/sci/ - Science & Math » Thread #13254234

132KiB, 422x430, file.png

View Same Google iqdb SauceNAO

Anonymous Tue 08 Jun 22:48:33 2021 No.13254234 View Reply Original Report

Quoted By: >>13254521 >>13254888 >>13254891 >>13254991 >>13255010 >>13256845 >>13259306 >>13260353

>Magnetism acts at a distance because of, like, the field, or something
>what's the field? Well, it just, kinda, it's just a field dude it's just there, like, in the background. through the background, like, nothingness, or whatever
>it's just fucking there, okay!?!?

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 09 Jun 2021 00:30:04 No.13254521 Report

Quoted By:

>>13254234
Just because you can't visualize it as a tiny billiard ball doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

Anonymous

View Same Google iqdb SauceNAO magnets_c.jpg, 19KiB, 640x359

Anonymous Wed 09 Jun 2021 00:31:49 No.13254522 Report

Quoted By:

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 09 Jun 2021 00:38:41 No.13254540 Report

Quoted By: >>13254546 >>13254564

Fields exist and they in no way resemble any banana your money brain is used to comprehending. This doesn't make them any less real.

Anonymous

View Same Google iqdb SauceNAO anigif_enhanced-27899-1423068816 (...).gif, 331KiB, 360x420

Anonymous Wed 09 Jun 2021 00:41:55 No.13254546 Report

Quoted By:

>>13254540
>your money brain

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 09 Jun 2021 00:53:04 No.13254564 Report

Quoted By: >>13254905 >>13256749 >>13256852 >>13259120

>>13254540
>Fields exist and they in no way resemble any banana your money brain is used to comprehending. This doesn't make them any less real.
Define a field.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 09 Jun 2021 02:51:25 No.13254888 Report

Quoted By: >>13254950 >>13256898 >>13257306 >>13257355

>>13254234
I'll be honest, stuff like "field" and "wave" are so unintuitive to me that it's the main reason I didn't pursue engineering despite it being a major interest of mine when I was young.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 09 Jun 2021 02:53:04 No.13254891 Report

Quoted By:

>>13254234
Yeah my brain noped out at magnets too.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 09 Jun 2021 03:00:01 No.13254905 Report

Quoted By: >>13257225 >>13257433

>>13254564
quasi-continuous perturbation in some vector space, usually a gradient.

Anonymous

View Same Google iqdb SauceNAO 2013GetWetJon_Horneber.jpg, 1MiB, 1000x900

Anonymous Wed 09 Jun 2021 03:06:16 No.13254921 Report

Quoted By:

I mean, it's exactly as easy as imagining a billiard ball... but why not just reference a drop of food coloring in water before it dissolves into equilibrium?

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 09 Jun 2021 03:17:11 No.13254950 Report

Quoted By: >>13254962 >>13254987

>>13254888
This has literally nothing to do with the careers of >90% of engineers.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 09 Jun 2021 03:22:11 No.13254962 Report

Quoted By:

>>13254950
He probably still had to study it though

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 09 Jun 2021 03:30:21 No.13254987 Report

Quoted By: >>13257233

>>13254950
ehh?

Gravitational fields - mechanical engineering (you literally add a constant in a ton of shit)

Mutual Inductance/Inductors/Electro-Magnets - electrical engineering (will effect everything from signal behavior to line orientation/shielding/etc)

Radiation/thermal fields - nuclear engineering (effects core geometry to support neutron utilization as well as material selection for heat dissipation/transfer)

I'd argue fields are in almost everything... people may just take them for granted, but they're there.

Hell man, even just turning on the lights when you walk into a room is in a way playing with the generation of a field of light >_>

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 09 Jun 2021 03:31:17 No.13254991 Report

Quoted By:

>>13254234
Science has no explanation for that.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 09 Jun 2021 03:32:32 No.13254994 Report

Quoted By: >>13255003 >>13256696 >>13256745 >>13256787 >>13257254 >>13257418

Magnetism is a natural consequence of Lorentz covariance.

