For anyone who's knowledgeable about electrical energy, wants to do some research, or would like to bs with me, what is the cause of an electromagnetic field's strength — Enrique

Current. Amperes, which is a coulomb (a quantity of electrons) per second.

What is the effect of a strong electromagnetic field on the form of matter? — Enrique

Depends? Obviously it can cause motion. That's what an electric motor is doing.

Does an electromagnetic field induce the blending of matter waves that would be distinct somehow in its absence? I'm thinking of this topic in the context of voltage potentials across a neuron's membrane, but any application will do. — Enrique

?

For anyone who's knowledgeable about electrical energy, wants to do some research, or would like to bs with me, what is the cause of an electromagnetic field's strength? Is it density of charged particles, the rate of their motion, voltage as the energy differentials that drive this motion? What is the effect of a strong electromagnetic field on the form of matter? Does an electromagnetic field induce the blending of matter waves that would be distinct somehow in its absence? I'm thinking of this topic in the context of voltage potentials across a neuron's membrane, but any application will do. — Enrique

Finally! PHYSICA! Yes! Let me enlighten you! Matter is charged with a magic stuf called... electric charge. It's one of the seven (three, but the other six are always to be found in a colorless combination due to a non-abelian gauge, while the electromagnetic gauge is abelian). No physician actually knows what charge is. It sends out virtual mediator particles, like photons, which are not virtual in the real sense, but it means these are not at mass-shell. These fields reach out to other charged particles and thus an EM interaction can take place. The particle move away from or towards each other. At the very basic. Quantum field theory describes mainly particle reactions between two or some more real particles by means of a one photon exchange (or gluing and hyperglycemia exchanges, mediating between particles with the other charges, which are very short range). Likewise, gravity can be described by the exchange of gravitons. But the problem here is the curvature of spacetime. This is not present in the other interactions. QFT is mainly done in flat spacetime. Though in curved spacetime it gives you Hawking radiation. I think about the neurons. Consider photons as pure potential energy, capable of giving pure kinetic energy to the massive matter particles.

So, what's the cause of the field strength? Well, all photons couple to charged matter. It,'s how strong the photons "couple," a rather strange name, as the are emitted "created" by a "creation operator" which in reality it's a mathematical image, There is no operator who creates or destroys (by a destruction operator, no kidding!). The coupling strength, connected with the charge, determines the strength of the coupling and stands in relation with the fine structure constant, where the fine structure relates to a pre QFT phenomenon. An electromagnetic phenomenon. Consider the photon as a particle with the potential to push or pull.

I gave a very rough picture. The popular view. In reality, a particle takes many trajectories at once. This gives rise to the Schrōdinger equation. Though hidden variables can do the job of making the particle jump from trajectory to trajectory continuously, giving rise to the probabilities in QM. Like the image of a virtual particle pair popping in and out of existence is a popular view too. A particle is a field of trajectories, an excitation. A virtual pair is a fluctuation of these fields.

I'm not sure I understand your view on neurons. You wanna use the electric field to steer your thoughts?

Are you that crazy dutch guy?

???

A strong EM field can have devastating effect on the form of matter. If you are placed in a superstrong electric field between two oppositetly charged plates, you won't survive. Like that Russian scientist who put his head in a particle accelerator, the field will disrupt your brain. Because the field is static (virtual photons( the field has to be huge. Real photons, which propagate real EM radiation, will do much more damage. Rōntgen or gamma radiation. You as a whole will feel more disruption in the strong gravity of a black hole. A static field too, like the electric field between the plates, but getting hold on you on every part of your body. Electric pulses in the brain are spikey electric potentials caused by positive ions traveling rapidly to and from in ion channels.These autonomously traveling pulses *not caused by an external potential) are the base of thought and emotion.

Are you Dutch?

Why do you ask? Aren't you interested in electromagnetics? No! I'm not! Are you?

