Magnetism

[Michael V]

Dave,

Your angst is unwarranted, but to assure you of my good intentions, I am quite happy and willing to offer Don and any others a sincere apology for any offence caused due misinterpretation of my prose style or use of language.

I am sure that you are not suggesting that Professor Scott and yourself are unwilling to engage in questioning the fundamental assumptions of mainstream science?

Despite a considerable global effort to investigate and explain the mysteries of the universe, we are all here, discussing the dominance of scientific theories that date from 70 years ago or more. Being free from, or overcoming, indoctrinated agenda, we all here, have been able to recognise that electro-magnetic effects, made possible by the ubiquity of plasmas throughout the universe, have been dismissed, missed or misinterpreted by mainstream science in their efforts to prove the validity of their agendas. With that mainstream (funded) effort unwilling or unable to theorise beyond dictated parameters, it is left to us and others to search alternative routes to understanding. Some are interested most specifically by cosmological processes, others such as myself, are motivated by more fundamental questions.

Electro-magnetic theory has been in place, almost as is, since Maxwell. The subsequent discovery of the electron has not changed the theory, other than the electron being added-in post hoc, as the "flowing" thing that "carries" the "charge". Those wishing to reject or ignore the role of electrons, and take the stance that, "the fields were discovered first - so it is the fields that are important and not the electrons", are free to do so. My bald assertion is that the operation and behaviour of free-electrons is the driving mechanism responsible for all the phenomena associated with electro-magnetism. As part of declaring my thoughts and ideas on this matter it is inevitable that there will be voiced some criticism of theories that I see to be unsatisfactory in explaining those phenomena.

What is it then, that Maxwell is credited with discovering: in addition to his most excellent work to describe equationally the affects of electromagnetism, he also conjectured mathematically that IF there were such a thing as electromagnetic waves, although they had NOT been created or experimented with or detected in any way up to that point, that they would propagate at a speed that closely matched the then measurement of the speed of light. Subsequently, it has been more accurately established that light and electro-magnetic fields propagate at the same speed, that is, c. Also, thanks to the work of Young, there was already a vacancy waiting to be filled for a method of light wave propagation.

As an aside, did anyone notice that the fifth Automated Transfer Vehicle (ATV-5) to the ISS is to be named in honour of Georges Lemaitre for his great contribution to expanding our knowledge of the universe. His solutions to Einstein's field equations implied that the universe was expanding - this theoretical vacancy was filled by Hubble's discovery of a cosmological redshift. Strangely enough, there are some that believe Big Bang Theory to be logically flawed. ATV-4 is to be named in honour of Albert Einstein. Strangely enough, there are some that believe his theories of relativity to be logically flawed. ATV-3 is to be named in honour of Edoardo Amaldi, an Italian physicist involved in the search for gravitational waves and anti-protons, which has become an important factor in determining details of the affects of supersymmetric dark matter particles in the galaxy or from the evaporation of primordial black holes. Strangely enough, there are some that believe the concepts of anti-protons, supersymmetry, dark matter and black holes to be logically flawed. ATVs are disposed of (burnt-up on re-entry) once they have outlived their usefulness.

It is also firmly established that electrons emit light (photons or waves or ?). Some allowance is also given for light of a nuclear origin - gamma rays from neutron decay - the beta particle (i.e. electron) is implied to be simply, coincidental. So, electrons "carry" charge, and electro-magnetic fields interact with charge carrying objects, and electrons emit light, and EM fields and light propagate at the same speed, but light is in no way affected by EM fields. Electrons are affected by EM fields, but light is not affected by EM fields.

Electricity, usually "conducted" by metals, involves free-electrons in some way, and can be used to generate light of all frequencies. Metals, with a sufficient availability of free-electrons, can be used to intercept light and convert it into an electrical signal, although light is not affected at all by electro-magnetic fields. Light does not interact with electromagnetic fields, but it does interact with atomic structures. In atomic structures it is the electrons that emit light. In metals, with an availability of free-electrons, the interaction of light may also produce an electrical signal.