Observation 1: Discovery of electric charge, i.e. matter that holds an intrinsic property which interacts with other electric charges. We'll call this the "electric effect".

Observation 2: The charge can sit still and it can move uniformly when no other electric charge is present, so it is possible that there can be an absence of this "electric effect"

From Observation 1, there must be some field F which governs the interaction between these two charges. From Observation 2, we conclude that the force experienced by the electric charge must be independent of position.

Now, we postulate that the force experienced by this electric charge be a linear, homogeneous function of the electric charge's 4-velocity. This is the most plausible thing to try. In manifestly covariant form, based on the conclusions from the observations above, Newton's second law has the linear homogeneous form of:

$m \frac{dv^{\mu}}{d\tau}=qF_{\nu}^{\mu}v^{\nu}$

The left hand side is simply m*a. The right hand side is the linear homogeneous function of the electric charge's 4-velocity. The only valid form of the field which satisfies the conditions stipulated above is that F is a rank two Lorentz covariant tensor. There must be some way to scale this interaction, so I added in a "q" for the coupling strength between the charge and the field.

Additionally, there is a spacetime constraint on the 4-velocity as well such that $\langle v,v\rangle=1$ . This also means that the 4-acceleration must be orthogonal to the 4-velocity. This puts a constraint on our field F such that:

$\eta_{\mu\,\sigma}\, F^\sigma{}_\nu + \eta_{\nu\,\sigma}\,F^\sigma{}_\mu = 0$

Meaning that our field has to be skew symmetric to conserve the norm of the 4-velocity. This condition can hold iff the 3-force acts according to:

$\vec{F} = q\,(\vec{E} + \vec{v}\times \vec{B})$

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 09 Jun 2021 03:34:00 No.13255003 Report

Quoted By: >>13255053 >>13255065

>>13254994

where E is the off-diagonal zeroth row elements of F and B is made of the three independent elements of the skew-symmetric 3x3 lower right block of F.

Basically, if you observe a magnetic field, you're just in the wrong reference frame.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 09 Jun 2021 03:36:43 No.13255010 Report

Quoted By:

>>13254234
>he doesn't know about magnons

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 09 Jun 2021 04:00:16 No.13255053 Report

Quoted By: >>13255060

>>13255003
why is the force perpendicular to the field then?

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 09 Jun 2021 04:02:54 No.13255060 Report

Quoted By: >>13255098

>>13255053
You mean why is the 3-force perpendicular to the quantity in that equation labeled as B? It's explained right there – it's the condition which conserves the norm of the 4-velocity.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 09 Jun 2021 04:04:23 No.13255065 Report

Quoted By: >>13255089

>>13255003
>if you observe a magnetic field, you're just in the wrong reference frame.
What do you mean by this? By choosing a proper reference frame you can always make the magnetic field 0?

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 09 Jun 2021 04:08:59 No.13255088 Report

Quoted By:

We've been taught in school that fields are a type of matter iirc

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 09 Jun 2021 04:09:26 No.13255089 Report

Quoted By: >>13255097

>>13255065
Most of the time, but you can't guarantee the existence of such a reference frame. I was trying to simplify a bit for a tl;dr.

The simplest example is that of a steady state current, something which produces a magnetic field. If you were to match the velocity of the current, you would no longer observe a magnetic field.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 09 Jun 2021 04:11:52 No.13255097 Report

Quoted By:

>>13255089
>I was trying to simplify a bit for a tl;dr.
Okay, that's cool then.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 09 Jun 2021 04:12:03 No.13255098 Report

Quoted By: >>13255126

>>13255060
>This also means that the 4-acceleration must be orthogonal to the 4-velocity
Could you explain why exactly this is for a brainlet

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 09 Jun 2021 04:18:35 No.13255126 Report

Quoted By:

>>13255098
Sorry, I set c = 1. The norm in SI units would actually be $c^{2}$ . Hint one.

Hint two is to consider: if this norm is always true, what happens in the particle's rest frame?

