Fluxation

Virtual Particle Pair Production Methodology

Recommended Posts

Are there any low energy options for translation of electrical current into virtual particle pairs?

I have seen references to orthorotation within zero sum vector coils. plasma and UV light, but can find no detail on the methodology used.

Any insight on this, or the process in general, would be most appreciated.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
37 minutes ago, Fluxation said:

Are there any low energy options for translation of electrical current into virtual particle pairs?

I have seen references to orthorotation within zero sum vector coils. plasma and UV light, but can find no detail on the methodology used.

Any insight on this, or the process in general, would be most appreciated.

What is "orthorotation within zero sum vector coils"?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As I understand. this refers to an engineered 90 degree rotation away from 3D space. For example, by aligning anti-phase EM fields such that they "cancel. to zero". This might be achieved in a counterwound toroid or similar. The inference seems to be that the applied force would thereby translate into a state that is virtual but contains an operator based upon the  dynamics of the originating EMF's.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That sounds like crackpot word salad. Do you have a reference?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

EM vector cancellation within toroidal windings is an established principle. My question related to how this, or a similar effect, might be employed to produce virtual particles. I beleive the connection between rotation and higher dimensions of space was referred to by Einstein in relation to velocity.

Perhaps you would be so kind as to explain what part of this you think this is "crackpot", and why. Then I can better evaluate my original premise of pair production..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Fluxation said:

EM vector cancellation within toroidal windings is an established principle. My question related to how this, or a similar effect, might be employed to produce virtual particles

If I cancels out the field, why would it produce virtual particles? (Virtual particles mediate the electromagnetic forces.)

5 hours ago, Fluxation said:

I beleive the connection between rotation and higher dimensions of space was referred to by Einstein in relation to velocity.

Citation needed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As a general reference, Einstein  wrote  in his autobiography (Section2) that  Minkowski “showed  that  the  Lorentz-
transformation {. . . } is nothing but a rotation of the coordinate system in the four-dimensional space."

This relates to the quadratic form of Lorenz transformations. Further details below.

https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Translation:The_Fundamental_Equations_for_Electromagnetic_Processes_in_Moving_Bodies

https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/287301/why-can-a-lorentz-transformation-be-interpreted-as-a-rotation-in-4d

The underlying propostion of my orignal question was that rotation into 4D space may occur as instances of 3D vector cancellation. I wanted to understand how this might occur in a laboratory situation.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The four dimensions in this context are the three spatial dimensions plus time. The Lorentz transform is a rotation in space-time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, but my orignal question related to linear transformations. In particular 4D being an orthagonal projection of 3D. The product has been described as a spin 2 scalar.

According to some theories, this relates to interdependency of background and EM fields. My proposition is that virtual photon pairs would be produced as a result of the extinguishment of EMF. This may equate to a stress wave in spacetime.

I am simply looking for some general feedback along these lines.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Fluxation said:

My proposition is that virtual photon pairs would be produced as a result of the extinguishment of EMF.

As the electromagnetic field consists of virtual particles, I don't see how removing the field would create virtual particles.

1 hour ago, Fluxation said:

According to some theories, this relates to interdependency of background and EM fields.

Which theories?

1 hour ago, Fluxation said:

Yes, but my orignal question related to linear transformations.

Then why introduce Lorentz rotation?

Quote

I am simply looking for some general feedback along these lines.

There are only 3 dimensions of space (as far as we know). 

Edited by Strange

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What I am referring to is the effect upon electrons that are producing an EMF when that EMF is cancelled through vector opposition.

There are a number of "background field" theories such as this one. http://journaloftheoretics.com/Articles/1-5/Calvet BF final.htm

If you are inclined not to accept the existence of more than three informating-containing dimensions, then we may not be able to come to an understanding.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, Fluxation said:

If you are inclined not to accept the existence of more than three informating-containing dimensions,

Evidence?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 hours ago, Fluxation said:

EM vector cancellation within toroidal windings is an established principle. My question related to how this, or a similar effect, might be employed to produce virtual particles. I beleive the connection between rotation and higher dimensions of space was referred to by Einstein in relation to velocity.

Then providing a reference should be no problem

21 hours ago, Fluxation said:

Perhaps you would be so kind as to explain what part of this you think this is "crackpot", and why. Then I can better evaluate my original premise of pair production..