Electric pulses in the brain are spikey electric potentials caused by positive ions traveling rapidly to and from in ion channels.These autonomously traveling pulses *not caused by an external potential) are the base of thought and emotion. — GraveItty

I'll have to process all that detailed information for a while, but getting to the crux of the issue as it most concerns me so far:

It has been suggested in experiments that ion channels are receptive to the electromagnetic field of the brain, with firing in neural networks amplified by saturating EM fields so that patterns of ion flow become phase locked across denser swaths of tissue, much more synchronous then they would be via purely chemical effects. Some models propose that specific features of neurons are specialized for receptivity to EM fields.

I want to know what photons might be doing within electromagnetically phase locked patches of neurons. Is the radiation interacting with atoms in a rather unusual way because of the strong electromagnetic forces involved, perhaps "superpositioning" or blending if you will into larger than average collections of atoms? It might be good to have a solid definition of superposition.

Is it possible for science to discern whether something different is going on amongst atoms and radiation in the presence of fluctuations in electrical potential (voltage) that are so strong at the microscopic scale, and could this be a key facet of the binding mechanism from which qualitative percepts emerge?

Ah! It's you who wants to know! I thought it was the other guy. Sorry about that!

It has been suggested in experiments that ion channels are receptive to the electromagnetic field of the brain, with firing in neural networks amplified by saturating EM fields so that patterns of ion flow become phase locked across denser swaths of tissue, much more synchronous then they would be via purely chemical effects. Some models propose that specific features of neurons are specialized for receptivity to EM fields. — Enrique

Now I must contemplate a bit! Will reconnect!

Current. Amperes, which is a coulomb (a quantity of electrons) per second. — frank

How does this relate to voltage?

Consider photons as pure potential energy, capable of giving pure kinetic energy to the massive matter particles. — GraveItty

How can a photon be pure potential energy if it moves and exerts force? Wait, I think you already explained this, but some more depth could be good perhaps.

Can you clarify the distinction between real photons of EM radiation and virtual photons of the electric field?

Current. Amperes, which is a coulomb (a quantity of electrons) per second.
— frank

How does this relate to voltage? — Enrique

V=IR

How can a photon be pure potential energy if it moves and exerts force? Wait, I think you already explained this, but some more depth could be good perhaps.

Can you clarify the distinction between real photons of EM radiation and virtual photons of the electric field? — Enrique

Let me try to clarify. Photons have the strange quality not to move in time. They are light-like (obviously!) in the sense that they move in space only. There is no frame of reference in which the don't move in space with the light speed. They experience no 'proper" time, no "eigen"time (self, own, in German ). Defined as the ticking of the clock when space coordinates are constant I.e. when the object in question is at rest (in space), which for a photon is the case always. All particles move at the speed of light through spacetime. With a component project able to time and a component project able to space. If a particle like the photon moves through space only, the projection onto time is zero, as all four components of the velocity four-vector are perpendicular with each other. From whatever perspective, inertial frame, you look, the projection on time will always be zero for the photon. Why? Because this lays at the bottom of relativity. The invariance of the speed of light, in space. So it's speed through time is zero. Hence I made the remark that all interactions mediated by a photon are in a sense instantaneous as the time for photons is absent. You can compare it with an infinite speed of light in the Newtonian concept of an absolute space and time, where they are defined separately and not relative with each other, as, how else, in relativity. It's space that prevents everything from happening at once, and time from everything being everywhere at once. I recently realized that photons carry the potential to change the kinetic energy of massive charged matter particles. Also that of massless matter particles. The difference between force-mediating particles and matter particles is that matter particles carry kinetic energy only and mediating particles carry potential only. You can't assign kinetic energy to mediating particles. The are just mediating *this is one of the reasons I consider the massive vector bosons in the weak interaction as non-basic, similar to the non-basic, residual force in the old conception of the strong nuclear force, mediated by massive pions, but I won't bother you with that...Oops...already done! The equivalence of mass and energy can be seen from this, as I recently realized, but then you have to consider, like I do, that quarks and leptons are systems of three massless superstrongly interacting particles). So the EM field carries potential energy only. A static electric potential field (there you go!) Is comprised of a so-calked condensate of virtual photons. Which means you can add or substract as many as you like without changing the virtual field, in contrast to an EM wave, in which only real photons are present. It,'s often claimed that virtual particles are just that. Virtual. But what virtual really means is that they are off-shell: not obeying the relationship $E^2=p^2 + m^2$, where c=1. Virtual particles can have zero energy and a momentum at the same time! How strange. This is due to the uncertainty relations of Heisenberg. As you probably can imagine. The classical picture of a a particle doesn't apply at the micro level, as you know. There are only fields of simultaneously existing particle trajectories, and in the hidden variables approach you can envision this by the particle continuously flipping from one to another trajectory in a true and determined way. You could even consider the hidden variables as the essence of space, furnishing a relation between space and QM, and thus between gravity and QM, but this is a non-accepted view, or better, a non-considered one. Virtual fields can be considered as fluctuating quantum fields, like real fields can be seen as fluctuations thereof. Represented in the "popular" view as particle pairs in and out of existence and as just a particle moving. But in reality the consist out of infinite of these popular views. As extended fields.