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 09 Jun 2021 13:57:46 No.13256696 Report

Quoted By: >>13257116

>>13254994
whats
$?$

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 09 Jun 2021 14:11:24 No.13256745 Report

Quoted By: >>13257116

>>13254994
>From Observation 1, there must be some field F which governs the interaction between these two charges. From Observation 2, we conclude that the force experienced by the electric charge must be independent of position.
This is just wrong. This doesn't necessarily follow.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 09 Jun 2021 14:13:41 No.13256749 Report

Quoted By:

>>13254564
An array of numbers

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 09 Jun 2021 14:26:49 No.13256787 Report

Quoted By: >>13256882 >>13257116

>>13254994
You're under the assumption that all interactions require fields. Cooper pairs don't require a field to exist. Friction doesn't require a field to exist. Elasticity doesn't require a field to exist. What you fail to account for is that using fields to describe phenomena is both idealized and the exception to the norm, not the norm. So your postulate that the "electric effect" must be governed by a field is dubious.

Anonymous

View Same Google iqdb SauceNAO magnetic_rose_symbol.jpg, 203KiB, 1912x1286

Anonymous Wed 09 Jun 2021 14:44:26 No.13256845 Report

Quoted By:

>>13254234
>magnetism

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 09 Jun 2021 14:45:34 No.13256852 Report

Quoted By:

>>13254564
a large area, planted with wheat or grass, sometimes geographically limited for a purpose such as playing a game or harvesting

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 09 Jun 2021 14:53:41 No.13256882 Report

Quoted By: >>13257116 >>13257179

>>13256787
What do you think friction is?
Did you know if you were to grind down two metal surfaces perfectly flat, their friction against each would increase a shit ton. What do you think elasticity is? Things just holding their shape for shits and gigs?

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 09 Jun 2021 14:57:26 No.13256898 Report

Quoted By: >>13256931

>>13254888
It's unintuitive because it's literally pseudoscience for pop sci gurgling midwits.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 09 Jun 2021 15:09:14 No.13256931 Report

Quoted By:

>>13256898
`Waves are extremely intuitive, in fact, that is why they sneak by from good definition. A wave is caused by something cycling and this is people understand thanks to sleeping, biorhythms, weather, oceans, life in general.
Fields try to rectify action at a distance formally. It could be a mistake if there is some other-dimensional manifold connecting all points presenting a facade of field dilution with distance.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 09 Jun 2021 16:00:19 No.13257116 Report

Quoted By:

>>13256745
Yes you're right you fucking retard, an isolated charge experiences a different force if I move it left 2 meters. My mistake.

>>13256787
Everything you mentioned is phenomenological. See >>13256882, which is correct.

>>13256696
Minkowski metric tensor with signature (+,-,-,-) or (-,+,+,+) depending on which convention you use.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 09 Jun 2021 16:15:48 No.13257179 Report

Quoted By: >>13257208

>>13256882
Friction isn't a field. But it follows your observations.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 09 Jun 2021 16:25:30 No.13257208 Report

Quoted By: >>13257216

>>13257179
Did you miss the "intrinsic" part?

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 09 Jun 2021 16:27:25 No.13257216 Report

Quoted By: >>13257227

>>13257208
You don't think friction is an intrinsic property of a material to interact with another material?

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 09 Jun 2021 16:29:28 No.13257225 Report

Quoted By:

>>13254905
that's some fine word salad mr. phd

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 09 Jun 2021 16:30:01 No.13257227 Report

Quoted By: >>13257237

>>13257216
No, I don't, actually. What are you talking about? The coefficient of friction is a phenomenological parameter.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 09 Jun 2021 16:31:38 No.13257233 Report

Quoted By:

>>13254987

descriptions are not explanations

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 09 Jun 2021 16:33:49 No.13257237 Report

Quoted By: >>13257258 >>13258511

>>13257227
That coefficient is material dependent, yes? If I take two geometrically identical objects, Teflon and Rubber, and then run two cubes of Teflon together, and two cube of Rubber together, different things happen. What do you call that if not an intrinsic property of a material?

