Physical challenge question about electrons

[Mr.Cool]

infinite space

just curious to what type of reponse i would get if i were to ask:

"from where does the electron get its energy such that it can poor out electomagnetic fields CONTINUOUSLY for the entire life of said electron?"

think before you post, its not an easy answer.

Mr.Cool

 

[echo47]

challenge question vectors physics

Where does a bridge get its strength to support a heavy roadway for its entire life?
It's not expending energy or doing work. It's just forces in balance.

If anyone wants to know what *is* an electromagnetic field or gravitational field - I have no idea, but they are very useful!

 

[Mr.Cool]

Re: challenge question ..

you are entirely correct about electric fields. they are not properly defined (yet) in common text books. actually, if you read the "definition" you find that the electric field defines itself.. which of course is wrong. it would be easier, and more honest, if the authors wrote exactly what you said "I have no idea, but they are very useful!"

the bridge example you gave is not quite the same. for a bridge, you can pick the construction material and then FEM examine the material bonds that make up that construction. you can calculate the tensile strength if the weight of the object (say a traffic jam) were to be distributed over its entire length and come to a mathematical expression that defines cause & effect.

how does one develope a similar cause & effect mathematical expression for the electron when its "input power" (if there even IS one!!) is non-observable:?:

*oh, and yes there must be an "input power" otherwise you destroy conservation of energy law - the ONLY law in physics that really makes any sense. all others can be broken.

Mr.Cool

 

[echo47]

challenge question ..

Ah, you are referring to creating the electron? That certainly takes energy. Once the electron is created, it lasts for a long long time, happily maintaining its little electric field, with no additional energy input or output.

 

[Paladin]

Re: challenge question ..

I think there is no 'input power' for an electron at all. The electron does not need to do any work to build up its electrical field. I agree that the definition of 'field' is qutie profound and I do not understand very well. But we should notice that 'force', 'energy' is differne from 'field'. Energy is associated with work, field is to define the potential, and a only change of potential could be related to work. I also do not think bridge is a good example coz it is something differen from the field problem.

 

[amraldo]

Re: challenge question ..

I think the same thing applies to the wave & the electron.
They have small powers & present in millions.
Human beings used them to construct alot of useful systems.

 

[Mr.Cool]

Re: challenge question ..

but does it not take energy to maintain the field? then, the same question applies, from where does the electron get its energy to do this?

and you can measure that field, or sense that field at any point radially around the electron. the field does not have to interact with anything to know that it exists. the fact that there IS a field proves there is an output observable form of energy. indeed, with the electron sitting in space not interracting with anything (truely an impossibility) then that electric field is not changing states/form. so, it is not producing work, but it IS still a form of energy! i think someone touched on the idea that well, maybe the field is formed and then maintains itself simply by NOT dissipating over time (and is 100% efficient process to create the field to begin with). OK.. but now you are entering a new territory. this then becomes a PREDICTABLE event. you can measure this field (assuming you didn't disturb it because of the measurment process) and any place and be able to calculate before what that measured field should be, and what direction (vector). wow!! you now have an device (the electron) that is pouring out into space a continuous PREDICTABLE process --->> it is NOT degrading into chaos as EVERYTHING else does! it is a process of negatropy.. wow... a new physics wonder the order magnitude as saying "energy is not conserved". are you SURE you want to say that the electric field produced is self maintaining??? would be a difficult theory to support. no, i think not. there must be a simpler answer. one that says "yes the energy comes from somewhere, and yes it is NOT self supporting".

i am not talking about creating the electron. for this discussion i assume it is pre-existing.

i do not believe it is wise to say that there is no input power. as mentioned, this destroys conservation of energy law.

truely, there is a lot on this subject. it is a challenge question.. the answers provided so far are very good. keep following the path.

Mr.Cool

Added after 3 minutes:

amraldo, also a very good point. here you are probably refering to the wave/partical duality of photons & maybe electrons. also an interesting "thing" in physics.

for this discussion i am concentraiting solely on the electron by itself, sitting in space not interracting with anything. understood that this is an impossibility (even in a vacuum) but suffice to begin conversation.

Mr.Cool

 

[amraldo]

Re: challenge question ..

I just want 2 issue 2 things.
1. "energy neither created nor destroyed".
2. Did any one saw an electron b4? I guess not


I think electrons & waves are forms of energy whether they were particles or not?
I think the elctron must be in a continous state of interaction, giving & taking energy, it can't live alone.

No interaction === Electron & wave die * do not exist.

I think the answer to ur question is the same for that one: From where, did the universe come? !!! How did it evoluted?!!! They are tough to explicitly answer.