To summarise:

Associated with charge: electrons, electro-magnetic fields
Associated with light: electrons
Associated with electro-magnetic fields: a "flow" of charge
Affected by electric fields: electrons, charged objects
Affected by magnetic fields: electrons, charged objects, magnetic objects, magnetisable objects
What types of materials "conduct" electricity: those with a higher availability of free-electrons
What types of materials emit light using electricity: those with a higher availability of free-electrons
What types of materials convert light to electricity: those with a higher availability of free-electrons
How do you generate a magnetic field: with an electrical current
In what type of material : those with a higher availability of free-electrons
Is light in any way affected by electric or magnetic fields?: No

Source of light emission: electrons
Speed of emission: c
Source of charge: electrons
Speed of electro-magnetic fields: c
How to generate E and B fields: electricity through a wire
Material used for wire: those with a higher availability of free-electrons
Materials to intercept and convert of light to electricity: those with a higher availability of free-electrons
Materials to conduct electricity: those with a higher availability of free-electrons
Is light in any way affected by electric or magnetic fields?: No

My addition to this mix is that I am unwilling to accept the unacceptable: action at a distance. If someone were to label this a bald assertion, then I would have no defence or argument with which to respond, since there would be no common ground for logical discourse. If anyone is happy to accept action at a distance as a scientific tool, then it is best for those persons to completely disregard my posts and papers, for it be will of no interest to them. My insistence that charge is emitted by electrons and not "carried" may be freely ignored by those content to accept action at a distance.

Having firmly established in my mind that action at a distance is the single most foolish and unscientific concept ever proposed in the history of human civilisation, I have proceeded to join the dots. Unfortunately, while attempting to join the dots to reveal a picture of the true fundamental nature of the universe, we do not have the benefit of having the dots numbered in sequence. As such, I have found it useful to engage with others who have a willingness to entertain alternative ideas, but at the same time, have a different set of experiences and perspectives. However, if you are unwilling to give space to dissenting or forcefully held opinions, then I am at your administrative mercy.

Michael

[Michael V]

Sparky,

How does magnetism work? The nuts and bolts of emitted quantum, "attracting" and "repelling"? How does that work?

I do know the answer to this. I am is the process of writing papers, which will include the explanation for magnetism - you will be surprised.

Sorry for my delay, I am a slow writer.

Michael

[Michael V]

saul,

Do consider that one can run a current though a wire, and one can oscillate the amount of current. In another wire some distance away this current oscillation will appear! This phenomenon is called "light" and has been extensively studied over an amazing range of frequencies. There is no other phenomenon that so perfectly obeys the linear wave equation over such a dynamic range.

The "current", or B-field, is emitted by free-electrons. The light, or photons, are emitted by free-electrons.

The receiving wire contains electrons, which "absorb" the photons, emit photons, align free-electrons and generate an electrical signal.

Quantum aether particles are absorbed and emitted by electrons.
Charge is the emissions of quantum aether particles.
Electro-magnetic fields, the result of the coherent emissions of mutually aligned free-electrons, are made of charge particles, which are quantum aether particles.
Photons are emitted by electrons are consist of, are made of, quantum aether particles.

All these electron emissions are quantum aether particles, the difference between charge (which is the basis of electrostatics and electro-magnetism) and photons (which are light) is a matter of the rate of of mutually vectored emission. As the electron spins, each successive individual charge particle is emitted with a slightly different vector.
The billions or trillions of charge particles emitted as a photon all have the same vector. The photon travels through the electro-magnetic field emissions with no, or at least no detectable, interaction because of their physical size and their composite structure.

Michael

[saul]

Charge is the emissions of quantum aether particles.

Charge, or rather charge density, is by definition the divergence of an electric field.
The electric field is the gradient of an electric potential, which can be defined mathematically as an aether pressure, though this pressure field is gauge invariant in that the pressure (potential) itself does not affect the equations only its gradient or difference from point to point in space.

The phenomenon you discuss are actually very well studied by generations of inquisitive and resourceful individuals. This doesn't mean they were right about everything, but you should read through some E&M texts to get up to speed with the vocabulary so as to improve the ability to discuss the topic.

