The most recent posts were concerning virtual particles so that is what I was thinking about when I asked that question.

 

The most recent posts were concerning virtual particles so that is what I was thinking about when I asked that question.

Does the universe have a perpetual tendency to seek equilibrium?

If you equate (beyond pure physics) the universe to a living thing it doesn't seem so with life as it exists on this planet and likely in the entire universe. Every bit of 'free energy' (free in the physics meaning of the word of available to be used) seems to be used by life in a fantastic display of species, diversity and gaudy excess from simple creatures to humans.
Life is a battle against entropy to maintain a state remote from equilibrium. We can eat simple starches and use the energy to make computers. Life is not a isolated system.

 

I like the phrase 'remote from equilibrium'. It is the 'other' side of what I am studying at the moment.

Casimir: Do the plates displace something that has a tendency to return to its origin?
Can this something endeavor to make its way back in a cyclic fashion?

I am not sure if it seems quite right to me to declare 0 charge across the plates. We may get a zero reading across the entire surface but at the tiny scales we are talking about are there not more local fluctuation potentials whose mechanical work product might influence really, really small phenomena?

Are magnetic field lines continuous or are they chains of discreet segments?

 

I like the phrase 'remote from equilibrium'. It is the 'other' side of what I am studying at the moment.

Casimir: Do the plates displace something that has a tendency to return to its origin?
Can this something endeavor to make its way back in a cyclic fashion?

I am not sure if it seems quite right to me to declare 0 charge across the plates. We may get a zero reading across the entire surface but at the tiny scales we are talking about are there not more local fluctuation potentials whose mechanical work product might influence really, really small phenomena?

Are magnetic field lines continuous or are they chains of discreet segments?

Want to understand, start reading actual physics books instead of just asking random (to us) questions.

 

If you have an answer, give one. Otherwise, leave it for someone else. Please don't send links to any more disparaging commentary. I have enjoyed many of Eugene's videos and I don't think I have ever heard Kira speak unfavorable words about anyone. I did not find it helpful.

 

Are magnetic field lines continuous or are they chains of discreet segments?

"Field lines are imaginary constructs and do not actually exist."

Have you tried Google? You'll find fairly comprehensive answers to your questions there.

Want to understand, start reading actual physics books instead of just asking random (to us) questions.

There's a sense in your questions that you are short of a lot of background material that you could find answered more comprehensively in physics textbooks, so the above comment is relevant.

 

If you have an answer, give one. Otherwise, leave it for someone else. Please don't send links to any more disparaging commentary. I have enjoyed many of Eugene's videos and I don't think I have ever heard Kira speak unfavorable words about anyone. I did not find it helpful.

I'm not a chat-bot or some AI to do your work for you. I'm not finding it helpful to waste time with you if you are unwilling to help yourself first.

 

Are magnetic field lines continuous or are they chains of discreet segments?

Magnetic field lines represent the force that the field would exert on a test particle in the presence of that field along that line. I don't think you can associate a particle with the magnetic field alone, unless you consider virtual particles, which I think would be created and destroyed continuously along the path. In that sense I guess you could think of it being made up of discreet segments, but because they would be varying all the time it would be hard to figure out where one of those would be located and for how long it exists.

Each line represents the force along that line, which would exert the same force anywhere along that line. That also means it could be called a flux density because we think of bundles of lines together as having a density. So, each line could represent the average density in any small region along that line.

Closer to the source the lines have a stronger influence, and farther from the source they have a weaker influence. Close to the source it varies roughly as 1/R, while farther from the source it varies roughly as 1/R^2, but there is also an intermediate area where it will vary in a more complex way like 1/(R*sqrt(R^2+K)) with K being a constant.
The typical units used to measure this would be the Gauss or Tesla.

Iron filings follow the lines of force because they have higher permeability and that concentrates the field in that one spot, which then interacts with other small spots, which spread out due to the way the individual areas interact (like small magnets). The distribution of the 'lines' then changes because there is now a lot more sources than just the one initially before adding the iron filings. So, what we surmise by inspection to be the shape and spacing of the lines after adding the filings is not really the same as before we added them because of the added 'magnets'. It is an approximation though which gives us some insight as to what a field line is, or at least what we call a field line.

So, we have yet another merging of theory and what we call reality.