Because Googling the terminology leads to dubious sources. Because I'm not familiar with the combination of terminology and it makes no sense. It doesn't pass the smell test, so I want corroboration.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Those extra dimensions are mathematical under definition ib string theory. A dimension is a variable that can change value without changing the value of any other variable. For 4d the 3 spatial and 1 time dimension this is usually the case.

Now string theory looks at how other fields interact. They do so by looking specifically at the individual field potentials. This will overlap the volume above but in a smaller potential region depending on the range of each individual force. In order to do so one must add degrees of freedom (independent variables).

In the first 4d example the fundamental string will reside there, this fundamental string gives rise to the other particles. 

They are not dimensions as per extra universes, but extra degrees of freedom of orbifolds and manifolds due to multi particle fields

Edited by Mordred
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I did not mean to refer to other dimensions as separate "universes". Perhaps this impression was given by the wording of my original question. Please allow me to rephrase it as follows.

What if any virtual particle interactions may be postulated to occur in association with an electromagentic field when that field is cancelled by an equal and opposite EMF?

One more. Can this cancellation of EMF's result in stress or virtual potentials within the vacuum?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Fluxation said:

What if any virtual particle interactions may be postulated to occur in association with an electromagentic field when that field is cancelled by an equal and opposite EMF?

All electromagnetic field interactions are mediated by virtual-articles. (There are other virtual particles for things like the strong and weak interactions.)

But I'm not really sure what you are asking. Or why ... So maybe if you explained a bit more about the background, it might make your questions a bit easier to interpret.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The photon is the mediator for emf they are the vector gauge bosons which are the virtual particles involved. To generate VP all that is required is some form of potential difference and interaction between two field potentials.

Ok lets try a different angle when looking at a Feyman diagram or path integral the external solid lines are real particles. The internal wavy lines are VP.

[math]\array{e^+ \searrow &\gamma&\nearrow e^-\\&\leadsto &\\ e^-\nearrow &&\searrow e^+}[/math]

ie the wavy line here is a VP gauge vector boson. In this case an electron/positron collide forms a vector gauge photon the reforms an electron positron pair.

Edited by Mordred

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My current thinking is as follows.

Orthorotation of an electric field produces a magnetic field. I am suggesting that orthorotaion of a magnetic field similarly producesa higher order effect. The cause of this orthorotation would be "cancellation" of equal and opposite EM field vectors, for example within counter-wound torioidal windings.

The resulting higher order effect, being a potential within a virtual domain, would involve the same virtual particles that mediated the EMF's prior to their cancellation. But these particles have presumeably now acquired properties different from those that simply mediate a conventional EM field.

I am inquiring as to what these different properties might be, and how they are conditioned by the above cancellation process.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm sorry but this last post makes very little sense. Orthorotation isn't a proper terminology.

Do you perhaps mean orthonormal rotation?

Secondly the magnetic field has a  90 degree phase shift from the electric field. One depends on the other change either the magnetic or the electric you cause a change in the other. They are two properties of the same thing. (the electric/magnetic field) we can mathematically describe each seperately however they are in fact two properties of the same thing.

Ask yourself this how is the magnetic moment of an electron via its spin involved?

Here see right hand rule between angular and magnetic moment 

https://www.google.ca/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://web-docs.gsi.de/~wolle/TELEKOLLEG/KERN/LECTURE/Fraser/L2.pdf&ved=2ahUKEwjAz6u8vdjYAhVR7mMKHbLhDDcQFjAGegQICxAB&usg=AOvVaw1h27TO_vExE_Hg_VUrHW0L

What you should gather from this link is that both the electric field and magnetic field depends on the particle number density and spin states of the electrons.An individual electron will generate both an electric and magnetic field without requiring a mediator VP as both fields are two properties that arise from the same particle (the electron itself). However two EM fields interacting will involve vector bosons. This isn't the same as the electric field interacting with the magnetic field. (these are both part of the same field ) EM...

Edited by Mordred

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The  actual term "orthorotation" is used in reference to 90 rotation of multidimensional spaces. One example would be production of a scalar electrostatic potential. In this sense, it is not the same as a phase shft.

While electricity and magnetism are functionally related, as you state, they also can exist independently of each other. For example, electrets and permanent magnets.

Irrespective of these points, I am unsure why my inquiry can not be addressed as stated, or how to explain it more clearly.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, Fluxation said:

While electricity and magnetism are functionally related, as you state, they also can exist independently of each other. For example, electrets and permanent magnets.