If you want to understand the emission of light by free electrons read about Larmor's formula and Synchrotron and Bremsstrahlung emission. If you think free electrons are the only things responsible for electromagnetic effects consider the action in the N and P doped silicon in the transistors of your CPU or industrial applications of proton beams or read about ion beam propulsion.

Cheers-

[Solar]

Michael your bald assertions do not trump Don's expertise. You're addressing a Professor of Electrical Engineering with almost 4 decades of teaching experience, several books published including a 700+page textbook on the subject yet you yourself offer nothing but assertions backed by ... well ... nothing! You seem to have adopted very much a posture on this forum of "you're all wrong and I'm right because I say so". Please start treating your hosts with at least a little respect and find somewhere else to publish your thoughts.

Dave Smith.
Forum Administrator.

I don't think he understands that his 'lack of tact', lack of respect, and continued "forceful" ad hominem characterizations are the root of the problem as opposed to any ideas expressed. He also doesn’t realize that there isn’t a single idea mentioned in his reply to you that hasn’t been constructively discussed on this forum in one way or another over the years. Someone has had an epiphany and the rest of the world is going to know about it by golly. By his own hand I’m guessing he’ll be banned before ‘ere long and not have a clue as to why.

[Michael V]

saul,

thanks for that, I will be researching tout suite.

The first line of my previous post should have been:
"The "current", or B-field, is emitted by free-electrons. The light, or photons, are emitted by electrons."
rather than:
"The "current", or B-field, is emitted by free-electrons. The light, or photons, are emitted by free-electrons." (I was a bit free with the free)

With regard to electron emission of light, it is surely clear that all electrons emit photons. The environmental factors (i.e. gravity and charge) pertaining to any given electron will affect the photons that it emits - this is the basis of spectroscopy.

I am suspicious that you may be telepathic, as I have long considered that the emission of high mass (i.e. high energy) photons by free-electrons to be evidence that a high velocity through the quantum aether field, subjects the electrons to an increased quantum aether flux which is processed by the electrons as large photons - specifically Synchrotron x-rays. In order to slow (or brake) high velocity electrons they must be subjected to a high charge, i.e. an increased quantum aether particle flux, the result being Bremsstrahlung x-rays. In very extreme situations there may even be gamma rays, perhaps via a plasma jet and associated gamma ray burst. OK, I realise it's not always x-rays and gammas, but those scenarios are the most "illuminating".

I was not aware of the Larmor formula, but it is quite interesting, thanks.
P= e2 a2 / 6πε0 c3

via a small bit of substitution, we get:

P = α mq a2 / 8/3π (where mq is the mass of a quantum aether particle)

The Power radiated by an accelerating electron is given as: alpha (the electromagnetic quantum aether field density) times the mass of a quantum aether particle times the square of the acceleration all over 2 x 4/3π.

So, the power radiated by an accelerating electron is due to the density of the electromagnetic quantum aether field and the mass of the quantum aether particles and a function of the volume of space that the travelling electron describes, OR put another way: the power radiated by an accelerating electron is due to the amount of electromagnetic quantum aether field that it moves through - an increase in quantum particle flux results in an increase in photon emission.

Of course, the emission of photons is slightly off topic (Magnetism), but the point I hope is becoming clearer - both charge and photons are electron emissions. The charge, e, of an electron is a function of its presence in the electromagnetic quantum aether field. Photons are simply what electrons do to relieve the stress of an increased quantum flux.

The effects of magnetism and electricity occur only when there is a sufficient availability of free-electrons. Bound electrons are in a gravitational battle with the atomic nucleus - they are in orbit. Subject to an increased quantum flux they will accumulate additional quantum mass until the point is reached that their gravitational environment allows them to emit a photon - dropping an energy level and emitting a photon - energy is of course simply a function of mass and velocity. Free-electrons, alleviated of the constant gravitational abuse of the nucleus, will, when subjected to a sustained impact of charge emissions from other free-electrons, react by turning either face-on or edge-on, as though they were spinning disc shaped - they will align. With many many of the available free-electrons aligned, the affects of their combined, coherent charge emissions can be detected as electric and magnetic fields.