Regards,
amraldo

 

[tkbits]

Re: challenge question ..

are you SURE you want to say that the electric field produced is self maintaining??? would be a difficult theory to support.

Why would it be difficult? We already have the notion "objects in motion stay in motion". How does the object "maintain" its motion without expending energy?

 

[Paladin]

Re: challenge question ..

Could we please seperate 'field' and 'energy'? That's somthing totally differnet. To Mr. Cool, yes, you do not need any energy input to maintain a 'field', neither the field outputs any power.

 

[Mr.Cool]

Re: challenge question ..

amraldo,

1. yes, absolutely agree. if it can not be created or destroyed, how then is the electron producing its E-field continuously? it must be getting its energy from somewhere...

2. no. we can measure the effect (the produced & emitted e-field) but we have no way to measure what was "before" i.e. the input. for now, we are conjecturing that there MUST be an input due to your point # 1.

probably answering this question is akin to answering what was before the creation of the universe. agreed, most difficult question. how could one know when such events occur so far apart in time (10bazzilion years ago or something rediculous). but we need not get side tracked, we have electrons in existance RIGHT NOW. we can study the cause & effect RIGHT NOW. that is the difference.

tkbits,
it is difficult because in reality that "body in motion" who is maintaining its motion eventually comes to a stop. why? because in reality it is continuously interracting with its environment, for example, moving through air. well, air has resistance so, eventually the "body in motion" comes to a rest. unless it provides its own energy (burns fuel in classic newtonion motion) or 3rd party applies energy to the "body in motion". there are in fact cercumstances in which you could create an environment that doesn't have resistance, or very very minimal. lets take the example of a circuit who's closed loop path exists in a superconductivity state. once you impart energy to get the electrons moving through the circuit they will stay in motion (looping around & around the circuit) for millions of years ... probably for longer than the expected life of our solar system. the energy that keeps the temperature low is NOT part of the system and is a seperate issue. but in fact, you have electrons whos "body in motion" IS staying in motion virtually forever. hey... a PERPETUAL MOTION MACHINE and it is real and it has been proven to work!! here is the rub. those electrons are not allowed to perform work, for if they do, they will expel energy and the "body in motion" will meet a resistance and come to a stop. (but who ever said that perpetual motion machines had to perform useful work!??).

so indeed you raise a good point. we need to consider the electrons not in a perfect non-resistance non-interracting environment as was our beggining conversation. now we understand that in REALITY they ARE interracting & they do perform work. and yet... the efield remains unchanged. it does not diminish. now this is a startling concept.

both of you have made real progress in this discussion. this is about the limit of my knowledge on the subject (theoretically). i hope i have presented an interesting enough arguement that will keep you focused on what is really at work here. remember these concepts --> cause & effect, observed & non-observed.

Mr.Cool

Added after 10 minutes:

the great physicist Fenymen once wrote on the definition of fields & energy. he came to the conclusion that he has no idea what they are only that they "are".

Paladin, agreed you do not need energy input to maintain a field. BUT.. this is only true if that field is existing in an envornment where it does NOT interract with anything. this is an impossible situation in reality so your arguement holds only in the theoretical world.

in reality those electrons are in motion. going here, going there. they carry charge, a MOVING charge. they add/subtract with other fields, they form back-emf due to lenz law. they see resistances to circuits, they cause resistances to circuits. all of these activities will force the efield to be diminished, or should cause the E-field to be diminished. yet... it is not. that is my point.

Mr.Cool

 

[echo47]

challenge question ..

I believe quantum mechanics explains how an electron can exist forever unchanged, happily maintaining its little field and interacting with the world around it, unless you hammer it hard enough to transform it into something else.

 

[Mr.Cool]

Re: challenge question ..

echo47, yes you are right. to be more specific, it is partical physics that tells us. now, can you distinctly define it such that energy conservation is preserved? that is the challenge question!

Mr.Cool

 

[aibelectronics]

Re: challenge question ..

well we know mass and energy are interchangeable. De Broglie said an electron is equivalent to a wave of wavelength λ=h/mv, where h is planck's constant, m, mass of electron and v is velocity. Now, we know that a wave is a medium for transfer of energy, and since energy can neither be created nor destroyed means that an electron which is a sort of potential energy, by its own self, cannot be destroyed but would continue to exist ad infinitium.

so it doesn't need to source energy from anywhere - it's energy itself! E=mc.

gosh! I think I've confused myself. but I believe I made some useful contribution!

