Diff between Electric & Magnetic Field
Sanny
And Magnetic Field is created arround a Magnet
Gravitational field is created arround a Mass.
I heard Gravitational field is caused by Gravitons?
Electric field by Protons & Electrons.
Magnetic Field by XXXXX?
When ever a Charge is moving it produces Electric Field and a Magnetic
Field Perpendicular to the direction of this movement.
Why this Magnetic Field is Caused? When a Charge particle moves.
I am interested in the Elementry particle that Causes the force of
Electric Field & Magnetic Field.
So when an Electron is moving It creates Magnetic Field, Electric
Field and Gravitational Field.
I understand Gravitational Field of Electron as Electrons are throwing
Gravitons But why is Magnetic Field & Electric field occur in a moving
electron.
And how far does the electric/ Magnetic & Gravitational field are
seen?
If an Electron is 1 lightyear away from us
1. How much time it will take the Electric Field to come to us
2. How much time it will take the Magnetic Field to come to us
3. How much time it will take the Gravitational Field to come to us
Will be receive the Electric/ Gravitational/ Magnetic field after 1
year or instantaniously?
Does these fields bends just like Light Bends with Gravitational
force?
I only want answers from Physics people and others who know the
answer. I do not want answer from Englishh teachers teaching me
spellings. I just want thjose who want to discuss what I have asked.
No unnecessary talks.
Only talk to the point.
Bye
Sanny
Extreme Discussions at: http://www.getclub.com/Discussion.php
Eric Gisse
> I know electric field is caused when ever there is a Charged Particle
>
> And Magnetic Field is created arround a Magnet
>
> Gravitational field is created arround a Mass.
>
> I heard Gravitational field is caused by Gravitons?
>
> Electric field by Protons & Electrons.
>
> Magnetic Field by XXXXX?
http://www.amazon.com/Introduction-Electrodynamics-3rd-David-Griffiths/dp/013805326X
[snip]
Douglas Eagleson
I allow magnetons to exist for the reason stated. A force quanta
analog to photons for the magnetic field appear definition consistent.
Why would some force have carriers and others not! It is mayhem out
there in physics right now.
PD
> I know electric field is caused when ever there is a Charged Particle
>
> And Magnetic Field is created arround a Magnet
Actually, a magnetic field is created either around a current or in
the midst of a changing electric field.
(Now, the next question the hobbyist will rightfully ask is, which of
these is a Magnet?)
>
> Gravitational field is created arround a Mass.
>
> I heard Gravitational field is caused by Gravitons?
No, not caused by. Mediated by.
>
> Electric field by Protons & Electrons.
Electromagnetic field is caused by electrically charged particles.
Protons and electrons are stable charged particles. The field is
mediated by photons.
>
> Magnetic Field by XXXXX?
>
> When ever a Charge is moving it produces Electric Field and a Magnetic
> Field Perpendicular to the direction of this movement.
>
> Why this Magnetic Field is Caused? When a Charge particle moves.
>
> I am interested in the Elementry particle that Causes the force of
> Electric Field & Magnetic Field.
>
> So when an Electron is moving It creates Magnetic Field, Electric
> Field and Gravitational Field.
>
> I understand Gravitational Field of Electron as Electrons are throwing
> Gravitons But why is Magnetic Field & Electric field occur in a moving
> electron.
>
> And how far does the electric/ Magnetic & Gravitational field are
> seen?
Infinitely far away. Of course, by then it will probably get lost in
the field due to other, more nearby charges or masses.
>
> If an Electron is 1 lightyear away from us
>
> 1. How much time it will take the Electric Field to come to us
1 year.
>
> 2. How much time it will take the Magnetic Field to come to us
1 year.
>
> 3. How much time it will take the Gravitational Field to come to us
1 year.
>
> Will be receive the Electric/ Gravitational/ Magnetic field after 1
> year or instantaniously?
>
> Does these fields bends just like Light Bends with Gravitational
> force?
First, it's useful to know what a field is.
Robert J. Kolker
>
> I allow magnetons to exist for the reason stated. A force quanta
> analog to photons for the magnetic field appear definition consistent.
>
> Why would some force have carriers and others not! It is mayhem out
> there in physics right now.
Every attempt at a quantum-like theory of gravitation has led to grief
and unsuccess so far. There is no a priori reason for gravitation to be
like electromagnetism.
