field are separated by some light-seconds we talk of electromagnetic radiation, but its is still a time-varying field. Johnjbarton (talk) 00:02, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to see us make a distinction between the stuff which goes in one direction undiminished and the continuous field around a charge both may indeed be described as radiant properties but electromagnetic radiation is understood to be the stuff from the sun and radios while the magnetic field around wires is called EM Field even if it is radiant.

The equations for the field around a charge moving or otherwise differ from the equations for directed radiation from transmitting devices. Why don't we delineate these two different phenomenon In a pair of articles called EM Field and another called EM radiation and chose not to discuss the other except with a link.

If we discuss both effects in one article on Quantizing the field there needs to be a subtopic on Quantizing EM Radiation.

If we make this distinction clear in the opening definition all readers will benefit. Bill field pulse (talk) 19:36, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to see us make a distinction... fine, but don't do that on wikipedia without a reference. It's not correct.

We have only Maxwell's equation. There is not a separate special equation for you. We do have different solution regimes. One we call electrostatics; another we call electromagnetic radiation. There are finer distinctions like near and far field cases.

Readers will not benefit from misinformation. Johnjbarton (talk) 22:47, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have a great deal of learning to do before I can add anything useful. Bill field pulse (talk) 19:39, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to formulating great questions then coming up with an answer that you want to share without a means of checking the answer. For example electric motors are understood in terms of pre-Maxwell electricity and magnetism because induction explains without complications. Trying to apply electromagnetic radiation to motors makes a great question but you won't find sources to read because the time-varying fields in motors are far too complex.

A question based approach is a very poor match to Wikipedia, which summarizes sources. Interesting discussions on wikipedia all center on sources. There is no practical way to discuss radiation in electric motors because no source will write about a model which is too complex to be practically useful. Johnjbarton (talk) 21:11, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think we need a picture of the near field effect because it is given short shrift in both articles. That the near field effect diminishes with 1/r times 1/r shows that it is the effect I am referring to. I think having the far field picture so prominent in both articles overlooks the huge importance of the near field effects.

I must say that like you I see problems with the others style. I think your methods are like a bull in a China shop, or better yet a gravitational pulse meeting an electron. Radically throwing your weight around to no net effect.

Hopefully there is some net positive gravitational effect on all us quarks staying positive and trying to help. Bill field pulse (talk) 21:33, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The drawing we are using to show far field radiation is wrong it does not diminish with 1/r as it should. Moreover we ignore near field radiation which has peaks offset so max magnetic field occurs with min electric field and vice versa. The near field radiation is what is used in a motor and it drops with 1/r x1/r. Bill field pulse (talk) 18:56, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The near field and far field are the correct terms that we should be emphasizing more. The drawing for far field is wrong since it does not diminish with 1/r. We need to add a drawing for near field which is as important in it peaks are offset and it diminishes with 1/r x 1/r Bill field pulse (talk) 19:01, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

My university physics text says "an electromagnetic pulse can be sent along a co-axial cable at c by throwing a switch connected to a battery". They go on to say "careful design of the cable end, and oscillating positive and negative sinusoidal pulses can cause EM energy to be radiated from the end of the cable to form a traveling electromagnetic wave in free space". Note: The field is not radiant till it gets to the special end where energy leaves the electrons and their EM field behind. Bill field pulse (talk) 21:10, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, you can read more about this in Coaxial cable.

I think you should check your text. I believe you made up the part at the end: "where the energy leaves the electrons and their EM field behind." The analogy I've read is more like a rope with one end on the charge: move the charge and the rope waves, transmitting energy. The energy is a property of the field, see Poynting vector. Johnjbarton (talk) 00:08, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Does this mean you feel light arriving from the sun has not left the electrons? Bill field pulse (talk) 18:32, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Motion of electrons in the Sun cause changes in the electromagnetic field that propagate to the Earth and cause changes in the field here. The electric field lines cannot "leave" the electron. The time variation causes energy transfer. Johnjbarton (talk) 22:42, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The correct differentiating terms I was looking for are indeed near field and far field. The coulomb effect runs motors and is near field where peaks are offset. The far field drawing should diminish with 1/r. I will see if I can find a drawing of the two different effects of oscillating electrons. Bill field pulse (talk) 19:06, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Electromagnetic field is about classical EM fields.

