## Magnetism: Form, Structure, & Dynamics

Beyond the boundaries of established science an avalanche of exotic ideas compete for our attention. Experts tell us that these ideas should not be permitted to take up the time of working scientists, and for the most part they are surely correct. But what about the gems in the rubble pile? By what ground-rules might we bring extraordinary new possibilities to light?

Moderators: MGmirkin, bboyer

### Re: Recovered: Magnetism: Form, Structure, & Dynamics

MGmirkin
Posted: Sun Feb 10, 2008 7:26 pm Post subject: Reply with quote
One other thing I might note, and I'm not sure what bearing it has on the overall model, is that the magnetic field lines image reminds me more of a magnetic quadrupole than a magnetic dipole field. Insofar as one has ostensible north poles pointing outward along one axis, and south poles pointing out ward along another. Rather than the usual north / south duality along a single axis (say north is up and south is down or north is right and south is left).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dipole
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Dipole.jpg
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Dipole_field.jpg

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Magn ... moment.svg

An interesting quote from the "Dipole" article:

Quote:
An electric dipole is a separation of positive and negative charge. The simplest example of this is a pair of electric charges of equal magnitude but opposite sign, separated by some, usually small, distance. A permanent electric dipole is called an electret.

By contrast, a magnetic dipole is a closed circulation of electric current. A simple example of this is a single loop of wire with some constant current flowing through it.

I'm amazed the things I can find and learn on the fly! Smile

The above reminds me of the electromagnetic field article referenced elsewhere on the forum:

Wikipedia wrote:
The electromagnetic field is a physical field produced by electrically charged objects. It affects the behaviour of charged objects in the vicinity of the field.

[...]

The field can be viewed as the combination of an electric field and a magnetic field. The electric field is produced by stationary charges, and the magnetic field by moving charges (currents); these two are often described as the sources of the field. The way in which charges and currents interact with the electromagnetic field is described by Maxwell's equations and the Lorentz Force Law.

To connect the dots:

Where the electromagnetic field article talks of electric charges being the source of the electromagnetic field, the dipole article speaks of the electric dipole simply being a separation of electric charges.

Where the electromagnetic field article speaks of electric currents being the source of the magnetic field, the dipole article talks of the magnetic dipole being the result of a closed circulation of electric current (circuit).
The illusion from which we are seeking to extricate ourselves is not that constituted by the realm of space and time, but that which comes from failing to know that realm from the standpoint of a higher vision. -L.H.

StefanR

Posts: 1371
Joined: Sun Mar 16, 2008 8:31 pm
Location: Amsterdam

### Re: Recovered: Magnetism: Form, Structure, & Dynamics

Arc-us
Posted: Sun Feb 10, 2008 8:52 pm Post subject: Reply with quote
mgmirken on Pg 7 wrote:
<snip>

[6] If there is a "void" in the center of the PKE-Nefedov plasma experiment (there seems to be a dearth of "force lines" in the center of the magnetic fields diagram as well {?}), with a sharp layer (double-layer, perhaps?) dividing the plasma void from surrounding material, does this imply that the center of the sun or other bodies might in fact be either hollow or less dense than its outer layers? What would this mean for the "nuclear fusion" model of the sun, if even remotely correct?
[7] If the sun is "gravitationally bound" and/or compressed, would the void in the center still be that compressed oval/ellipsoid, or would it be circular, as the sun is?

NOAO Newsletter - NOAO Highlights! - December 1997 - Number 52 wrote:

The Sun is Oblate
Measurements of the shape of the Sun, and in particular the solar oblateness, have been published and debated for nearly a century. An unexpected capability of the Michelson Doppler Imager aboard the Solar and Heliospheric Observatory (SoHO) has been the ability to precisely determine the solar limb shape and brightness. The stable thermal environment of the SoHO experiment at the L1 Earth-Sun Lagrange point has allowed NSO scientists, in collaboration with Stanford and Lockheed experiment PIs, to obtain the most accurate measurement of the solar oblateness and hexadecapole shape terms. From an experiment performed last March where the SoHO spacecraft was rotated in fixed angular increments around the telescope axis, the difference between solar equatorial and polar radii associated with the static oblateness was derived to be 8.07 � 0.58 milliarcsec. For the first time a significant hexadecapole (l = 4) solar shape distortion of 1.4 � 0.54 milliarcsec was also determined. The measured oblateness tends to rule out the possibility of a rapidly rotating solar core although it is not yet clear if the derived hexadecapole shape is consistent with "standard solar models." An extra bonus from the solar limb astrometry experiment has been a precise determination of solar latitudinal color temperature variations. The March experiment also confirmed earlier ground-based experiments that indicated that the solar photosphere is about 1 degree hotter near the poles and equator than it is near mid latitudes.

http://www.noao.edu/noao/noaonews/dec97/node2.html

So, perhaps the solar core (of whatever "size") may not only not be rapidly rotating but is an oblate void/cavity as well. As good a model as any, I think.