Michael

[Michael V]

saul,

Ion beam propulsion : Ions accelerated by electrostatic or electromagnetic forces.

In terms of the mechanism of forces: electrostatic is electromagnetic is magnetic - Ion beam thrusters use magnetism.

Michael

[Michael V]

saul,

If you think free electrons are the only things responsible for electromagnetic effects consider the action in the N and P doped silicon in the transistors of your CPU or industrial applications of proton beams or read about ion beam propulsion.

Ignore my previous post for now. It is not wrong, but....

Michael

[Lloyd]

HOW MAGNETISM WORKS MECHANICALLY
http://milesmathis.com/magnet.html
* First, Mathis theorizes that the charge field is photons, which are sucked in and sprayed out equatorially by electrons and protons etc, which are themselves made of photons. Here's how Mathis explains magnetism.

Torque ... is a tangential or orthogonal force. In this case, tangential and orthogonal both just mean the force is at a right angle. If we let our spinning object [i.e. photon] travel, a force at the forwardmost point on the [photon] will be orthogonal to the line of motion. Since [a photon] moving forward would be most likely to hit another particle at or near the forwardmost point, [the photon] moving forward is most likely to transmit angular momentum as an orthogonal force. This is why the magnetic field is orthogonal to the electrical field. One is caused by linear motion, and the other is caused by the spin on the particle in linear motion. The forward motion of the photon causes the electrical force or field, the spin of the photon causes the magnetic force or field.

* Here's an illustration for that.
http://i573.photobucket.com/albums/ss18 ... tism-1.jpg

* (1) Spinning photon A moves at c=lightspeed approaching photon B at or near rest (part of the charge field); (2) Both photons collide; (3) photon B moves to the right; photon A continues straight ahead, because of momentum and other photons on a parallel path. Photon A is part of the electric force and B is part of the magnetic force.
* See the link above for more details.

[Michael V]

Lloyd,

Since [a photon] moving forward would be most likely to hit another particle at or near the forward-most point,

That's most likely as in 1 chance in 180 (degrees) in both the x and y axis. 180:1 does not really correlate to "most likely".

[the photon] moving forward is most likely to transmit angular momentum as an orthogonal force.

"Most likely" again, but that's making a rather large assumption about the frictional properties of these particles and also it relies on Newton's Third Law turning a blind eye.

photon A continues straight ahead, because of momentum and other photons on a parallel path

So despite a "most likely" direct collision, the moving particle suffers absolutely no deviation of its course and no loss of linear momentum....remarkable, I wonder what the world would be like if real objects behaved in that manner.


I think it most likely that all the objects in the entire universe have no choice than to operate by unavoidable laws of motion.

Michael

[Michael V]

I am suggesting that the pattern of emission from an electron "in disc mode" would be something like this: Charge particles emitted from the spinning circumference of the electron in all directions in the plane of the electron disc.

Disc mode is the affect of being subject to charge emitted by other charge emitting particles - other electrons and protons. Normally, subject only to the quantum aether field that continually "supplies and consumes" the charge particles, the electron will tumble radially and well as spinning axially, resulting is a spherical distribution of charge with no net force vectors. Disc mode is electro-magnetic mode.

Electron 1, emitting in a 360degree circle, Electron 2 at 90degrees to E1 emitting in a 360degree circle and Electron 3 an 45degrees to E1 and E2 emitting in a 360degree circle. Of the 1080 directions of emission of these three electrons, 1074 directions are all different in 3D space, but 6 will be exactly along the z-axis. So 360 planes of emission (180 different planes of emission) times 360 degrees is 129,600 directions of emission (64,800 different directions of emission). For every 4 charge particles that go exactly up or down the y-axis exactly along the x-axis, there will be 720 that travel exactly along the z-axis (360 in each direction). The z-axis will be 180 times more popular than any other line of emission. So the E-field in an electrical wire is 180 times stronger along the length of the wire than in any other given direction.

