The answer to this question has been known for a long time. By definition, a field is only a vector at one position in space. If its intensity and direction are constant, by definition it does not rotate, since it is static. This is the case when a cylindrical magnet rotates around its magnetic axis; the field remains constant everywhere.
...
With a magnetic field, it's the same thing. The field is created by the magnetic dipoles of its source. As with the lamp, there is a source. It can be modelled as an emitter of virtual photons that mediate the field. The virtual photons originate from the source, so they do not rotate tangentially somewhere in space.
I agree that if the magnetic field of a magnet rotating on its magnetic axis is modeled (defined) using vectors, and if those vectors remain constant (static), one might consider the field to be stationary. This is similar to looking at an optically perfect mirrored sphere while it is spinning on an axis, as just looking at that sphere would offer no sense of its rotation.
However, I disagree with your statement that "a field is only a vector at one position in space". A magnetic field (or any field) is a modified region of space that can be described using vectors, but that modified region of space is not made up of imaginary vectors anymore than a mountain is just a sheet of paper with contour lines drawn upon it.
I am amazed by the advancements achieved in all fields of science and engineering over my lifetime. With regard to the study of magnetic fields and particle physics, the ability to predict and design based on the mathematical models currently in use is simply amazing. I make no argument against that math, nor am I even qualified to do so. That the mathematical models are correct, for the most part, is readily proven by the ability to predict and design based on those models.
However, just as a mountain is not a contour map, the world is most likely not just a bunch of math on a chalkboard.
The current, rather layman like, understanding of the world around us is that the “empty space” we are surrounded by and immersed in is actually a world filled with quantum fields. The “real” particles we observe within those fields are said to be specific excitations of and within those fields. The “virtual” particles you mentioned, which are in many ways similar to their “real” particle counterpart, are also just specific excitations of the same fields, but they are deficient in one or more aspect of the excitations of “real” particles. The greater these deficiencies are, the shorter the lifetime or effectual range these virtual particles will possess.
Virtual particles may not even exist, as no one has detected or observed one to date. They are, for the most part, a convenient mathematical tool, and in some ways are similar to renormalization. Lattice theory or QCD appears to do just fine without invoking virtual particles, but for now, let's assume that “something” similar to virtual particles actually exists.
So, based on the above, and again in rather layman like terms, we live in a universe where empty space is actually said to be filled with quantum fields. The particles we observe sparsely scattered about within that “empty space” are merely specific excitations of those quantum fields and those particles can themselves produce (reflect or re-radiate, if you will) additional excitations of the quantum fields from which those particles are constructed by way of what we call virtual particles.
The matter we observe that is constructed from these particles is said to contain only a tiny volume of the total volume of space occupied by that matter, with the bulk of that volume (to a very high percentage) being just “empty space”, or, as defined above, the quantum fields.
An electron, for example, could be considered a point in space where specific excitations of the quantum field converge in such a way as to produce a region of space that produces, via virtual particles (reflections or re-radiations), modification of the surrounding space (quantum fields) such that we observe the characteristics we assign to that electron (spin, charge, etc). It is also believed that, in agreement with the uncertainty principle, that point in space where the fields converge to produce that electron are not static, but rather noisey in that the electron may or may not actually exist in any specific location at any point in time.
With regard to a magnet, we can invoke all manner of discussion with regard to unpaired electrons, domains, virtual particles, dipoles and the like, but it may be wise to consider that what is “inside” the magnet and what is “outside” the magnet are in reality the same thing, differing only with regard to specific excitations of that same thing (ie, the quantum fields).
It is difficult to not visualize the quantum fields as being a multitude of sine waves of various frequencies, phases and amplitudes radiating through space from all directions such that they constructively add or destructively interfere with each other to the degree that what remains is just a backround noise floor we might refer to as zero point energy. Those sine waves could contain all manner of frequencies and amplitudes (energy) such that with a sufficient, or near infinite, amount of constructive or destructive interference, could appear as just a low level background noise or an undetectable bias which may actually contain a large, possibly infinite, amount of “energy”.
It is also difficult to not visualize the convergence of a specific set of those sine waves of specific frequencies, phases, and energies (quanta) forming a region in space that defines a particle (electron, etc) which is able to re-radiate or reflect surplus (or unneeded) energy impinging on that defined area of space (electron. etc) such that the space surrounding that defined region of space (electron, etc) is modified to produce the properties we observe when other similarly defined regions of space are brought in proximity to the original region. The empty space surrounding these defined regions of space (particles, etc) are the source of “energy” that both creates and sustains these regions with the re-radiations or reflections by these regions (virtual particles) themselves also modifying the surrounding space. We detect these modified regions of space when we attempt to position two such regions in proximity (ie, two particles brought into proximity for example) and observe phenomena we define as being the various forces (for example).
When I consider a magnet and its surrounding field, it is difficult to not visualize a mostly “empty” region of space which is locked in a convergence of the fields within that empty space such that the “sources” of the magnetic field and the “magnetic field” itself are locked together in a sort of feedback loop or standing wave that both sustains the “source” and produces the properties observed external to that “source”.
To me, a simple layman, the above discussion makes more sense than to model a magnet (or dipole) as if it were some sort of isolated or independent “thing” itself possessing unlimited energy capable of forever radiating virtual photons in a fashion similar to a lamp's filament emitting photons.
In my imagineering, the magnet and its surrounding field are locked together in an inextricable fashion such that whatever changes within one affects the other.
Given that there is a lot more “empty space” then there is “matter”, it seems naive at best to ignore “empty space” and consider “matter” as being the major contributor to all that is. To me, it seems as though we have learned to define the world as one might the negative of an image, such that the math is wholly (or mostly) quite accurate in describing the interactions of the minor players while ignoring "empty space" as one might the so called elephant in the room.
We assign physical properties to "empty space", such as its permittivity and refractive index, but tend to ignore it as a real entity. The pre-Einstein world seemed mostly concerned with what makes up "empty space" while the post-Einstein world decided we could describe everything mathematically without needing whatever "empty space" actually is. But now, as we have defined "empty" space as being filled with "something", and with the apparent puzzle of missing energy and matter (as in dark), perhaps we are coming full circle.
Having spent my single digit years (a long time ago) concurrently reading science texts from both the 1800's and 1950's, in response to a 6th grade quiz regarding what matter is according Bohr's model of the atom, I responded with the following:
“Everything” is made of “nothing”. All “nothing” is almost “something”. There are two kinds of “nothing”, organized “nothing” and disorganized “nothing”. Everything I know may be wrong...
Apologies for the long winded response,
PW
Author
Topic: Simplicity (Read 39023 times)