Not sure what a "hexadecapole" is but it seems to be a purely mathematically-derived description of "multipole moments". Everything turned up by Google - well, as far as I went - were mathematical papers in the field of, I guess, nuclear physics. Wa-a-y over my head.

But prior to finding the above NOAO article, I ran across a forum post from someone in India who remarked, "oval, hexagon, clearly round, which one? the old people said that sun's shape is having 6 sides. so what do you think about shape of the sun, or it is just looks like as seen through the telescope." It was summarily dismissed, but I wondered about who these "old people" were. Unfortunately, there were only 3 short posts to the thread and no further discussion about the remark. Off-Topic EDIT:: Ah. Idea Mayhaps, the ... old ... the true ... sun. With its polar hex still alive and well. Doh! Now where's that mythology forum?
The illusion from which we are seeking to extricate ourselves is not that constituted by the realm of space and time, but that which comes from failing to know that realm from the standpoint of a higher vision. -L.H.

StefanR

Posts: 1371
Joined: Sun Mar 16, 2008 8:31 pm
Location: Amsterdam

### Re: Recovered: Magnetism: Form, Structure, & Dynamics

MGmirkin
Posted: Sun Feb 10, 2008 9:07 pm Post subject: Illustrative diagrams of dipole, quadrupole, etc. Reply with quote
Seems there's perhaps some confusion over what lines up where. Let's try for some clarity, perhaps?

Time for a meet & greet with some visuals. Might as well plop down a few images of note with respect to magnetic fields, electric fields, dipoles, quadrupoles, etc.

(Electric current)

(Current and magnetic field direction follow the right hand rule.)

(Dipole arrangement; shows charges and field lines.)

(Quadrupole arrangement; shows alternating charges and field lines.)

(Four magnets arranged in order to illustrate the typical quadrupole arrangement.)

(Image of cubic magnet's field lines from "The Secret World of Magnets" by Howard Johnson.)

(Image of the Alfven solar circuit diagram.)

(Image of the plasma cavity, and apparent quadrupole configuration of the dusty plasma experiment PKE-Nefedov aboard the ISS.)

Now, it seems to me that if one looks at the quadrupole magnets diagram, and then looks at the image from "Secret World of Magnets," one sees that the field lines appear to line up, such that we can identify the field lines diagram as a quadrupole. Which makes sense when looking at the actual quadrupole charges diagram that shows the "charge" and related field lines. If one then refers to the solar circuit diagram, it looks like the secondary currents align with the direction of the quadrupole field lines. Which kind of makes sense, when you think about it. Charges tend to follow field lines. Keeping in mind that those quadrupole field lines have to have a source current. I'd assume those sources would be northern and southern hemisphere ring currents (donuts of current lying above and below the equatorial plane).
The illusion from which we are seeking to extricate ourselves is not that constituted by the realm of space and time, but that which comes from failing to know that realm from the standpoint of a higher vision. -L.H.

StefanR

Posts: 1371
Joined: Sun Mar 16, 2008 8:31 pm
Location: Amsterdam

### Re: Recovered: Magnetism: Form, Structure, & Dynamics

MGmirkin
Posted: Sun Feb 10, 2008 9:42 pm Post subject: Re: magnetism- form and structure Reply with quote
SeaSmith wrote:
If this 2D slice were viewed as a 3D object, wouldn't there be SIX "vortices" zones; to incorporate the axial [or poloidal] resolution of the toroidal field lines ?
[Recall all those TOKAMAK 3D illustrations from the Plasmoids threads].

Well, I'd think that if you were to rotate the 2D image around the vertical axis, you would get a 3D image with two convecting "donuts." (The poloidal field electrically "convecting" around the surface of the donut(s), along the field lines set up by the toroidal current flow inside the donut(s))?