Please stop adding content concerning photons to Electromagnetic field. If you disagree with the character of the article, please raise a topic on Talk:Electromagnetic field rather than try to change its intent. When you add content, please add references. Johnjbarton (talk) 22:41, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Some idiot put in a picture of a photon a quantum of electro magnetic radiation. Bill field pulse (talk) 22:46, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see any such picture on the Electromagnetic field page. Johnjbarton (talk) 00:02, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Do you really think electromagnetic radiation in one direction is an electromagnetic field. You will see the very same picture on a page about electromagnetic radiation. Do you know what a field is? Do you know what an electric field is which obeys Coulombs law at all points and at all distances from a charge? Bill field pulse (talk) 15:07, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The only picture on the page is:

A sinusoidal electromagnetic wave propagating along the positive z-axis, showing the electric field (blue) and magnetic field (red) vectors.

The only other image is inside the template box. Neither image seems to have any relation to anything you have written here or as edits to the page. Johnjbarton (talk) 16:05, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You should not be using the very same diagram which goes with electromagnetic radiation. That is isolating a very select part of the electromagnetic field which only arises when an photon is emitted and which is always quantized. You are showing only the structure of electromagnetic radiation. Why not show the full nature of an electromagnetic field.

Otherwise this should be stated with the picture that it is the particular electromagnetic field associated with electromagnetic radiation.

To reflect the reality of the electromagnetic field why not consider the many cases where radiation is not emitted. For example electricity in a wire. Or perhaps two moving charges both have electric and magnetic fields all around them producing both net electric and magnetic forces upon each other. Bill field pulse (talk) 21:57, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As needed I stated a few clear facts about this particular diagram so that readers could understand how it differed from the general case which is smoothly moving in all 3 dimensions Bill field pulse (talk) 16:03, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A drawing showing either near or far field radiation would be an improvement. Showing both would be ideal. The drawing of either a laser or a photon that does not diminish with 1/r needs to be improved upon. Bill field pulse (talk) 19:42, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

January 2024

Welcome to Wikipedia. We appreciate your contributions, but in one of your recent edits to Electromagnetic field, it appears that you have added original research, which is against Wikipedia's policies. Original research refers to material—such as facts, allegations, ideas, and personal experiences—for which no reliable, published sources exist; it also encompasses combining published sources in a way to imply something that none of them explicitly say. Please be prepared to cite a reliable source for all of your contributions. You can have a look at the tutorial on citing sources. Thank you. Deltaspace⁴² (talk • contribs) 16:04, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delta space I avoided any original research or thinking and only highlighted obvious elements of a diagram. No need to cite obvious aspects of a drawing. Bill field pulse (talk) 20:29, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is widely known drawing and may not be appropriate for inclusion in classical electromagnet field article. The same drawing is also present in the electromagnetic radiation page. Therefor some comments regarding the drawing and how it is a special case of the electromagnetic field are necessary. Bill field pulse (talk) 20:34, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Bill field pulse: What is obvious to you isn't necessary obvious to others, the lengthy paragraph you've added (and which I've removed) definitely needs some reliable sources. Its style also needs to be changed, because the abundance of rhetorical questions doesn't follow the encyclopedic tone. Please read WP:TONE and WP:RHETORICAL. Deltaspace⁴² (talk • contribs) 20:49, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I will rewrite changing the tone and avoiding thought about implications Bill field pulse (talk) 20:57, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Electromagnetic potentials

Greetings. I thought that I might discuss the role of the four potentials in electromagnetics with you. They can be defined in various ways, but most commonly there is the scalar electric potential and the vector magnetic potential. I am not trying to make any particular point; I think it might help clarify the discussion. If you want me to continue, let me know. Your talk page is on my watch list, so I will know if you respond here. If you want my attention sooner, you can use the ping template. Constant314 (talk) 15:34, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I understand the mathematical rules which are so helpful when determining force and direction between charges. However, charges produce a single radiant effect causing local electricity and magnetism. As well when they suddenly drop energy typically when at max velocity(= max magnetic field) Photons are produced moving perpendicular to the velocity.

Most interestingly for me, if all the above happens to electrons which are so free compared to quarks. We can be certain that similar EM fields much more regular with special properties due to the higher speeds involved are produced by quarks.