Bob Kolker
>
srp...@gmail.com
> I know electric field is caused when ever there is a Charged Particle
Yes. Each charged particle has an electric field associated with it.
> And Magnetic Field is created arround a Magnet
At the macroscopic level, yes.
> Gravitational field is created arround a Mass.
There is gravitational attraction between masses.
> I heard Gravitational field is caused by Gravitons?
This is hypothetical. Never proven to be true.
> Electric field by Protons & Electrons.
Each charged particle can be located at the center
of the fields that it is associated with.
> Magnetic Field by XXXXX?
The magnetic field is associated with the spin of
charged particles. Ref: CRD handbook of Chemistry and Physics.
> When ever a Charge is moving it produces Electric Field and a Magnetic
> Field Perpendicular to the direction of this movement.
Yes. But even when charged particles are not moving, they still have
an electric and a magnetic field, like electrons in a hydrogen
molecule.
They are the source of the fields at the fundamental level.
> Why this Magnetic Field is Caused? When a Charge particle moves.
When charged particles move, it means that energy is induced in
them by external means (external electric and/or magnetic fields)
and part of that added energy generate an additional magnetic
field on top of causing the particle to move.
> I am interested in the Elementry particle that Causes the force of
> Electric Field & Magnetic Field.
Electrons, positrons, and protons also even if the latter are not
elementary.
> So when an Electron is moving It creates Magnetic Field, Electric
> Field and Gravitational Field.
The electron has its own static electric and magnetic fields (rest
fields)
but when they have added energy causing them to move, an added
magnetic field is created in relation with the energy that causes it
to move.
Gravitation exists de facto between all massive particles, which does
not mean that it is created by them.
> I understand Gravitational Field of Electron as Electrons are throwing
> Gravitons
No. Highly hypothetical and never proven.
> But why is Magnetic Field & Electric field occur in a moving
> electron.
Because half the energy added to cause it to move converts
to a magnetic field, which also adds to the rest mass of the
particle. This is called relativistic mass.
> And how far does the electric/ Magnetic & Gravitational field are
> seen?
>
> If an Electron is 1 lightyear away from us
>
> 1. How much time it will take the Electric Field to come to us
Actually, the fields are mathematical concepts defined by Gauss
and used to calculate the particles energy and the strength of the
interaction between charged particles as a function of distance.
The fields themselves do not really exist except on paper.
Since the an electron is located by definition at the center of
the field that can be mathematically defined for it, it will take
more than 1 year to get here since it can travel only slower
than light.
> 2. How much time it will take the Magnetic Field to come to us
The same
> 3. How much time it will take the Gravitational Field to come to us
The gravitational "field" refers to the "force" with with massive
particles
attract each other. So, by definition, it needs no time to get from
anywhere to anywhere else. By definition it is permanently present
since it is known that massive particles attract permenently
irrespective
of the distance between them.
> Will be receive the Electric/ Gravitational/ Magnetic field after 1
> year or instantaniously?
Always present for the force of attraction, and more than 1 year
for the electron to get here with its electron-centric fields.
> Does these fields bends just like Light Bends with Gravitational
> force?
You are mixing force with General Relativity. In GR, there is no
force of attraction. It is bent space time that cause particles to
move towards each other. In Newtonian approach, it is force,
for which "bending" is meaningless since the force always attracts
in straight line between the bodies.
> I only want answers from Physics people and others who know the
> answer. I do not want answer from Englishh teachers teaching me
> spellings. I just want thjose who want to discuss what I have asked.
> No unnecessary talks.
>
> Only talk to the point.
On unmoderated ngs, you have to choose yourself with whom you
want to discuss.
André Michaud
Robert J. Kolker
>
> Yes. But even when charged particles are not moving, they still have
> an electric and a magnetic field, like electrons in a hydrogen
> molecule.
Electrons have spin.
Bob Kolker
Douglas Eagleson
>
> - Show quoted text -
Seperate electons from magnetism as step one. I believe in ferro-
center force quanta, I term magnetons.
So given two forces, EM, defined consistently why would the third be
any different?
So in a nature of force, why inconsistency? A likely lack of applied
theory. Dump Maxwell, btw. It is insufficient.