Hope that makes sense? That's how I'm generally visualizing this... Seems to make sense with the Alfven circuit diagram, assuming it's close to accurate?

Though I'm still wrestling with whether the sun is dipolar or quadrupolar. The Alfven circuit diagram seem to indicate a quadrupolar configuration.

So, I guess that dipole vs. quadrupole is an open question in the grand scheme of things... Can it only be one or the other? Or can it be more complex and have aspects of both? (I don't know if that would make sense to me).

Though I recall an article regarding "two north poles" on the sun. Let me see if I can find it. Not sure how that fits into the whole shebang...

Yes, that's the one. It seems to me that at that point, when the sun had two north poles, it was in a magnetic quadrupole configuration.

Hmm, interesting... So, it's much as though the sun is usually in a more normal dipolar mode, but occasionally one of the magnets in the "quadrupole magnet" diagram gets flipped in the opposite direction. So, what does that mean for the overall scenario? Still trying to wrap my head around this... It's almost like some of the parts are on an ebb and flow cycle? Occasionally, the flow reverses on one or both pole(s), then reverts to the normal flow, or flips completely?
The illusion from which we are seeking to extricate ourselves is not that constituted by the realm of space and time, but that which comes from failing to know that realm from the standpoint of a higher vision. -L.H.

StefanR

Posts: 1371
Joined: Sun Mar 16, 2008 8:31 pm
Location: Amsterdam

### Re: Recovered: Magnetism: Form, Structure, & Dynamics

MGmirkin
Posted: Sun Feb 10, 2008 10:04 pm Post subject: Reply with quote
Krackonis wrote:
Your right I could be confusing Magnetic lines for electric lines, but I'm over my head a bit here anyways ;P

Yeah, I know the feeling. Might be that magnetic lines will lead to additional electric lines, if charged particles follow the magnetic lines. Might be an iterative process?

Consider what I've noted in my later post(s). It may be that the initial current flow along the poles, induces a magnetic field around the axis, according to the right hand rule. However, with rotation, you might also get ring current(s) in that magnetic field. But, that ring current(s) would produce secondary magnetic field(s), according to the "right hand rule." You might then also get currents that follow those secondary magnetic fields... Which would create yet more tertiary magnetic fields?

Hence the [at least] two sets of currents shown in the Alfven diagram. The primaries at the poles, but also the secondaries that appear to [electrically] convect in the quadrants defined by the primary current axis and the equatorial plane. It's those secondary convections (poloidal circuits), that I think match up to the quadrupole magnetic field lines from the original image(s) with the 4 charges / vortices / whatever you want to call them.

Hope that's clear now, sort of.

Of course, now I've piqued my own interest in how and when the sun enters the quadrupole state versus the dipole state... As, I think it's most often in a dipole state, rather than a quadrupole?

But, isn't a Faraday disk basically a quadrupole configuration, for all intents and purposes? IE, you have current flow in that the poles. But if both are conventional current, does that mean that both poles adopt the same "sign" so to speak (both north, or both south)? Or does the fact that they're coming from opposite directions, with the same "sign" mean that they would be considered opposite poles magnetically? I'm still a little confused on that one.

Something of a learning curve...
The illusion from which we are seeking to extricate ourselves is not that constituted by the realm of space and time, but that which comes from failing to know that realm from the standpoint of a higher vision. -L.H.

StefanR

Posts: 1371
Joined: Sun Mar 16, 2008 8:31 pm
Location: Amsterdam

### Re: Recovered: Magnetism: Form, Structure, & Dynamics

*****will be continued****
The illusion from which we are seeking to extricate ourselves is not that constituted by the realm of space and time, but that which comes from failing to know that realm from the standpoint of a higher vision. -L.H.

StefanR

Posts: 1371
Joined: Sun Mar 16, 2008 8:31 pm
Location: Amsterdam

### Re: Recovered: Magnetism: Form, Structure, & Dynamics

Seasmith
Posted: Sun Feb 10, 2008 10:46 pm Post subject: Re: magnetism- form and structure Reply with quote
SeaSmith wrote:
<snip>
Or in crystal view, simply two pyramids stuck base-to-base.
Hexagon like...