A bar magnet emits 90 times more charge from each pole than from any equivalent area of the magnet. And the pole emissions will be considerably more coherent than from other surfaces. Although very crude, I would say that this gives a reasonable idea of the true field of a bar magnet:

This diagram might be more familiar as a description of a magnet's "field":

Obviously, as we should know well by now, the field lines do not actually exist, also they are NOT a true representation of the field around the magnet. The "curvy field" diagram is a map of the vector forces of interaction between the magnet and a magnetisable object placed in the magnets emitted field. But it is not just the object reacting to the emitted field. The object becomes a magnet for the duration of its exposure to the emitted magnetic field, so it too will emit a magnetic field, which affects the field emitted by the magnet, which affects the field emitted by the object. An object placed in the emitted field of the magnet, and the magnet itself, mutually interact and a force vector is the result.

Just to repeat for clarity and emphasis:

The field emitted by a bar magnet is the emission of sub-particles (i.e. charge particles) from aligned electrons. The charge particles move away from the magnet at c in straight lines, with a coherent concentration of emission at the poles.

The familiar curved field diagram is not the actual field of the magnet - the emitted field is in no way a circuital curve from pole to pole. Instead, the curved lines diagram is a map of the force vectors of interaction between the magnet and other magnetisable objects.

Michael

[Sparky]

hmmmmm, explain the apparent attraction or repulsion between two magnets....ie a N pole will be attracted to a S pole and repulsed by a N pole...If aether is being emitted at both poles, what makes the difference...

[seasmith]

'designer electrons'

"One of the wildest things we did was to make the electrons think they are in a huge magnetic field when, in fact, no real field had been applied,"Manoharan said.... to make its electrons believe they were being exposed to magnetic fields ranging from zero to 60 Tesla, more than 30 percent higher than the strongest continuous magnetic field ever achieved on Earth.

Their first examples, reported today in Nature ("Designer Dirac fermions and topological phases in molecular graphene"), were hand-crafted, honeycomb-shaped structures inspired by graphene, a pure form of carbon that has been widely heralded for its potential in future electronics. Initially, the electrons in this structure had graphene-like properties; for example, unlike ordinary electrons, they had no mass and traveled as if they were moving at the speed of light in a vacuum.

To tune the electrons' properties, the researchers repositioned the carbon monoxide molecules on the surface; this changed the symmetry of the electron flow

http://dx.doi.org/doi:10.1038/nature10941

http://www.nanowerk.com/news/newsid=245 ... oo%21+Mail

[Michael V]

seasmith,

That they are able to construct useful materials is a good thing. However, this sort of nonsense theoretical description needs to be put in a box labelled "Poo". Is this tabloidesque journalism or are the scientists themselves deluded?

Initially, the electrons in this structure had graphene-like properties

The electrons had the properties of graphene? Surely graphene is a complex atomic/molecular structure!
Somehow the atomic/molecular structure "holds" the electrons in a particular orientation/alignment which gives the material(s) certain properties.

I wonder if thousands of years ago, some bloke found a piece of magnetic iron and turned to his buddy and said "look I've tuned the electrons in this piece of metal".

Michael

[seasmith]

Magnetic Domains

In experiments, Dr Branford applied an electrical current across a continuous honeycomb mesh, made from cobalt magnetic bars each 1 micrometer long and 100 nanometres wide, and covering an area 100 square micrometers (as pictured). A single unit of the honeycomb mesh is like three bar magnets meeting in the centre of a triangle. There is no way to arrange them without having either two north poles or two south poles touching and repelling each other, this is called a 'frustrated' magnetic system. In a single triangular unit there are six ways to arrange the magnets such that they have exactly the same level of frustration, and as you increase the number of triangular units in the honeycomb, the number of possible arrangements of magnets increases exponentially, increasing the complexity of possible patterns.

Previous studies have shown that external magnetic fields can cause the magnetic domain of each bar to change state. This in turn affects the interaction between that bar and its two neighbouring bars in the honeycomb, and it is this pattern of magnetic states that Dr Branford says could be computer data.

So just try to get that "reconnection" crap out of the head and consider "merge & diverge' for a moment. This is like an extensions of '50's technologies, and should be second nature to EU aficionados


http://www.nanowerk.com/news/newsid=251 ... oo%21+Mail