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 09 Jun 2021 16:37:52 No.13257254 Report

Quoted By: >>13257303

>>13254994
Heh, I had posted a similar post in another thread >>13246486 asking why there's a cross product term in the Lorentz force

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 09 Jun 2021 16:38:55 No.13257258 Report

Quoted By: >>13257266

>>13257237
I then take some sandpaper and make the surface smoother. The coefficient of friction has changed. Cool intrinsic property you got there.

It's phenomenological.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 09 Jun 2021 16:41:26 No.13257266 Report

Quoted By: >>13257284 >>13257319

>>13257258
You need to make the corresponding other material smoother too. If you, in isolation, make the Teflon smoother, but not the rubber, you're not conducting science correctly. Say you make the objects as smooth as you can, you can't make them smoother. You take two Teflon cubes, as smooth as precision experiments let you. Same with rubber. You get different results rubbing the Teflon or rubber together. That's an intrinsic property of the material.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 09 Jun 2021 16:45:31 No.13257284 Report

Quoted By: >>13257296 >>13257313

>>13257266
Please stop. This is awful physics. The coefficient of friction depends on an extraordinary number of factors and it is obviously a phenomenological parameter. Some of those factors are including, but not limited to, cross sectional contact, weight (yes the coefficient itself can be weight dependent, not just the force), surface roughness, temperature, humidity, air pressure, just to name a few.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 09 Jun 2021 16:48:55 No.13257296 Report

Quoted By: >>13257309

>>13257284
Pseud.

Anonymous

View Same Google iqdb SauceNAO 940588e13003e79003abb91b39b50d9e (...).jpg, 28KiB, 600x300

Anonymous Wed 09 Jun 2021 16:50:10 No.13257303 Report

Quoted By:

>>13257254
Good post, way more succinct too. Impressive, very nice.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 09 Jun 2021 16:51:07 No.13257306 Report

Quoted By:

>>13254888
>fields and waves are unintuitive
No, you just have a 2 digit IQ

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 09 Jun 2021 16:51:41 No.13257309 Report

Quoted By: >>13257336

>>13257296
Go back to your undergrad courses kid, seems like you don't know shit about first year physics. You're receiving free advice and discussion from a physics PhD, you should be grateful.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 09 Jun 2021 16:52:31 No.13257313 Report

Quoted By: >>13257323

>>13257284
>insert hand-waving magic
Those are all modifiers. There is no ghost of friction past. Friction change based on immediate surface environments and all of those things you mentioned alter the surface interface. Would you say oil has the magic property of changing humidity and air pressure? No, that is absurd, oil acts exactly where the friction occurs.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 09 Jun 2021 16:53:08 No.13257319 Report

Quoted By:

>>13257266
>CoF is an intrinsic property
wrong wrong wrong wrong wrong wrong wrong

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 09 Jun 2021 16:54:07 No.13257323 Report

Quoted By: >>13257351

>>13257313
>Friction change based on immediate surface environments and all of those things you mentioned alter the surface interface.

Cool, glad we agree: the coefficient of friction is an extrinsic, system property. :-)

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 09 Jun 2021 16:57:01 No.13257336 Report

Quoted By: >>13257350 >>13258339

>>13257309
I'm also a physics PhD. I've taught this material to undergrads for 9 years now. Maybe you should drop the sanctimonious behavior and realize maybe you're not the smartest person in the board, let alone the only one with a physics PhD. Coefficient of friction is material dependent, i.e. an intrinsic property of the material. Obviously it's dependent on a lot of other factors experimentally, but the fact is the coefficient of friction is dependent on the molecular structure of the material. No amount of infinite "smoothing" of the material can change this molecular composition. Obviously pressure, temperature, and other things can distort this, but it will never turn Teflon into rubber, chemically and molecularly speaking. As for your other objections, I can do the same shit with electrons and talk about how its measured charge and mass and dependent on the CM energy of the colliders, the photons that inevitably pollute your signal, etc. All these things experimentally need to be filtered and refined and is why there's an experimental error on measuring these effects. I mean for fucks sake, it's not even on shell in half the QED calculations.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 09 Jun 2021 17:00:10 No.13257350 Report

Quoted By: >>13257365 >>13257371

>>13257336
Coefficient is phenomenological. Period. End of story. You are clearly not a PhD.