Note that the static fields in early experiments are now know to be the net fields of "billions" of electrons, and quarks.

By net field I mean the measurable field causing a net push or pull upon a surplus or deficit of electrons.

These net field do not mean that there are no powerful field pulses from quarks only that their effect on electrons is nil.

The steady positive from quarks is felt by electrons but not the pulsating net neutral. There are similarities to near and far field from electrons but quark fields are particular to quarks at higher speed.

Gravity results from this but only on a charge moving close to the speed of light. Bill field pulse (talk) 16:38, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I cannot tell if that is a yes or a no, so I will just bumble along. There is a mathematical relationship between the potentials and the electric field and the magnetic field. By the way, physicists consider the potentials to be more fundamental than the E and B fields.

\mathrm {\varphi } (\mathbf {r} ,t)={\frac {1}{4\pi \epsilon _{0}}}\int {\frac {\rho (\mathbf {r} ',t_{r})}{|\mathbf {r} -\mathbf {r} '|}}\,\mathrm {d} ^{3}\mathbf {r} '

\mathbf {A} (\mathbf {r} ,t)={\frac {\mu _{0}}{4\pi }}\int {\frac {\mathbf {J} (\mathbf {r} ',t_{r})}{|\mathbf {r} -\mathbf {r} '|}}\,\mathrm {d} ^{3}\mathbf {r} '

\mathbf {E} =-\nabla \varphi -{\frac {\partial \mathbf {A} }{\partial t}}

\mathbf {B} =\nabla \times \mathbf {A} \,

where r is a point in space, t is time, and $t_{r}=t-{\frac {|\mathbf {r} -\mathbf {r} '|}{c}}$ is the retarded time.

There is a wealth of information in these formulas. The first two equations look complex, but there are simple takeaways.

The electric potential, $\varphi$ , is determined only from charge density, $\rho (\mathbf {r} ',t_{r})$ , and not from the movement of charge (i.e. current).
The magnetic potential, $\mathbf {A}$ , is determined only from current density, $\mathbf {J} (\mathbf {r} ',t_{r})$ . In fact, the x component of A is determined entirely form the x component of J and so forth. Thus, the three components of A are three independent potentials.
At any point in space, there are four source terms: φ and the three componets of J. Each is linked to exactly one independent potential. On the other hand, the electromagnetic field (E and B) have six components at each point in space, but they are coupled by Maxwell's equations and each components depends on more than one source term. This is one reason that physicists prefer φ and A over E and B.

I will stop there. I promise there is a payoff. Constant314 (talk) 00:45, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry I dropped the ball on this. Here is the payoff.

You can separate everything into two components: a static component and a dynamic component. I'll use the subscript 0 for the static component and ω for the dynamic component. The time derivative of the static components is zero.

Hence

\varphi =\varphi _{0}+\varphi _{\omega }

A=A_{0}+A_{\omega }

\mathbf {E} =-\mathbf {\nabla } \varphi -{\frac {\partial \mathbf {A} }{\partial t}}=-\mathbf {\nabla } \varphi _{0}+(-\mathbf {\nabla } \varphi _{\omega }-{\frac {\partial {\mathbf {A} }_{\omega }}{\partial t}})={\mathbf {E} }_{0}+{\mathbf {E} }_{\omega }

\mathbf {B} =\mathbf {\nabla } \times \mathbf {A} =\mathbf {\nabla } \times {\mathbf {A} }_{0}+\mathbf {\nabla } \times {\mathbf {A} }_{\omega }={\mathbf {B} }_{0}+{\mathbf {B} }_{\omega }

This is the part that I think that you will like. The static part of the electric field,

{\mathbf {E} }_{0}

comes only from

\varphi

with depends only on the position of charge and not on the movement of charge. This is sort of what you have been saying all along, only now you can see it with mathematical rigor. Constant314 (talk) 17:35, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Does the math tell us that there is near field radiation tied to the electron and far field radiation tied to the photons. The math has trouble seeing a single field with a magnetic and an electrical property. Sometimes models are better than math because we humans have very small brains, we are not AI so we need to keep it simple like the early Einstein not too mathematical like the late Einstein. Bill field pulse (talk) 20:20, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]