They are not independent. The magnetic field of a permanent magnet is due to the presence of electric charges.

Quote

I am unsure why my inquiry can not be addressed as stated

Because you are using terminology in odd ways or that doesn't even exist. And you seem to have some odd, non-physical assumptions (like 4D space).

For example:

54 minutes ago, Fluxation said:

Orthorotation of an electric field produces a magnetic field. I am suggesting that orthorotaion of a magnetic field similarly producesa higher order effect.

If we assume that you are rotating through 90º then a second rotation will change from the magnetic field back to the electric field. 

That is, in the case of electromagnetic radiation. In other cases, it is relative movement that creates a magnetic field from and electric - or vie versa.

Can you explain how much you understand of virtual particles already because I'm not sure your questions/statments about them make much sense.

Edited by Strange

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Fluxation said:

The  actual term "orthorotation" is used in reference to 90 rotation of multidimensional spaces. One example would be production of a scalar electrostatic potential. In this sense, it is not the same as a phase shft.

While electricity and magnetism are functionally related, as you state, they also can exist independently of each other. For example, electrets and permanent magnets.

Irrespective of these points, I am unsure why my inquiry can not be addressed as stated, or how to explain it more clearly.

 

No they don't exist on their own you cannot have an electric field without a magnetic field.

Secondly using terminology such as orthorotation is foolish when that term does not exist in the dictionary. 

The terms orthogonal and orthonormal are mathematical terms with corresponding mathematical proofs involved in their definition.

Can you provide such a proof for orthorotation using unit vectors i,j,k ?

Your terminology is also unclear as to whether or not your using emf as per electromotive force or as electromagnetic force. This is an important distiction with regards to Faradays law of induction between the magnetic and electric fields.

http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/electric/farlaw.html

 

Lol if you want an older VP between the two google dyons. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dyon

You rarely see any papers covering dyons but some still exist.

edit will have to check but the dyon may be a quasi rather than a virtual particle. (distinction is sonewhat blurry).

Dyons fell out of usage when quarks were confirmed.

Edited by Mordred

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I believe you can have a static electric point charge with no magnetic field, as well as a stationary magnetic current with no electrical field.  Maxwell's equations for electric and magnetic fields treat them as independent entities.

Additional to the above, it appears magnetic monopoles are currently under serious investigation.

http://www.nature.com/news/2009/090903/full/news.2009.881.html
http://science.sciencemag.org/content/340/6136/1076
https://www.nature.com/articles/nature12954

Orthorotation is simply short for orthagonal rotation. It is a transformation of diametrically opposed force vectors that I am applying to self-cancelling electromagnetic fields.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Then use the proper terminology lol don't make up words that don't exist in the dictionary. There is nothing diametrically opposed in a coordinate basis with regards to the term orthogonal.

An orthogonal coordinate basis is simply 90 degrees to another coordinate basis. Example x axis is orthogonal to y axis.

So why would you need a rotation when the term orthogonal suffices? ie orthogonal rotaion? you already have the 90 degree relation with a single term. Orthogonal. ie orthogonal polatizations between the E and B fields. Why do you need to rotate further?

 I have no issue with monopoles itself but you would save a considerable amount of time having to guess at a translation of your posts to understand what you are getting at. Try formulating the quality of your posts a little more complete (ideally with the mathematics) so we aren't trying to interpret your posts. The lack of proper terminology reads as a word salad.

Yes there is serious work in searching for the elusive Dirac/magnetic monopoles but nothing conclusive though there is experimental support such as the link above. That paper is also on arxiv.

https://www.google.ca/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://arxiv.org/pdf/1408.3133&ved=0ahUKEwjAg8aEk9nYAhUC8WMKHeZ2C7oQFggjMAE&usg=AOvVaw20hJOimX81JquY8E_JBD03

However afiak there hasn't been anything Maxwell shattering about that paper. ie not conclusive enough.

Example that reference is one of two publications mentioned in the following article

https://www.google.ca/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=http://link.aps.org/pdf/10.1103/PhysRevX.7.021023&ved=2ahUKEwjAg8aEk9nYAhUC8WMKHeZ2C7oQFjAGegQIBhAB&usg=AOvVaw24bD0aKjCpc0ynDd0Db1Rl

"To date, the experimental studies of spatially localized monopoles in the context of spinor BECs have been limited to two publications [19,20]"

 

 

Edited by Mordred

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now