 

[Mr.Cool]

Re: challenge question ..

aibelectronics, a novel attempt! but, if the electron were "energy itself" defined by the equation E=mc^2 (you forgot the squared part), then due to the E-field, a form of energy, being continuously "radiated" outwards would in fact require its own mass to decrease (or for time to decrease --> huh?) in order to keep the equation actually EQUAL to each other - this is after all the purpose of the " = " sign in the equation.

yet, in reality the mass does NOT decrease.

so again, we are back to were we started.

the electron, as i see it, concists of 2 distinct parts. its core (quarks, mesons or something like that) and its produced Efield. given the size & mass of the electron, the produced Efield is HUGE in relative terms. it is a massive effect of the electron. if the mass does not decrease over time then there must be a 3rd distinct part. the "cause" of the cause & effect relationship. something must be powering the electron such that it can continuously produce a predictable Efield forever (essentially) and as we just learned without decreasing its own mass, another "clue" if you will.

perhaps i am bending all arguments to support my theory & obviously i am not an expert in the field. but doesn't there seem to be something missing with our understanding of physics & how the electron works?! if simply by logical argument.

Mr.Cool

 

[tkbits]

Re: challenge question ..

The presumption is that the electron is "producing" a field, rather than simply assuming that each electron "possesses" a field.

As we don't really know what a field is, stating that it is produced is just an assumption. The basis from which we reason about other things. It may be counter-intuitive, but we could just as readily assume that the field isn't produced, but simply exists, with its size indicating how much energy is "stored" or "captured".

 

[aibelectronics]

Re: challenge question ..

It's mass would decrease?
We do know that an electron is infinistemally small, something of the order of 10^-38kg (or thereabout).
Perhaps the loss of mass is so small itself (dM<<M) that it'll take a long long time before this could result into anything meaningful. I'd like to think that it's a corresponding loss of mass that results into a corresponding gain in energy.

E=(ΔM)*C^2
ΔM= E / C^2.

This would be a very very small value judging by the size of the denominator; something of the order of 10^16!. And the small size of E itself doesn't boost our ΔM at all! As such we could assume ΔM≈0. Quantum physics is all assumption anyway.

Okay guys, this is just my hypothesis. Many a discovery did start from a crazy guess.

 

[Mr.Cool]

Re: challenge question ..

indeed.. sort of like the source of inertia argument. does mass simply possess inertia or is it a result of the moving mass? chicken & egg.

i do not know if the electron possesesSS a field or if it produces one. i made the assumption that it is producing it because i assumed that if it "possessed" it, the field would weaken overtime (due to the field performcing work when interracting with other "things") and eventually dissapear. since this does not hapen in nature i assume then that it is produced. and continuously so, just as the effect (the produced eField) has been measured.

it is a worthwhile perseut because it explains teslas "wheelwork of nature" and why he always thought of electricity more of a gas than a partical.

also, when you come to the correct answer to the challenge question you are left with the grand unification theory. something that dirac solved long ago without even knowing it. eignstein missed it when he assumed that energy (actually he wrote it as "L", but it was later modernized as "E") was always positive in nature.
and with good reason, every time he went out to experiment & prove his theory he came up with the result that his energy was always positive.

** but that is because he was always measuring the EFFECT, the electrons eField and how it interracts with measurement equipment but NEVER the CAUSE. he never measured the cause of what is producing the eField, so he did not ever have a reason to believe that energy could be negative! only once was negative energy ever theoretically explored in history, and that was by Dirac. look at his equation of the electron, it is in there. (tesla explored it experimentally only).

now, do you see the relavence of this challenge question? we've jumped through a couple of loops to get here - i hope you found it eye opening, and not a waste of time.

Mr.Cool

Added after 4 minutes:

aibelectronics, another way of viewing that is since the electron's mass is so small that if the elctron loss any, it would be pretty upset by that.

remember, the periodic table of the elements is bassed heavily on exactly what the mass is. to lose mass, at the elementary partical level, is to change its characteristics drastically.

Mr.Cool

 

[gupta_akshat]

Re: challenge question ..

hi

i think that we are getting confused between energy and field, which are ,by my understanding, two completely different concepts.
field is setup by the charge of the body which by einstein's theory would suggest that the charge residing on the entity tends to rearrange the electromagnetic field around itself thus adding its own effect.
energy is however an altogether different concept as it is not necessary for a body to have large amount of charge to have a large amount of energy. consider the simple analogy between a photon and an electron where the energy possessed by the photon is much greater than that of the electron but it possesses no charge!
similar arguments can be given to support this point.

akshat

(please click on the points tab, ireally need them!)

 

[Mr.Cool]

Re: challenge question ..

gupta,

you just joined the message board, you will build your points base in time - be patient (or upload a good UNIQUE ebook).

i admit this is a puzzling problem for me. it has taken me to all sorts of revelations in physics and am now constructing circuits & systems to test some very strange aspects there of. for me, it is a lot of fun - i hope you all have gained something from these few postings

Mr.Cool