|
My point was only a digressive answer to muDped's questions, which I will specify. Energy is only a concept that does not correspond to any physical reality. That's why energy can be potential energy linked to gravity, kinetic energy, electric or magnetic energy... all these energies are obviously not of the same nature.
Energy only represents the work supplied, or to be supplied, to move a system from a state A to a state B.
Energy is equivalent to work. A static state does not work, so there is no energy in a state.
If the passage from state A to B provides work, to say that the energy was included in "A" does not make sense because if we pass from A to C, we would have an energy of different value, but also included in "A". So which one is the right one?! It is only when the state evolves that the potentiality of the energy is realized at a certain level.
To understand this, let's consider two interfering waves, e.g. two signals emitted in phase opposition by two radio antennas. The field on the perpendicular bisector of the line that connects them will cancel each other out. Yet if each emitted separately, we would have energy on this axis. If we assume that the wave carries energy that will travel in a straight line at speed c, it is double the energy that we should have on the bisector, but we have zero. However, each antenna is unaware that the other is transmitting, so its energy should be emitted in the same way, whether only one or both are in use. But it is not. The energy is only what can be recovered locally from the electromagnetic field. If two fields are in phase opposition, the recoverable energy is zero, there is no energy, so we cannot say that each wave had emitted energy to that point. Only electromagnetic fields or potentials are emitted and superimposed, and the energy is only what can be recovered from their local superposition. The energy is added or cancelled locally when the fields are superimposed, so the energy is not carried in a straight line by the wave as it is usually seen. Energy is not a physical reality.
Now this does not question your ideas, Smudge, but the interpretation that one can make.
On your idea, can we really "load" the atomic current circulations ? I'm afraid your professors are right. These currents are most probably like superconducting loop currents, they evacuate any attempt to change the flux.
« Last Edit: 2021-11-17, 20:04:27 by F6FLT »
---------------------------
"Open your mind, but not like a trash bin"
|
feature is available which provides a place all members can chat, either publicly or privately.
Author
Topic: Miscellaneous Technical Debates (Read 75830 times)