~@s

Okay, well now I see where you were coming from with that one (6 vortices ... the image below you posted in the "Greatest Mystery: What Causes Gravity" thread). Seems I recall from years ago, I site I ran across that showed how the hexagon form can be seen in the octahedron by simply adjusting the viewpoint, ie rotating the octahedron to a different perspective and the hexagon pops out. Something like that. The Red Square and Red Rectangle Nebulae/Galaxies probably shows basic octahedron "geo"metry.

The illusion from which we are seeking to extricate ourselves is not that constituted by the realm of space and time, but that which comes from failing to know that realm from the standpoint of a higher vision. -L.H.

StefanR

Posts: 1371
Joined: Sun Mar 16, 2008 8:31 pm
Location: Amsterdam

### Re: Recovered: Magnetism: Form, Structure, & Dynamics

Ik
Posted: Sun Feb 10, 2008 10:49 pm Post subject: Reply with quote
What's Energy? Do magnetism and gravity involve energy?
The Final Theory

http://www.thefinaltheory.com/scienceflaws.html
Does anyone know what the so-called Final Theory has to say about magnetism? Below is a hint from the website, but not very revealing. I suppose the author would reason that energy is not actually involved, either in a magnet clinging to a surface supposedly against the force of gravity, or in the so-called force of gravity itself. He says the answer, I think, is in the structure of atoms. Does anyone know what his answer is? What little I've read of his theory at the website seems very well-reasoned and likely disproves much of conventional science. But his theory does seem to have flaws. Although he argues against a big bang or expanding universe, dark matter or dark energy, he does seem to consider black holes real and seems to consider redshift of quasar light as a measure of distance, which Arp and Thornhill seem to have soundly disproven.
Quote:
a permanent magnet not only maintains its strength indefinitely (no theory or text- book shows the power drain characteristics of a permanent magnet as it clings against the pull of gravity), but there isn’t even a power source in sight! Endless magnetic energy apparently emanates from permanent magnets without any explanation in our science. The only explanation that any physicist will give for this mystery is that ... the magnet isn't moving, which gives a zero result if you plug this into the Work equation – a severely flawed diversionary tactic that was exposed above [re no work supposedly done by gravity either]. No physicist will acknowledge the error of applying the Work equation to deny the ongoing magnetic energy expenditure, nor agree that a power source is required to cling energetically against gravity.
==> These mysteries and law violations are resolved in Chapter 4, where a totally overlooked and misunderstood subatomic principle is revealed!

How do heavy objects rest on a table without its molecules giving way, collapsing the table? Science has no viable explanation for this today. This mystery is similar to the mystery of the fridge magnet. Atomic bonds are said to result from electromagnetic energy attracting and holding atoms together. Yet, there is no denying that tremendous ongoing energy expenditure is required to hold the structure of a table together under the weight of a heavy object. Where does this energy come from? How quickly does this subatomic power source drain as it expends all this energy? Today's science has no explanation for this everyday occurrence, so such questions are never discussed.
==> This mystery and clear violation of the laws of physics is explained in Chapter 4.

How can freezing water expand, even bursting metal pipes, with no energy input to explain it? According to today's science, this is impossible. Every output of energy requires a balancing energy input in order to remain within our laws of physics. A balloon left in the sun will expand and burst, in the process doing work against the surrounding atmosphere and its elastic skin, which is balanced by the energy input from the sun, so it is no mystery. However, freezing water has no energy input -- in fact, just the opposite. Energy continually drains from the water as it cools toward freezing. So, how does the water suddenly expand with such force from within that it easily bursts metal pipes? No solid answers to this mystery can be found from today's scientists
==> This mystery is solved in Chapter 4 via the new atomic and subatomic principles.
The illusion from which we are seeking to extricate ourselves is not that constituted by the realm of space and time, but that which comes from failing to know that realm from the standpoint of a higher vision. -L.H.

StefanR

Posts: 1371
Joined: Sun Mar 16, 2008 8:31 pm
Location: Amsterdam

### Re: Recovered: Magnetism: Form, Structure, & Dynamics

Arc-us
Posted: Sun Feb 10, 2008 11:23 pm Post subject: Reply with quote
Hmm, not bad. Borrowed from a posting by zeus in this thread LINK: Pg 14 of Iron Sun Theories.