I had no issue with it other than applying a force as a geometrically
defined act. I have explained it all in many postings. Analogy to EM
means dump Maxwell's theory and use quanta.
srp...@gmail.com
Absolutely. Which is a manifestation of their magnetic field, as
clearly explained in the CRC Handbook section 12, page 126
in the 2003-2004 edition.
André Michaud
Smooth John
dont listen to these morons
EM is an entity while M is a completely other type of entity
do not confuse M from EM with a M field
Martin Hogbin
There is your answer, Sanny, learn some physics. If you are genuinely
interested in the subject you should enroll on a physics course of some
kind or at least get some text books at a appropriate level.
Picking up odd snippets of information from the net will get you nowhere.
Martin Hogbin
Rock Brentwood
Peoples."
On Apr 30, 4:16 am, Sanny <softta...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> I know electric field is caused when ever there is a Charged Particle
> And Magnetic Field is created arround a Magnet
> Gravitational field is created arround a Mass.
> I heard Gravitational field is caused by Gravitons?
> Electric field by Protons & Electrons.
> Magnetic Field by XXXXX?
"Eldest of all, the elf-children; Dwarf the delver, dark are his
houses; Ent the earthborn, old as mountains; Man the mortal, master of
horses."
> 1. How much time it will take the Electric Field to come to us
The radiation part of the field comes and goes and "is caused by"
charges. The Coulomb part of the field neither comes nor goes and is
neither "caused by" nor "causes" charges, but is simply correlated to
sources by the field law. There is no unambiguous separation of the
field into the Coulomb and radiation part. But the former generally
goes as 1/r^2 for monopole sources (1/r^3 for dipoles, 1/r^4 for
quadrupoles, etc.) the latter as 1/r for radiating monopole sources.
Radiation in a vacuum goes at light speed.
Maxwell believed the speed was taken with respect to the vacuum,
itself, as a reference. After the failure of the hypothesis emerged
clearly starting in the 1880's, Hertz, and Lorentz repudiated that
assertion and claimed the vacuum provided no reference at all and that
the speed had no reference, but was absolute. Both Einstein and
Poincare' provided a deeper explanation for this.
Lorentz believed the invariance property related to something
universal that would have ramifications for forces other than
electromagnetism, even gravity. Poincare', noted Lorentz' point but
I'm not sure which way he sided on that issue. Einstein, of course,
was totally in line with Lorentz on this point and raised the
invariance of light speed to the status of a postulate.
> I only want answers from Physics people and others who know the
> answer. I do not want answer from [English] teachers teaching me
> spellings.
Actually: "editor" is the more appropriate title. But, in any case,
can't you be both?
If you think of the Coulomb part of the field as comprising a
continuously operating interaction, then quantization would entail
treating this "continuous operation" as just a mass of "discrete
events" seen from such a broad perspective that they all meld into
what appears to be continuous action. So, at a highly resolved enough
level, you'll see the interaction as a succession of discrete events,
each one comprising an "impulse" or instantaneous change in momentum
of one source, compensated for by an equal and opposite impulse of the
source the interaction-event is with.
In quantum field theory, when approximating interactions in the realm
of perturbation theory, this event is characterized as a "virtual
particle". Of necessity, since the impulse is across large distances
and small times, it's tachyonic.
In non-relativistic physics, precisely the same characterization
applies. There is no prevalently used term for the non-relativistic
analogue of a tachyon. But its description is simple: it's an action-
at-a-distance impulse across a distance in 0 time. One way to
visualize it is as a lightning flash connecting 2 points in space.
Another (misleading) way to visualise it is as a "particle" of 0 mass
"travelling" at infinite velocity along the path of connection,
"carrying" the momentum from one source to the other.
This mode has no name, so I call it a Synchron.
The "tachyon" is the relativistic version of a synchron. Since
simultaneity is relative in relativistic physics, then the "at the
same time"-ness of the Synchron is relative. In the synchron's frame
of reference it is an instantaneous impulse of momentum (delta P).
This is sometimes referred misleadingly to as an "imaginary mass" m =
i (delta P). But the quality of "rest mass" has no meaning for
tachyons or synchrons, since they have no rest frame. You can set m =
0 for them.
In a frame moving at a speed v with respect to the tachyon frame,
"simultaneity" is no longer simultaneous. Instantaneous impulse
appears as a transmission at a speed V given by the ratio V/c = c/v,
where c is light speed. The transmission appears to be taking place in
the same direction as the reference is moving with respect to the
tachyon frame.
