I was curious when a negative electric field is produced in a piece of metal, does that metal lose it's conductive properties and behave like an insultor?
No. The electric field is a vector which radiates outward from the energized plate. The metal maintains its conductive properties. ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ 11-06-04, 11:31 PM Kainchild Oh ok but is the electrons that radiate outwards still connected to the atoms they're surrounding or do they behave like an "outside cloud" of electrons that just act outside of the atoms not connected to any of the outer layers of the atoms?
11-08-04, 10:39 PM gerry The electric field exists in the space surrounding the charged particles (ions). If you have, say, a charged aluminum conductor, free electrons are passed from one aluminum atom to another aluminum atom. Now due to the charged conductor, a field is created radially outward to an oppositely charged conductor (which could be the earth, or another metal conductor, etc.) through another medium (such as air). The field is often measured in units of voltage per unit length (volts per meter, for example). If the medium between the two charged conductors is air, as in the case of a pending cloud to ground lightning stroke, the field exists within the air until it (the air) now starts to lose its insulating characteristics and becomes conductive (electron transfer in the atoms making up the air) and FLASH, current flows through the air. Up to that flash point, there is no current flow thru the air, only a voltage gradient which is the electric field. I hope this helps some, it is not a completely accurate description.
11-10-04, 03:30 PM Kainchild What about stting that up in a vacuum? Then what you said first then only applies? You said, "The electric field exists in the space surrounding the charged particles (ions). If you have, say, a charged aluminum conductor, free electrons are passed from one aluminum atom to another aluminum atom." Doesn't this mean that those free electrons are in some way still connected, albeit only a short time, to the atoms they are jumping from one to another?
11-10-04, 10:19 PM gerry The space surrounding the charged conductor may be air, plastic, any dielectric (insulator), or a total vacuum (the perfect insulator). In any case, the electric field propagates through that space to an oppositely charged conductor. If we have 2 oppositely charged conductors...let's say 2 aluminum plates...that are separated a certain distance apart by a vacuum, this presents a good example of how free electron transfer must occur between the aluminum atoms (ions)themselves, and not within the space that separates the 2 plates. In the (perfect)vacuum itself, there can be no electron transfer, since there are no atoms and hence no free electrons to transfer. Thus, while the electric field exists within the space in between the plates, there can never be a current (arc) generated through that space (there would never be lightning if the space separting the cloud from the earth were a vacuum, but your hair would at some point be standing straight up pointing toward the cloud, due to the electric field propagted from cloud to ground) I am not sure what you mean by the aluminum electrons touching each other and being therefore connecred.
11-15-04, 05:55 PM Kainchild What I mean is that the free eletrons that become part of the negative ion are connected to the ion via the outer shell of the atom. 1 1-17-04, 05:24 PM Kainchild Also another question. Let's say we were to setup an the above situation and cause the positive field to imediately be pushed into the negative field. Shouldn't light be produced?
11-17-04, 10:25 PM gerry
quote:Originally posted by Kainchild: What I mean is that the free eletrons that become part of the negative ion are connected to the ion via the outer shell of the atom.
Yes, this is correct. The free electron causes one atom to be negatively charged ( an extra electron in the atom's shell), while at the same time the adjoining atom is positively charged (since it has given up it's electron. ) The electrons are not lost, they just vibrate back and forth within the energized concuctor, and create the electric field.
11-17-04, 10:41 PM gerry
quote:Originally posted by Kainchild: Also another question. Let's say we were to setup an the above situation and cause the positive field to imediately be pushed into the negative field. Shouldn't light be produced?
'Fields' and 'charge' are not the same. A positive field acts radially outward from a positive charge (the source), while a negative field, sort of speak, acts radially inward toward the negative charge. The example again would be two oppositely charged plates separated by a certain distance (space), creating a potential difference (voltage) between the two plates which are separated by let's say an air gap. There will not be any light produced between the 2 plates unless the the field (and potential diference)becomes so large that it ionizes the otherwise dielectric property of the air, so that the air, too, becomes conductive, current flows, and a flash of light is created by the heated air. It takes a lot of voltage to do this, even at about a million volts, there will be no flash (arc)between the plates if they are separated by about more than 10 feet or so. If they're separated by a pure vacuum, they're will never be a flash regardless of how close they get.
