Re: electrons & magnetic fields, a puzzle

Timo Nieminen

Androcles

From:	Timo Nieminen
Subject:	Re: electrons & magnetic fields, a puzzle
Date:	Sat, 1 Jan 2005 07:13:23 +1000

On Fri, 31 Dec 2004, Androcles wrote:

> "Timo Nieminen" wrote:
> > On Fri, 31 Dec 2004, Androcles wrote:
> >> "Old Man" wrote:
> >> > "Emwizsoon" wrote:
> >> >> Old man and my professor sure know how to torture a mind. I spent
> >> >> the night contemplating how can an electron create a field. Is it
> >> >> in the spinning or vibration, but nothing comes out of the
> >> >> electron
> >> >> as it is a point particle so what cause the field.
> >> >
> >> > An electromagnetic field (E, B) is defined by the force observed
> >> > on a test charge, q with velocity, v:
> >> >
> >> > F = q [ E + v x B ]
> >> >
> >> > It's not clear whether Emwizsoon is referring to the magnetic
> >> > field due to motion of a charge or that due to its magnetic
> >> > moment.
> >>
> >> It's not clear whether Old Fart is referring to vB, v.B or
> >> vx * B, x being distance.
> >
> > Given that Old Man simply quotes the Lorentz force law, it is
> > perfectly
> > clear what Old Man is referring to.
> >
> > Incidentally, by vB, do you mean the dyadic product or the scalar
> > product
> > of the norms of v and B?
>
> Who would ever know?

Who would ever know what you meant by vB? Hopefully, you would know, since
you wrote it.

Who would ever know what Old Man meant? Old Man offered the
Lorentz force law as an operational definition of the electromagnetic
field. Is that really so hard to understand?

> Emwizsoon has declared himself to be a student, is currently asking why
> the speed of light is 186,000 mps and not 250,000 mps, and anyone with
> half a brain would realize the Lorentz force law isn't in the curriculum
> yet. OldFart
> is merely showing off, it has nothing whatever to do with the question
> asked
> which is "how can an electron create a field?"

You contradict yourself. Asking why the speed of light is 186,000 mps is
not the same as asking how can an electron create a field. Old Man doesn't
answer that question, but asks for clarification from the OP.

You criticised Old Man's reply on the grounds of ambiguity. Such criticism
is, at best, unfounded horse dung. Your criticism of his post contained
far more ambiguity than his.

> >> Nor has Old Man specified what is meant
> >> by an "electromagnetic" field, since a changing B-field will produce
> >> an E-field and a changing E-field will produce a B-field. Perhaps
> >> Old Fart is talking out his arse.
> >
> > Old Man clearly stated (E, B), meaning both. Write it as 2 3-vector
> > real fields, one 3-vector complex field, one 6-vector field, or a rank
> > 2
> > antisymmetric 4D tensor, your choice, all being valid representations
> > of
> > the same thing, namely the electromagnetic field.
>
> Nor has Old Man specified what is meant
> by an "electromagnetic" field, since a changing B-field will produce
> an E-field and a changing E-field will produce a B-field. Perhaps
> Old Fart is talking out his arse.

Old Man clearly stated (E, B), meaning both. Write it as 2 3-vector
real fields, one 3-vector complex field, one 6-vector field, or a rank 2
antisymmetric 4D tensor, your choice, all being valid representations of
the same thing, namely the electromagnetic field.

> You seem to have a reading comprehension difficulty.

You don't understand what Old Man writes, I understand what Old Man
writes, and yet you claim that I have a reading comprehension difficulty?

Also note that I understand what you wrote. Disagreement does not mean
lack of understanding.

