# Create visible light from magnetic field or antenna

## Recommended Posts

Posted (edited)
2 hours ago, Endy0816 said:

Length contraction happens any time you travel anywhere at any velocity. You don't need to 'create' it. Length contraction only becomes noticeable at very high velocities however.

Think of the distance you want to cross as a spring. The closer your velocity is to c, the more the spring is compressed. While you still have to cross the whole distance, there is less of that distance for you.

Bit dated but this covers Relativity really well. Read it when I was younger and learned a lot from it. Happily online for free now.

Thanks Endy, mod can move this to speculation, they dunno about the way back.

##### Share on other sites

Thanks Endy, mod can move this to speculation, they dunno about the way back.

!

Moderator Note

I can readily handle this request for the move. Make sure you review the Speculation forum requirements

##### Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

Well I respect the mods, else I would not be posting here. For starters, tell me what I can or cannot post on this forum or kindly direct me to the rules. And for the people answering here. Not being sarcastic but, is this credible?

On 4/19/2020 at 9:08 PM, swansont said:
On 4/19/2020 at 8:27 PM, fredreload said:

Because it's got an opposing or attracting magnetic field. A magnetic field is consisted of photons

No

and a conflicting magnetic field is likely to generate EM radiation in between,

No, again

##### Share on other sites

Well I respect the mods, else I would not be posting here. For starters, tell me what I can or cannot post or kindly direct me to the rules. And for the people answering here. Not being sarcastic but, is this credible?

The general rules: https://www.scienceforums.net/guidelines/

The rules specific to Speculations: https://www.scienceforums.net/topic/86720-guidelines-for-participating-in-speculations-discussions/

Other useful posts are stacked at the top of the Speculations forum: https://www.scienceforums.net/forum/29-speculations/

Is what credible? Your idea of using light to curve spacetime to create a noticeable effect? No. For the reasons given. Plus you don't understand the basic physics involved.

##### Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
42 minutes ago, Strange said:

The general rules: https://www.scienceforums.net/guidelines/

The rules specific to Speculations: https://www.scienceforums.net/topic/86720-guidelines-for-participating-in-speculations-discussions/

Other useful posts are stacked at the top of the Speculations forum: https://www.scienceforums.net/forum/29-speculations/

Is what credible? Your idea of using light to curve spacetime to create a noticeable effect? No. For the reasons given. Plus you don't understand the basic physics involved.

Well if you guys do not yell out the first thing that comes into your head from my statement, is magnetic field consisted of photons "No", and or try to bend rules like Osmium has a huge mass I would appreciate it if you guys would help me construct this photon machine(getting a live subject through would be hard). Given, sure if I completely skip the equation E=mc^2. And it seems you guys only stick to classical physics, is that even a rule in the guidelines = =? Forgoing all the hard work and creative ideas people put into posts, well if that is a rule I would follow and stick around longer. Yes my Kung Fu might not be strong, nor is misleading my info. Sounds harsh, but you got good ideas Strange.

##### Share on other sites

Well if you guys do not yell out the first thing that comes into your head from my statement, is magnetic field consisted of photons "No",

I'm afraid that the firstling that comes to mind is that your statement is wrong, so "No" is a perfectly good answer.

You could ask questions and learn. That would be more productive for everyone.

and or try to bend rules like Osmium has a huge mass

I didn't say it has a huge mass. I said it is dense. Therefore it is the most effective material on Earth for curving space-time. (In space, neutron stars are millions of times denser, but that is even less practical.)

I would appreciate it if you guys would help me construct this photon machine

Why would we? A little bit of thought and analysis shows it is a stupid idea that cannot possibly work.

And it seems you guys only stick to classical physics

No, we also discuss quantum physics.

But what do you mean by "classical physics"? If you mean real physics, that works (as opposed to nonsense you have made up based on a cartoon), then "yes". We only allow real physics.

Forgoing all the hard work and creative ideas people put into posts

Creativity is good. But it needs to be based in reality. And hard work doesn't count, unless it is based in reality.

Maybe devote your time to writing science fiction, if you are not interested in science.

##### Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, Strange said:

I'm afraid that the firstling that comes to mind is that your statement is wrong, so "No" is a perfectly good answer.

You could ask questions and learn. That would be more productive for everyone.

I didn't say it has a huge mass. I said it is dense. Therefore it is the most effective material on Earth for curving space-time. (In space, neutron stars are millions of times denser, but that is even less practical.)

Why would we? A little bit of thought and analysis shows it is a stupid idea that cannot possibly work.