The tachyonic nature of a virtual particle isn't widely advertised
because of the interpretative difficulties attendant in the notion.
But the description above may resolve some of this, thus resulting in
a simple conclusion and answer to your question:
The Coulomb force is mediated by the relativistic analogue of action-
at-a-distance impulse. Thus, you see here that Relativity never
actually got rid of action-at-a-distance. It just changed its
character a little. But it's just as intact as before.
The impulses comprising the "discrete events" of the Coulomb part of
the force are faster than light (or: in the case of pre-relativistic
physics ... infinite in speed). But it does not transmit information
or cause/effect. This is what lies at the root of the fact that the
Coulomb part is neither "caused by" nor "causes" the charged sources,
but is simply correlated with them. It neither "goes to" or "comes
from" the sources, but is simply there as an inextricable part of the
charged source.
hanson
an answer to Sanny's question: "Magnetic Field [is caused] by XXXXX?
>
>
"Rock Brentwood" aka Mark Hopkins <mark...@yahoo.com> wrote in
message
news:30ded147-2dfe-4588...@8g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
"Learn now the lore of Living Creatures! First name the four, the Free
Peoples."
>
On Apr 30, 4:16 am, Sanny <softta...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> I know electric field is caused when ever there is a Charged Particle
> And Magnetic Field is created arround a Magnet
> Gravitational field is created arround a Mass.
> I heard Gravitational field is caused by Gravitons?
> Electric field by Protons & Electrons.
> Magnetic Field by XXXXX?
>
"Eldest of all, the elf-children; Dwarf the delver, dark are his
houses; Ent the earthborn, old as mountains; Man the mortal, master of
horses."
>
> 1. How much time it will take the Electric Field to come to us
Benj
> Eric Gisse wrote:
> >http://www.amazon.com/Introduction-Electrodynamics-3rd-David-Griffith...
>
> There is your answer, Sanny, learn some physics. If you are genuinely
> interested in the subject you should enroll on a physics course of some
> kind or at least get some text books at a appropriate level.
>
> Picking up odd snippets of information from the net will get you nowhere.
Is it just me or does "sanny" sound suspiciously like "Radium"? And
for that matter doesn't Martin's answer sound suspiciously like the
ones "Radium" used to get. I got $20 that says Radium and Sanny are
the same goofball.
Androcles
"hanson" <han...@quick.net> wrote in message
news:QzQTj.37306$Bb3.24303@trnddc01...
| Marki, your tripe is certainly entertaining and belletristic. But how
about
| an answer to Sanny's question: "Magnetic Field [is caused] by XXXXX?
Poor young Insanny wants answers that don't exist, or if they do nobody
has yet found and published them. To be sure a magnetic field is created
in a solenoid, the conductor of which is attached to the poles of a voltaic
cell, but the magnetic field of lodestone exists without electrical
stimulation
which in the former case doesn't last indefinitely and the latter case does.
If the question can be answered at all it is far more profound one than
most people realise. The electrical field of the charged particle is caused
by YYYYY? The gravitational field of mass is caused by ZZZZZ?
hanson
But how about an answer to Sanny's question:
"Magnetic Field [is caused] by XXXXX?
>
news:27VTj.10001$8q4....@newsfe15.ams2...
Poor young Insanny wants answers that don't exist, or if they do
nobody has yet found and published them.
To be sure a magnetic field is created in a solenoid, the conductor
magnetic field of lodestone exists [1] without electrical stimulation
which in the former case doesn't last indefinitely and the latter
case does.
If the question can be answered at all it is far more profound one
The electrical field of the charged particle is caused by YYYYY?
The gravitational field of mass is caused by ZZZZZ?
>
So, in the solenoid [1] it's the electric current, its moving electric
charges that cause the magnetic field,
(which in a way, IIRC, is used to define the SI Ampere unit,
providing that the defining force is of magnetic nature.)
And in the lodestone [2] it's the in place, non-moving, "aligned"
electric charges, in their (Weiss) domains, that cause the
magnetic field.
>
If these magnetic fields from [1] and [2] do have the same
properties then one can say, that this situation here is one of
the many possible starting points for [3] and here is a chance
for someone to come up with a wonderful new story that can
eventually be called a "theory" that answers Sanny's question.