I have demonstrated very clearly how the coefficient of friction is not intrinsic – you have not yet to demonstrate why it is not phemomenological. There is no intrinsic property of an electron called "friction", you fucking retard.

Anonymous

View Same Google iqdb SauceNAO fmg.png, 79KiB, 250x206

Anonymous Wed 09 Jun 2021 17:00:29 No.13257351 Report

Quoted By: >>13257357

>>13257323
>sprays oil in the air to reduce friction in a gearbox

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 09 Jun 2021 17:01:28 No.13257355 Report

Quoted By: >>13258447

>>13254888
What do you mean unintuitive?

Are you able to think about it without words/images and by pure concept alone by any chance?

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 09 Jun 2021 17:01:44 No.13257357 Report

Quoted By: >>13257364

>>13257351
????

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 09 Jun 2021 17:03:00 No.13257364 Report

Quoted By:

>>13257357
I know right lol

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 09 Jun 2021 17:03:11 No.13257365 Report

Quoted By: >>13257382

>>13257350
>Didn't address the comment
Hence why I called you a pseud. You can cry as much as you want, but I just gave a very good explanation for how coefficient of friction is intrinsically linked to the material. Or do you disagree that coefficient of friction is dependent on the molecular structure of the material?

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 09 Jun 2021 17:04:14 No.13257371 Report

Quoted By: >>13257390

>>13257350
>There is no intrinsic property of an electron called "friction", you fucking retard.
Didn't read your entire comment before responding because it was retarded. Not a single person ITT thought that's what I meant except for you. Obviously the electron doesn't have friction moron. That's not what I was saying.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 09 Jun 2021 17:06:22 No.13257382 Report

Quoted By: >>13257393

>>13257365
Finally, the moving of the goal posts: the CoF is no longer "intrinsic", just that it is "intrinsically linked to the material". Seems like I'm making some headway. That's good to see. I thought I was just banging my head against the undergrad wall.

Maybe you can finish the reasoning for yourself why the CoF is phenomenological.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 09 Jun 2021 17:09:07 No.13257390 Report

Quoted By: >>13257397

>>13257371
OP says:
>Discovery of electric charge, i.e. matter that holds an intrinsic property which interacts with other electric charges

What do you think an electric charge is? Teflon? Rubber?

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 09 Jun 2021 17:09:51 No.13257393 Report

Quoted By: >>13257399 >>13257402

>>13257382
I was just trying to use different words to see if I can break through to you. You agree the coefficient of friction is a function of the material, yes? That means it's an intrinsic property, pseud. Or do you not understand what intrinsic means?

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 09 Jun 2021 17:11:04 No.13257397 Report

Quoted By: >>13257409 >>13257411

>>13257390
No. I was saying his logic was incorrect. He said an intrinsic property of an object to interact with something had to be a field. Coefficient of friction is an intrinsic property of a material, yet friction isn't explained by a field. Therefore his assertion that an interaction dependent on intrinsic properties of something must imply the existence of a field is incorrect.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 09 Jun 2021 17:11:49 No.13257399 Report

Quoted By:

>>13257393
>You agree the coefficient of friction is a function of the material, yes? That means it's an intrinsic property
No, it fucking doesn't LMAO

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 09 Jun 2021 17:12:44 No.13257402 Report

Quoted By: >>13257415

>>13257393
>You agree the coefficient of friction is a function of the material, yes? That means it's an intrinsic property, pseud.

This is so retarded it's no longer even worth my time. I love it when my "intrinsic properties" depend on whether or not I sneeze on the surface.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 09 Jun 2021 17:14:43 No.13257409 Report

Quoted By:

>>13257397
>Coefficient of friction is an intrinsic property of a material

No. Please stop.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 09 Jun 2021 17:15:17 No.13257411 Report

Quoted By: >>13257418

>>13257397
Nobody said it had to be a field. The actual post asked you what you thought friction was. You are clearly misinformed and incapable of simple reading comprehension. I am not even the Phd guy, what isn't a phenomenon to you?