No, we also discuss quantum physics.

But what do you mean by "classical physics"? If you mean real physics, that works (as opposed to nonsense you have made up based on a cartoon), then "yes". We only allow real physics.

Creativity is good. But it needs to be based in reality. And hard work doesn't count, unless it is based in reality.

Maybe devote your time to writing science fiction, if you are not interested in science.

Did I not provide the Cisco guy example or is his idea also non real Physics? So I am the only guy that thinks you can generate light through magnetic field on a conductor? How do your distinguish real from not real again with your Physics?

##### Share on other sites

Did I not provide the Cisco guy example or is his idea also non real Physics?

He confirmed that light, like any form of energy (including mass) will curve spacetime. (His explanation was quite confusing, though.)

I used that fact to calculate the relative effectiveness of light and matter for curving space. As you can see from the calculations, matter is vastly more effective (and economical) as a way of curving spacetime. You don't seem interested in real physics, though.

I am not aware of any examples where light plays a significant role in spacetime curvature. I would be interested in hearing of one (possibly very briefly in the collapse of a supernova).

So I am the only guy that thinks you can generate light through magnetic field on a conductor?

Apparently.

How do your distinguish real from not real again with your Physics?

Evidence. The correct calculations using the correct equations.

The only calculations you have done were a meaningless misuse of e=mc2; you would have been better off using that to calculate how much light you would need to generate to be equivalent to a speck of dust.

##### Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
7 minutes ago, Strange said:

He confirmed that light, like any form of energy (including mass) will curve spacetime. (His explanation was quite confusing, though.)

I used that fact to calculate the relative effectiveness of light and matter for curving space. As you can see from the calculations, matter is vastly more effective (and economical) as a way of curving spacetime. You don't seem interested in real physics, though.

I am not aware of any examples where light plays a significant role in spacetime curvature. I would be interested in hearing of one (possibly very briefly in the collapse of a supernova).

Apparently.

Evidence. The correct calculations using the correct equations.

The only calculations you have done were a meaningless misuse of e=mc2; you would have been better off using that to calculate how much light you would need to generate to be equivalent to a speck of dust.

His explanation says that energy bends space time and that energy is from E=mc^2. I substituted velocity for c clearly usually that is not the case(because length contraction is only achievable in light speed) by what 50%? But not all the time. And why is this wrong? It is wrong because it is not in speculation? What is wrong with my formula?

##### Share on other sites

I would appreciate it if you guys would help me construct this photon machine

I left off further consideration of your topic when you preferred to enter a spat with the mods rather than discuss the posts of other members, such as myself in particular.

##### Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
2 minutes ago, studiot said:

I left off further consideration of your topic when you preferred to enter a spat with the mods rather than discuss the posts of other members, such as myself in particular.

Cuz they locked just about all my topics = =, and i got a -10 rep I am scared of the members

##### Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, studiot said:

I left off further consideration of your topic when you preferred to enter a spat with the mods rather than discuss the posts of other members, such as myself in particular.

Cuz they locked just about all my topics = =, and i got a -10 rep I am scared of the members

Nonsense.

You have yet to even acknowledge, let alone to reply to, posts 3 and 4 in this thread by other members.

I have no idea where you negative reps came from, but almost all I see after these two posts seems to me to be irrelevent to your proposed photon machine.

##### Share on other sites

His explanation says that energy bends space time and that energy is from E=mc^2. I substituted velocity for c clearly usually that is not the case(because length contraction is only achievable in light speed) by what 50%? But not all the time. And why is this wrong? It is wrong because it is not in speculation? What is wrong with my formula?

That equation tells you what a tiny effect light has compared to matter. By a factor of 1/100,000,000,000,000,000

I don't know what you were trying to do with that equation, but it has nothing to do with length contraction.

If you want to calculate length contraction due to velocity then you need the Lorentz transform (which is very simple). But that doesn't seem to be what you want to do. The length contraction due to gravitational spacetime curvature would require the equations of general relativity, which are immensely complex and I have no idea how you would calculate it.

Note that the entire mass of the Earth does not cause the effect you are looking for. So a high powered laser with the energy equivalent to a speck of dust is obviously not going to either. Now, if you could compress the mass of the Earth into the size of a speck of dust (create a black hole) then you might be on to something.

##### Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
11 minutes ago, Strange said:

Now, if you could compress the mass of the Earth into the size of a speck of dust (create a black hole) then you might be on to something.