A description of my thought-train. In one undivided piece. Didn't bother to divide it up. Hope it cleared things up!

Can you describe how each of the quantities in that equation, voltage, amps and ohms, relates in a physical sense to charged particle behavior and electromagnetic fields?

What if there is no resistance?

Photons have the strange quality not to move in time — GraveItty

It's space that prevents everything from happening at once, and time from everything being everywhere at once — GraveItty

Very nicely put, and thought-provoking.

Can you describe how each of the quantities in that equation, voltage, amps and ohms, relates in a physical sense to charged particle behavior and electromagnetic fields? — Enrique

If you think of electrons in a conductor as being like water in a pipe, voltage is the pressure it takes to move the electrons.

The movement of the electrons generates electromagnetic field. The lines of flux are perpendicular to the movement of the electrons.

Resistance slows down the flow.

What if there is no resistance? — GraveItty

Then there's no voltage. What if the resistance is infinite?

Hi there! Thanks. In fact, I tapped myself on the back after thinking this. On a moonlit silent night, in a low mist. The right circumstance to contemplate. :smile:

What if the resistance is infinite? — frank

Then there is no current and you have made a breakthrough in material science.

That's not what I meant though. I mean, voltage can exist without current or resistance.

If you think of electrons in a conductor as being like water in a pipe, voltage is the pressure it takes to move the electrons. — frank

Here you are wrong. It's the electric potential that constitutes the pressure. The voltage is the difference in potential. It indicates how hard the potential drops over a difference in space.

Then there is no current and you have made a breakthrough in material science.

That's not what I meant though. I mean, voltage can exist without current or resistance. — GraveItty

Not really. We say it does, but on closer examination, that makes no sense (with the model were using)

Think of voltage as potential. Think of current as a kinetic manifestation.

Like if you hold a penny over a vat of water vs a vat of mollasses. Same potential, but different events, each shaped by the resistance. Now think about what it means for the resistance to be infinite or zero.

That's the model in use with Ohm's law.

This was actually one of my introductions to philosophy. I happened to be reading Fear and Trembling while it was on my mind. That book is about potentiality, so my mind was blown.

Think of voltage as potential. Think of current as a kinetic manifestation. — frank

Again. Here you are wrong. You can think about it that way, but it's inadequate.

Again. Here you are plainly wrong. You can think about it that way, but it's inadequate. — GraveItty

It's a good way to start for someone who's trying to grasp the model.

This was actually one of my introductions to philosophy. I happened to be reading Fear and Trembling while it was on my mind. That book is about potentiality, so my mind was blown — frank

Philosophers are usually naive about physics. The fear and tremble in the face of it... Just joking! And it was once part of it. People like Mach and Boltzmann were still both. Nowadays, the connection has gone. :smile:

It's a good way to start for someone who's trying to grasp the model. — frank

No. It,'s not. Telling lies to a child is not the best way to start teaching. Aren't philosophers interested in the truth so much?

I've never met anyone who notices the profound philosophical significance of ohm's law.

Maybe one day.