11-18-04, 01:26 PM Kainchild Should have figured that would be the case. Ok here's another question. What effect does light have on a free proton. Now we know the effects light has on electrons through the photoelectric effect, but what would happen if say we bombarded a free proton with a gamma-ray?
11-20-04, 12:53 AM gerry
quote:Originally posted by Kainchild: .. what would happen if say we bombarded a free proton with a gamma-ray?
Now you're really getting into the meaty stuff.Searching the literature, it appears that such collisions of high energy photons with protons result in a production of the smallest fundamental particles yet discovered ...the buiding blocks of all matter...the particles that make up protons and neutrons ...the particles which are known as quarks . Pick a flavor!
11-20-04, 11:44 AM Kainchild What properties do these "quarks" exhibit under the influence of the same gamma ray. What's also their mass? What were to happen if it were proposed those quarks were some form of an electron..... Wink
11-20-04, 09:34 PM gerry
quote:Originally posted by Kainchild: What properties do these "quarks" exhibit under the influence of the same gamma ray. What's also their mass? What were to happen if it were proposed those quarks were some form of an electron..... Wink
Now you're really probing into the unknown. Quarks and electrons are fundamental but distinct particles. Quark masses are difficult to determine because they have not yet been found to exist in a free state; the 3-quarks which make up a proton total up to a mass on the order of about 1/100 the mass of the proton itself (most of the proton mass is in the form of the binding energy of the strong nuclear force, see gluons). Other quarks (there are 6 flavors) are much more massive, because they are created from high energy electron-proton collisions where the energy is converted to mass per E=mc2. Regarding high energy particle collisions with quarks (let's get away from calling them gamma ray collisions), this is the next step where future linear accelerators will accelerate particles to near light speed at energies heretofore never achieved in an effort to not only see if the quark can be further split into even smaller particles, but to probe into the higher order dimensions ( a tough one to penetrate) and find the hypothetical massless graviton and bring us one step closer to the universe's secrets.
11-20-04, 11:32 PM Kainchild "Quark masses are difficult to determine because they have not yet been found to exist in a free state"
Free state? Elucidate please. Also do they have any visual proof of gluons or is that just something made up to compensate in order to fill in the holes. I dont understand that last statement. You say you would have to use a high particle accelerator to accomplish the smashing of quarks but from what i've seen don't you need to just hit the proton then have other gamma rays hit the aftermath. I bet if they made a chamber with free protons flying around in it and then proceeded to flood that chamber with gamma rays something interesting would happen.... Shame, I guess there's no present known way of holding those quarks in one place, I would love to start producing artificial gluons and point a beam of gluons at a beam of light and see what happens. I think they would repel each other. Makes me thing what would happen if light and anti-light from an antimatter atom were to collide. Geez I wouldnt want to be in that lab LOL! Give new meaning to the words big bang! Eek
11-21-04, 10:15 PM gerry
quote:Originally posted by Kainchild: "Quark masses are difficult to determine because they have not yet been found to exist in a free state"
Free state? Elucidate please. Also do they have any visual proof of gluons or is that just something made up to compensate in order to fill in the holes. I dont understand that last statement. You say you would have to use a high particle accelerator to accomplish the smashing of quarks but from what i've seen don't you need to just hit the proton then have other gamma rays hit the aftermath. I bet if they made a chamber with free protons flying around in it and then proceeded to flood that chamber with gamma rays something interesting would happen.... Shame, I guess there's no present known way of holding those quarks in one place, I would love to start producing artificial gluons and point a beam of gluons at a beam of light and see what happens. I think they would repel each other. Makes me thing what would happen if light and anti-light from an antimatter atom were to collide. Geez I wouldnt want to be in that lab LOL! Give new meaning to the words big bang! Eek
Quarks like to stick together in pairs or more, bound tightly together in protons and neutrons by the particles called 'gluons', which are not hypothesized, they exist and have been visually observed in high energy high speed particle co;llisions. The 'free quark', i.e., a lone quark, may possibly have been found to exist in a so called "quark-gluon plasma" created by high energy particle accelerators that accelerate not elementary particles, but entire nuclei to speeds approaching lightspeed. This is not yet confirmed; the quark-gluon plasma "soup' was last observed fractions of a second after the big-bang 13 billion years ago. It's taken us that long to recreate what God (or whatever) has given us. The only hypothesized particles not yet proven to exist are the Higgs Boson and the massless Graviton, which hold the potential secrets to this universe (but not necessarily the others). While most particles have anti-matter counterparts, I believe that light (photons) does not, but I'll have to check on this later.