That is what I am trying to do with this thread, given I did not work out the Lorentz transformation, mistake on my part. To generate enough energy equivalent to length contraction done by that of a black hole. Clearly I got my own distance equation to work with, speculation.

14 minutes ago, studiot said:

Nonsense.

You have yet to even acknowledge, let alone to reply to, posts 3 and 4 in this thread by other members.

I have no idea where you negative reps came from, but almost all I see after these two posts seems to me to be irrelevent to your proposed photon machine.

Do I not get to choose who I reply to now = =? Or are you interested in the thread?

##### Share on other sites

Do I not get to choose who I reply to now

Not really, no.

##### Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Strange said:

Not really, no.

Well you guys can show me Lorentz transformation sometimes, I'm calling it a day :D .

##### Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, studiot said:

Nonsense.

You have yet to even acknowledge, let alone to reply to, posts 3 and 4 in this thread by other members.

I have no idea where you negative reps came from, but almost all I see after these two posts seems to me to be irrelevent to your proposed photon machine.

Do I not get to choose who I reply to now = =? Or are you interested in the thread?

As I recall you started off hoping to manipulate electrons in a magnetic field in order to generate visible light.

Perhaps I have the wrong impression but posts 3 and 4 were from members offering avenues to explore to achieve this goal.

Whether they were right or wrong, I can't see why you turn wish to turn your back on such advice.

##### Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
47 minutes ago, studiot said:

As I recall you started off hoping to manipulate electrons in a magnetic field in order to generate visible light.

Perhaps I have the wrong impression but posts 3 and 4 were from members offering avenues to explore to achieve this goal.

Whether they were right or wrong, I can't see why you turn wish to turn your back on such advice.

Apologies, post 3 and 4(magneto idea from you) and Endy and Strange are valuable , antenna method is proven not possible unless having a new type of antenna design(spherical perhaps), magneto idea is me trying to generate photons from magnetic field with a conductor. Sorry for putting non conventional physics not in speculation and get defamed three times for it = =, well it is alright. Love you guys. And I thought substituting it with V is cool, guess I have to, lock it in a vault somewhere.

P.S. Don't look for me, but alter my timeline for me. I want a bright future.

##### Share on other sites

Apologies, post 3 and 4(magneto idea from you) and Endy are valuable , antenna method is proven not possible unless having a new type of antenna design(spherical perhaps), magneto idea is me trying to generate photons from magnetic field with a conductor

Let us examine your idea of oscillating electrons between the poles of a powerful magnet, which in theory would work, but faces some practical issues.

Firstly why would the electron stay there or oscillate?

Present day machines manipulating electrons generally use auxiliary methods to achieve these aims, very often a combination of electrostatic and magnetic fields.

One such is the electron spin resonance machine used in chemical analysis.

This works in the 28 -30 MHz range ie microwave so does not quite reach visible.

Kerr cells are one way to measure the relativistic effects and speed of visible light.

##### Share on other sites

Well if you guys do not yell out the first thing that comes into your head from my statement, is magnetic field consisted of photons "No"

Magnetic fields are not made of photons. Your statement is wrong. Hence the “no”

##### Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
8 minutes ago, swansont said:

Magnetic fields are not made of photons. Your statement is wrong. Hence the “no”

@fredreload  Just to amplify this, you have probably picked up somwhere that "the EM field is mediated by photons".

This is not the same thing as "made of photons" at all and not useful in the current situation.

Edited by studiot

##### Share on other sites

Well you guys can show me Lorentz transformation sometimes, I'm calling it a day .

As I say, it would be much more productive to ask questions instead of making stuff up. You will a more positive reaction and helpful replies.

The equation for length contraction is: $L =L_{0}\sqrt{1-v^{2}/c^{2}}$ where L0 is the original length, v is the relative velocity and c is the speed of light.

Note that you will see the passing object get shorter. But a passenger on that moving object will see you get shorter.

##### Share on other sites
2 hours ago, studiot said:

@fredreload  Just to amplify this, you have probably picked up somwhere that "the EM field is mediated by photons".

This is not the same thing as "made of photons" at all and not useful in the current situation.

I was thinking of a conflicting magnetic field against a conductor would generate photons. But anyway, I changed my mind, I won't lock my equation in a vault, my equation will be free of use and thanks everyone for the support. I will be busy with work for the next few days so, have fun.

##### Share on other sites

I was thinking of a conflicting magnetic field against a conductor would generate photons.

Why? Is that based on any physics?

##### Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, swansont said:

Is that based on any physics?

Is this the time for rhetorical questions?

## Create an account

Register a new account