>
... Go for it, Andro!... .. or anybody else for that matter, who is
deeply interested in the fundamentals of physics and who is
more than just a parrot who regurgitates what is written in text
books. Have at it!... ahahaha... ... ahahaha.... ahahahanson
>
PS:
Andro, wait with your response for a day or so, to give
someone else a chance to post their own takes.
Chances are slim though for someone else to step up to
the platter with some original thought... just like in most of
your other previous challenges where there were no takers,
except for fuming retorts by aggrieved Einstein Dingleberries
who cursed you in their sorry state or ignorance... ahahaha...
>
Androcles
Ok, well, my response won't matter anyway since I don't have any
theories to offer. Sir Arthur Conan Doyle (who lived in my neck of
the woods, same county, along with Charles Dickens) placed these
words in the mouth of his gumshoe character, Sherlock Holmes:
...when you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains,
however improbable, must be the truth.
All I do is present the facts and eliminate the impossible.
The facts are that action at a distance is indeed a fact, however
puzzling it may have been to one of the greatest scientific minds
in all history, Sir Isaac Newton, and I certainly cannot class myself
in his league. As far as these GEM [*] forces go, all anyone has
ever succeeded in doing is quantifying them. What makes them
tick is something that will probably remain a mystery for eternity.
Accept it as a fact and use it as a postulate. Maybe something useful
will come out of it, we are currently exploring superfluidity and
superconductivity and seeing some strange phenomena. As an
engineer I want superconductors for all manner of applications
but I want them at temperatures I can cope with, not -273 celcius.
There are Peltier junctions to explore ... science and technology
go hand in glove, each supports the other. HST is technology
that enables to the furtherance of astronomy. An electron
microscope enables the furtherance of biology. Each needs
the other for its advancement. Exploring Mars without rapid
communication with the home planet is a risky business, the
light accelerator would be a useful tool. So why no investment
when billions are spent on Large "Hardon" Colliders?
Answer: Because that prat Einstein still has influence.
Give me those billions and I'll produce two-way communication
with Mars in under a minute. Why haven't I patented the light
accelerator?
Answer: It's not worth my time and trouble busting a gut
for no reward, just for the benefit of others. I won't live long
enough to see a man land on Mars anyway.
[*]GEM - Gravitational, Electrostatic, Magnetic.
Science is the observation, investigation and explanation of
natural phenomena. It is not the creation of theories as some
here choose to believe, and I simply don't have an answer to
GEM. I can only do a Phuckwit Duck and say what it is not,
I cannot say what it is.
If you've ever seen Baez's crackpot index (which is mildly amusing),
Einstein scores 99. The fact that Baez sets Einstein as the standard
is the most amusing of it all.
http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/crackpot.html
Why did Einstein say
the speed of light from A to B is c-v,
the speed of light from B to A is c+v,
the "time" each way is the same?
Totalling Einstein's score:
1 point for every statement that is widely agreed on to be false. Score 1
3 points for every statement that is logically inconsistent. Score 4
5 points for each such statement that is adhered to despite careful
correction. Score 9
5 points for using a thought experiment that contradicts the results of a
widely accepted real experiment. Score 14
10 points for pointing out that you (Einstein) have gone to school, as if
this were
evidence of sanity.
Score 24
10 points for each favorable comparison of yourself (Einstein) to Einstein,
Score 34
20 points for each claim that classical mechanics is fundamentally misguided
Score 54
20 points for every use of science fiction works or myths as if they were
fact.
'Really, this is what is meant by the Fourth Dimension, though some people
who talk about the Fourth Dimension do not know they mean it. It is only
another way of looking at Time. There is no difference between Time and any
of the three dimensions of Space except that our consciousness moves along
with it.' -- Herbert George Wells - "The Time Machine" - 1895.
Score 74
30 points for suggesting that Einstein, in his later years, was groping his
way towards the ideas you (Einstein) now advocate.
Score 104
Less 5 given at the start, total is 99 for Einstein.
The score for Baez requires the Richter scale.
mitch.nico...@gmail.com
> I know electric field is caused when ever there is a Charged Particle
>
> And Magnetic Field is created arround a Magnet
>
> Gravitational field is created arround a Mass.
>
> I heard Gravitational field is caused by Gravitons?