11-22-04, 05:44 AM Kainchild
quote:Originally posted by gerry:
quote:Originally posted by Kainchild: "Quark masses are difficult to determine because they have not yet been found to exist in a free state"
Free state? Elucidate please. Also do they have any visual proof of gluons or is that just something made up to compensate in order to fill in the holes. I dont understand that last statement. You say you would have to use a high particle accelerator to accomplish the smashing of quarks but from what i've seen don't you need to just hit the proton then have other gamma rays hit the aftermath. I bet if they made a chamber with free protons flying around in it and then proceeded to flood that chamber with gamma rays something interesting would happen.... Shame, I guess there's no present known way of holding those quarks in one place, I would love to start producing artificial gluons and point a beam of gluons at a beam of light and see what happens. I think they would repel each other. Makes me thing what would happen if light and anti-light from an antimatter atom were to collide. Geez I wouldnt want to be in that lab LOL! Give new meaning to the words big bang! Eek
Quarks like to stick together in pairs or more, bound tightly together in protons and neutrons by the particles called 'gluons', which are not hypothesized, they exist and have been visually observed in high energy high speed particle co;llisions. The 'free quark', i.e., a lone quark, may possibly have been found to exist in a so called "quark-gluon plasma" created by high energy particle accelerators that accelerate not elementary particles, but entire nuclei to speeds approaching lightspeed. This is not yet confirmed; the quark-gluon plasma "soup' was last observed fractions of a second after the big-bang 13 billion years ago. It's taken us that long to recreate what God (or whatever) has given us. The only hypothesized particles not yet proven to exist are the Higgs Boson and the massless Graviton, which hold the potential secrets to this universe (but not necessarily the others). While most particles have anti-matter counterparts, I believe that light (photons) does not, but I'll have to check on this later.
I take it from the last statement about free protons under the influence of high energy light beams would cause these quarks to break apart. Shouldn't it then be possible to create a quark plasma using the same method or will the quarks bond together just as quickly as they seperate?
11-22-04, 07:43 AM gerry
quote: I take it from the last statement about free protons under the influence of high energy light beams would cause these quarks to break apart. Shouldn't it then be possible to create a quark plasma using the same method or will the quarks bond together just as quickly as they seperate?
The quark-gluon plasma can only be created under intense pressures and temperatures similar to those that existed fractions of a second after the Big Bang. Thus, its creation in particle accelerators requires the collision of heavy nuclei (like lead)as opposed to the 'mere' collision of elementary particles. And you are right about the quarks: The nuclear force (carried by the gluons) is so strong that they pair up almost instantly, even in the case of the plasma (where it has been shown that the strong nuclear force becomes weak), once it cools in ever so tiny a fraction of a second, they return to their original state.
11-22-04, 08:52 AM methos Gerry is correct. There is no such thing as anti-light (or antiphotons). There are two overarching groups of fundamental particles. One is fermions (such as quarks, electrons, and neutrinos). These all have antimatter equivalents. The other is bosons (such as photons, gluons, and the theoretical gravitons). These do not have antimatter equivalents.