--
Timo

From:	Androcles
Subject:	Re: electrons & magnetic fields, a puzzle
Date:	Fri, 31 Dec 2004 22:29:18 GMT

"Timo Nieminen" wrote in message
news:Pine.OSF.4.58.0501010700100.2683@dingo.cc.uq.edu.au...
> On Fri, 31 Dec 2004, Androcles wrote:
>
>> "Timo Nieminen" wrote:
>> > On Fri, 31 Dec 2004, Androcles wrote:
>> >> "Old Man" wrote:
>> >> > "Emwizsoon" wrote:
>> >> >> Old man and my professor sure know how to torture a mind. I
>> >> >> spent
>> >> >> the night contemplating how can an electron create a field. Is
>> >> >> it
>> >> >> in the spinning or vibration, but nothing comes out of the
>> >> >> electron
>> >> >> as it is a point particle so what cause the field.
>> >> >
>> >> > An electromagnetic field (E, B) is defined by the force observed
>> >> > on a test charge, q with velocity, v:
>> >> >
>> >> > F = q [ E + v x B ]
>> >> >
>> >> > It's not clear whether Emwizsoon is referring to the magnetic
>> >> > field due to motion of a charge or that due to its magnetic
>> >> > moment.
>> >>
>> >> It's not clear whether Old Fart is referring to vB, v.B or
>> >> vx * B, x being distance.
>> >
>> > Given that Old Man simply quotes the Lorentz force law, it is
>> > perfectly
>> > clear what Old Man is referring to.
>> >
>> > Incidentally, by vB, do you mean the dyadic product or the scalar
>> > product
>> > of the norms of v and B?
>>
>> Who would ever know?
>
> Who would ever know what you meant by vB? Hopefully, you would know,
> since
> you wrote it.
>
> Who would ever know what Old Man meant? Old Man offered the
> Lorentz force law as an operational definition of the electromagnetic
> field. Is that really so hard to understand?
>
>> Emwizsoon has declared himself to be a student, is currently asking
>> why
>> the speed of light is 186,000 mps and not 250,000 mps, and anyone
>> with
>> half a brain would realize the Lorentz force law isn't in the
>> curriculum
>> yet. OldFart
>> is merely showing off, it has nothing whatever to do with the
>> question
>> asked
>> which is "how can an electron create a field?"
>
> You contradict yourself. Asking why the speed of light is 186,000 mps
> is
> not the same as asking how can an electron create a field. Old Man
> doesn't
> answer that question, but asks for clarification from the OP.
>
> You criticised Old Man's reply on the grounds of ambiguity. Such
> criticism
> is, at best, unfounded horse dung. Your criticism of his post
> contained
> far more ambiguity than his.
>
>> >> Nor has Old Man specified what is meant
>> >> by an "electromagnetic" field, since a changing B-field will
>> >> produce
>> >> an E-field and a changing E-field will produce a B-field. Perhaps
>> >> Old Fart is talking out his arse.
>> >
>> > Old Man clearly stated (E, B), meaning both. Write it as 2 3-vector
>> > real fields, one 3-vector complex field, one 6-vector field, or a
>> > rank
>> > 2
>> > antisymmetric 4D tensor, your choice, all being valid
>> > representations
>> > of
>> > the same thing, namely the electromagnetic field.
>>
>> Nor has Old Man specified what is meant
>> by an "electromagnetic" field, since a changing B-field will produce
>> an E-field and a changing E-field will produce a B-field. Perhaps
>> Old Fart is talking out his arse.
>
> Old Man clearly stated (E, B), meaning both. Write it as 2 3-vector
> real fields, one 3-vector complex field, one 6-vector field, or a rank
> 2
> antisymmetric 4D tensor, your choice, all being valid representations
> of
> the same thing, namely the electromagnetic field.
>
>> You seem to have a reading comprehension difficulty.
>
> You don't understand what Old Man writes, I understand what Old Man
> writes, and yet you claim that I have a reading comprehension
> difficulty?
>
> Also note that I understand what you wrote. Disagreement does not mean
> lack of understanding.

I understood what he wrote. Disagreement does not mean
lack of understanding. Nor does irrelevance.
Androcles

> --
> Timo