>
> Electric field by Protons & Electrons.
>
> Magnetic Field by XXXXX?
>
> When ever a Charge is moving it produces Electric Field and a Magnetic
> Field Perpendicular to the direction of this movement.
>
> Why this Magnetic Field is Caused? When a Charge particle moves.
If this is true then electrons are in possession of a magnetic field
and every atom would be highly magnetic as opposed to Iron and Nickel
alone.
What is the magnetic field of all the electrons going to do?
Mitch Raemsch
Uncle Al
[snip loathsome horrible crap]
> If this is true then electrons are in possession of a magnetic field
> and every atom would be highly magnetic as opposed to Iron and Nickel
> alone.
>
> What is the magnetic field of all the electrons going to do?
> Mitch Raemsch
[snip rest of crap]
Hey fucking stooopid: What about paramagnetic current loops in planar
aromatic organics?
http://www.apa.org/journals/features/psp7761121.pdf
Dunning-Kruger effect (2000 Ig Nobel Prize): ignorance more
frequently begets confidence than does knowledge
1) Incompetent individuals tend to overestimate their own level of
skill.
2) Incompetent individuals fail to recognize genuine skill in
others.
3) Incompetent individuals fail to recognize the extremity of their
inadequacy.
http://www.albinoblacksheep.com/flash/youare
--
Uncle Al
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
(Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/lajos.htm#a2
hanson
of the usual NG loudmouth theoreticians, Einstein dinglenberried
or otherwise are to been seen or heard within this "event horizon".
Thanks, Andro.
>
Anybody else for a try?... Come on and shine!
ahahaha... ahahanson
>
"Androcles" <Headm...@Hogwarts.physics> wrote in message
kdt...@yahoo.com
> On Apr 30, 1:16 am, Sanny <softta...@hotmail.com>
>
> > Field Perpendicular to the direction of this movement.
>
> > Why this Magnetic Field is Caused? When a Charge particle moves.
>
> If this is true then electrons are in possession of a magnetic field
> and every atom would be highly magnetic as opposed to Iron and Nickel
> alone.
>
> What is the magnetic field of all the electrons going to do?
> Mitch Raemsch
>
appearance of a magnetic field. Any change in a magnetic field results
in the appearance of an electric field. The force vectors of these two
fields is perpendicular. H is perpendicular to E. Fields such as this
are called electromagnetic fields. Such fields also produce
electromagnetic radiation, or photons which travel at c. Frequency or
energy of these photons is primarily dependent upon radius or the
circumference of the electromagnetic field.
An electric current only exists because the electric field of protons
in the conductor is not adequately neutralized by sufficient
electrons. This causes free electrons to be affected, either as
alternating currrent or direct current, the voltage potential being
the degree that the protons are uncovered.
This means that the substance produces an electric field which escapes
the substance, at the time it is conducting, and results in magnetic
and electric fields , which are interchangable. In any transformer,
the energy of the electric current is completely transfered through
the electric fields, and not by direct conduction.
Even neutral molecules have dipole moments, and have weak electric
fields. Magnetic fields cause displacement of electrons in the process
of electrical generation. All energy and transfer of energy must be
accounted within the Law of Conservation of Energy.
The property of iron to be ferromagnetic, is up to 100,000 times
greater than any other substance, in some magnetic alloys. This in no
way can be a particular or pecular property of the iron electrons.
There is no fundamental explanation from QM for this much greater
value of this property of iron, to produce magnetic fields and to
become magnetized by electric currents and to also become de-
magnetized. This should be regarded as integral theoretical failure of
this arcane theoretical attempt derived from Neils Bohr, to stipulate
specific 'quantums', wherever they may be needed by those unable to
adequately do proper physics or mathematics.
KDeatherage
srp...@gmail.com
Meaning that the prior was relativistic physics ?
No way. Relativistic physics doesn't support faster than c velocities
in any way shape or form.
You misunderstand relativistic physics.
> precisely the same characterization
> applies. There is no prevalently used term for the non-relativistic
> analogue of a tachyon. But its description is simple: it's an action-
> at-a-distance impulse across a distance in 0 time.
Coulomb force doesn't need to be "transmitted", since it is present
in permanence between charges. Energy needs to travel and does
so at c in vacuum. But force is not energy.
André Michaud