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 09 Jun 2021 17:16:37 No.13257415 Report

Quoted By:

>>13257402
Sneeze on rubber. Then sneeze on Teflon. Rub the rubber against concrete, and the Teflon against concrete. Still different things. But just to show how retarded your reasoning is: why don't you jump in front of the protons colliding at the LHC, and see if the observations are different in the calorimeters. The Jets will all be contaminated and hence your measurement of the bottom quark will no longer work, since you'll just have chunks of flesh everywhere.
>But Anon I fundamentally changed the interaction by committing sudoku
Yeah, no shit Sherlock. Just like how when you sneeze on the material and then change the measurement.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 09 Jun 2021 17:17:39 No.13257418 Report

Quoted By:

>>13257411
>Nobody said it had to be a field.
Learn to read.
>>13254994
>From Observation 1, there must be some field F which governs the interaction between these two charges.
Sounds like someone did indeed say that. Moron.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 09 Jun 2021 17:21:44 No.13257433 Report

Quoted By: >>13257437 >>13257452

>>13254905
What makes it quasi-continuous?

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 09 Jun 2021 17:22:24 No.13257437 Report

Quoted By:

>>13257433
he's talking out of his ass

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 09 Jun 2021 17:25:27 No.13257452 Report

Quoted By:

>>13257433
Something that isn't continuous, but is assumed to be to make calculations simpler.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 09 Jun 2021 20:56:58 No.13258339 Report

Quoted By:

>>13257336
coefficient of friction is like density of the gas, its some intristic (what gas?) some extrinsic (what pressure?)

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 09 Jun 2021 21:21:50 No.13258447 Report

Quoted By:

>>13257355
>What do you mean unintuitive?
I'd describe it as "unable to set up a mental framework wherein I'm comfortable working with the concepts naturally." I'm able to work with the concept of waves and fields, but the second I try to extend that outside of pure concept (e.g., applying the concept), it seems almost absurd.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 09 Jun 2021 21:35:24 No.13258511 Report

Quoted By: >>13258607 >>13259070

>>13257237
>material dependent, yes?
No. Form dependent. You could theoretically take a turd and polish it so well that it’s as smooth as your brain. The material is the same as it was before I polished it (no phase change or chemical change) but I’ve just reduced the coefficient of friction with form change.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 09 Jun 2021 22:02:35 No.13258607 Report

Quoted By:

>>13258511
>polish it so well that it’s as smooth as your brain
And how well you can polish it depends on the lattice.

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 10 Jun 2021 00:12:46 No.13259070 Report

Quoted By:

>>13258511
Don't even bother dude. It's not worth it.

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 10 Jun 2021 00:29:04 No.13259120 Report

Quoted By:

>>13254564
think of space as big dark swimming pool. the fabric of the universe being the invisible water

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 10 Jun 2021 01:30:26 No.13259306 Report

Quoted By: >>13259474

>>13254234
>A field is said to exist...
Is literally the only explanation some texts offer on fields. Others do their best dance to get around the notion of action at a distance, and who could blame them? Most waves exists in a medium so its not always intuitive how fields exist in space. Fields really do exist, they can be measured and interacted with

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 10 Jun 2021 02:34:36 No.13259474 Report

Quoted By:

>>13259306
Yeah, the luminiferous aether is one of those things that we look back on and laugh but it makes perfect sense to initially believe that if light is a wave phenomenon according to Maxwell's electrodynamics, there must exist a medium too. What is a water wave without water, or sound waves without air?

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 10 Jun 2021 07:26:03 No.13260353 Report

Quoted By:

>>13254234

here is your answer

https://youtu.be/Q1lL-hXO27Q

Capcode	All Only User Posts Only Moderator Posts Only Admin Posts Only Developer Posts
Show Posts	All Only With Images Only Without Images
Deleted Posts	All Only Deleted Posts Only Non-Deleted Posts
Ghost Posts	All Only Ghost Posts Only Non-Ghost Posts
Post Type	All Only Sticky Threads Only Opening Posts Only Reply Posts
Results	All Grouped By Threads
Order	Latest Posts First Oldest Posts First

Your latest searches