11-22-04, 11:02 PM Kainchild
quote:Originally posted by methos: Gerry is correct. There is no such thing as anti-light (or antiphotons). There are two overarching groups of fundamental particles. One is fermions (such as quarks, electrons, and neutrinos). These all have antimatter equivalents. The other is bosons (such as photons, gluons, and the theoretical gravitons). These do not have antimatter equivalents.
Has an actual anti-matter atom been created to prove that there is no such thing as anti-photons?
11-23-04, 08:52 AM methos Do negative electric fields cause non-conductivity Yes, "anti-atoms" have been produced (specifically of hydrogen and deuterium), but this really has no relation to "antiphotons." Perhaps a better way of thinking of it is that an antiphoton is identical in every way to a photon and the interaction between an antiphoton and anything is identical to the interaction between a photon and that same thing.
11-23-04, 02:00 PM Kainchild Have they made an attempt at making a positron in this anti-matter go from one energy to level to another and see what comes about?
Also going back to the orignal conversation. If one were to freeze a free proton to lets say close to absolute zero and then hit it with gamma-ray err high energy particle, would there be any profound effect on the power of the gluons? Has this been ever tried as well?
11-24-04, 01:42 PM methos I don't think that they've been able to make them last nearly long enough for that transition to happen. Since the atoms are not charged, they don't have a hand-hold on them and they randomly collide with normal matter very quickly.
11-26-04, 11:37 AM Kainchild SO then technically it's still not known about whether it's possible to make anti-light then Wink
Also going back to the orignal conversation. If one were to freeze a free proton to lets say close to absolute zero and then hit it with high energy particle, would there be any profound effect on the power of the gluons? Has this been ever tried as well?
Also if one were to let's say seperate quarks and put more then the normal amount back, let's say instead of the 3 or 6 that go together, let's have 12 or 24, in essence wouldn't that create a big proton in turn possibly creating a gluon field. Could this be how black holes form?
11-26-04, 12:04 PM methos Yes it is known. Anti-light is a nonsensical term.
Antimatter was predicted because certain equations, mathematically speaking, should be reversible. Fermions have different properties when these equations are used "forwards" or "backwards," bosons do not. Therefore, there is no such thing as an anti-boson.
Think of it this way, if you like it better. when a positron and an electron collide, they transform into an energy equivalent to (by E=mc^2) their mass. This energy takes the form of a photon (not an anti-photon). If there were such a thing as anti-photons, shouldn't they be created as well?
Quarks bind together in pairs (a quark and an antiquark) or threes because of the nature of the strong force. The creation of black holes is no mystery.
11-27-04, 12:22 PM Kainchild Yeah but you might not be detecting anti-photons. Since you dont know the nature of anti-light you dont how to detect it. The only way is to create an anti-atom wan cause the electron to change energy levels and see what "light" gets produced. For every action there is an opposite AND equal reaction. Instead of an EM it might be an ME radiation Razz
Also due to the strong nature of strong force what's stopping strong force from binding an infinite amount of quarks together? Confused
11-27-04, 02:51 PM methos Again, antimattter is the consequence of the reversability of certain equations. Light does not depend on the directions of those equations. The idea of antilight doesn't make any sense whatsoever.
"For every action there is an opposite AND equal reaction."
This has zilch to do with antimatter.
11-27-04, 03:27 PM methos Instead of charges, the strong force deals with something called colors. Not the same colors as we see, but physicists come up with some strange terms sometimes. There are three colors and three anticolors (red, green, blue, antired, antigreen, antiblue). a particle can become color neutral by pairing up with an antimatter particle of the anticolor or by joining with two particles of the other two colors.
So you can have groups of three (baryons) that are red, green, & blue antired, antigreen, & antiblue
or groups of two (mesons) that are red & antired green & antigreen blue & antiblue
Once they are color-neutral (as they are in all those cases above) their further force is, in relative terms, weak. It is strong enough to hold all the protons and neutrons (made of 3 quarks each) together in a nucleus, but not nearly strong enough to turn them into a single particle.
11-27-04, 10:52 PM Kainchild
quote:Originally posted by methos: Instead of charges, the strong force deals with something called colors. Not the same colors as we see, but physicists come up with some strange terms sometimes. There are three colors and three anticolors (red, green, blue, antired, antigreen, antiblue). a particle can become color neutral by pairing up with an antimatter particle of the anticolor or by joining with two particles of the other two colors.
So you can have groups of three (baryons) that are red, green, & blue antired, antigreen, & antiblue
or groups of two (mesons) that are red & antired green & antigreen blue & antiblue
Do these "colors" have specific unique characteristics to them or is just names given. Also if they do specifics do you know the details from you might have read or heard?
Also going back to the subject of anti-matter. You said they have made anti hydrogen I take the anticolors make up anti protons. How do these labs produce anti-colors or for that matter positrons?
This message has been edited. Last edited by: DorianGreyed,
Posts: 625 | Location: Boston | Registered: 06-13-02
11-28-04, 12:41 PM Kainchild Well I think that each quark has a "shape" to it with unique characteristics. This applies to electrons as well. I also think gluons are a conterpart to em energy. Em energy comes out from electrons and that gluons come out from quarks. I just wish I could have seen more experiements done with each individual "color" to see if my theory is right.
11-28-04, 08:55 PM methos Kaichild - as far as we can observe, quarks and electrons are points (i.e. have no shape and take up no shape). That, of course, does not mean that they actually are. I suggest you look into string theory or its more recent incarnation as M-theory to see what some of the idea of what makes a certain particle be a quark and what makes another be an electron. "em energy" is the wrong analogy to gluons. The mediator of the EM force is the photon, and the mediator of the strong force is the gluon.
Tsaeb - I'm not quite sure I understand your question, but I don't think I know the answer. Also, you probably misspoke, but two oppositely charged electric particles will attract, not repel.
11-29-04, 05:22 AM tsaeb methos: Of course, you are correct about the particles attracting. I must have been in a trance after reading this detailed thread. As for what I was asking, I wonder how the two particles are shown on paper in a diagram and how any magnetism or gravity associated with them are shown on paper in a diagram. I am asking about points, lines, vectors, and the like. Maybe you know of a good elementary link on this for me.
12-07-04, 10:28 AM Kainchild I just recently read up on that string theory and it made think about what has been said here about free quarks. They were right in asking the question how come free quarks are never seen in nature. Now my question is could glouns and gravity be one and the same? If one has massive amounts of atoms together like a planet and all those gluons start to form the equivalent to a bright light from a city and make a gravity effect? I mean I can understand why you never see free quarks because of the nature of strong force wouldn't permit it but could this be the explaination for gravity as well?
12-07-04, 11:39 AM methos Gravity and the stong force do not behave similarly.
Gravity scales as the inverse square of distance.
The strong force falls off much faster (inverse cube, if memory serves) and so is only significant at femptometer (the size of a proton or some millions of times smaller than an atom) scales.
Gravity affects anything with mass and its strength is proportional to the mass.
The strong force does not affect everything with mass. It only affects those things with color (i.e. quarks) and its strength is not proportional to mass.
12-07-04, 03:11 PM Kainchild Yeah but if you get alot of those together doesnt the proportion change to bigger. Like the bigger a magnet is the bigger it's field and it's field's strength is also.
12-07-04, 03:40 PM methos First, no, because a proton is 'color' neutral. An anology: Your body is full of positive and negative charges, but because they balance out you do not feel an electrically attraction to or repulstion from other people. Any small effect you do feel is due to a transfer of charges, such as when you rub a balloon on your hair. You cannot transfer free quarks like this.
Second, even if this somehow made it larger, it wouldn't produce gravity because, as I said, (A) gravity affects according to mass while the strong force does not. (T.he strong force does not affect electrons, for example, but gravity does) (B) gravity follows a 1/r^2 dependence while the strong force follows a different one (1/r^3, I believe)
01-19-05, 02:01 PM Kainchild Dont know if I asked this before but can a negative electric field go through insulated material and if so, does it get weaken by it?
This message has been edited. Last edited by: DorianGreyed,