LINK: Hollow Planet Seismology Vs Solid Earth Seismology By Jan Lamprecht
http://www.hollowplanets.com/journal/Seismic01.asp

Although, shouldn't his model "squish" the earth into its oblate shape? Don't know if that would make any difference or not. But I like his model as supportive of the idea of vibratory, resonant void/cavity-substance thing I have going on. Cool
The illusion from which we are seeking to extricate ourselves is not that constituted by the realm of space and time, but that which comes from failing to know that realm from the standpoint of a higher vision. -L.H.

StefanR

Posts: 1371
Joined: Sun Mar 16, 2008 8:31 pm
Location: Amsterdam

### Re: Recovered: Magnetism: Form, Structure, & Dynamics

Seasmith
Posted: Mon Feb 11, 2008 12:53 am Post subject: Reply with quote

Images of Quadrupole, Ellipse and Hexadecapole shapes are compared on page 2 of this document:

http://www.eng.yale.edu/images/ArticlPD ... AMATIC.PDF

~
The illusion from which we are seeking to extricate ourselves is not that constituted by the realm of space and time, but that which comes from failing to know that realm from the standpoint of a higher vision. -L.H.

StefanR

Posts: 1371
Joined: Sun Mar 16, 2008 8:31 pm
Location: Amsterdam

### Re: Recovered: Magnetism: Form, Structure, & Dynamics

Arc-us
Posted: Mon Feb 11, 2008 1:02 am Post subject:
Yes, that was one I'd seen. Again, way out of my depth with the technology and math. Though one of the leading sentences sounded intriguing: "Recent experiments on similarly shaped polymer microcavity lasers show a dramatic difference in the far-field emission patterns."
The illusion from which we are seeking to extricate ourselves is not that constituted by the realm of space and time, but that which comes from failing to know that realm from the standpoint of a higher vision. -L.H.

StefanR

Posts: 1371
Joined: Sun Mar 16, 2008 8:31 pm
Location: Amsterdam

### Re: Recovered: Magnetism: Form, Structure, & Dynamics

Seasmith
Posted: Mon Feb 11, 2008 1:33 am Post subject: magnetism flux vortex hexagon Reply with quote
RC,

I was simply alluding abve to the fact that- going fron a 2D x,y representation of an EM field (like a tomography 'slice')
to the 3D x,y,z model
we naturally go from 4 sides / vertices, to 6 " " ".

The TOKAMAK computer generated illustrations are way better than was ever done by hand sketch.

They very nicely integrate the Toroidal, Helical and Poloidal flux lines, or Vortices {in geometry- Vertices}.

My poorly described "planar change" ( from figure-eight to Lissajous, re MilleniumTwain ) are inherent to any 'real-time' or 4D flux field representation, IMO

Hexogonal propogation ??
The illusion from which we are seeking to extricate ourselves is not that constituted by the realm of space and time, but that which comes from failing to know that realm from the standpoint of a higher vision. -L.H.

StefanR

Posts: 1371
Joined: Sun Mar 16, 2008 8:31 pm
Location: Amsterdam

### Re: Recovered: Magnetism: Form, Structure, & Dynamics

Junglelord
Posted: Mon Feb 11, 2008 7:27 pm Post subject: Reply with quote
Here is a new find on the existance of magnetic monopoles.

Quote:
The lack of symmetry between electric and magnetic fields is one of the oldest puzzles in physics. Why is it possible to isolate positive and negative electric charges, but not north and south magnetic poles? Dirac linked the existence of magnetic monopoles with the quantization of electric charge - another puzzle that is still not fully understood

Tokura and co-workers placed a high-quality crystal made of strontium, ruthenium and oxygen in a magnetic field that pointed in the z direction, and then measured the transverse resistivity – the resistivity in the y direction - as a current flowed in the x direction. They found that the resistivity did not change linearly with temperature, as expected, but varied non-monotonously and even changed sign.

The researchers also measured the transverse optical conductivity of a thin film of the crystal using a technique known as high-resolution Kerr microscopy and found a sharp peak at low energies. According to Tokura and co-workers, this peak can only be explained by the presence of monopoles in the band structure of the crystal.

http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/news/18338

I thought that was interesting because the Wilbert Smith group of today are working with scalar waves and crystals at low energies. How ever it should be clear from the work of Howard Johnson why a magnetic monopole is not something we normally find isolate due to the dual N/S spiral vortex in each pole. But we can cancel out one of the two spin elements and therefore come spintronics from monopole conditions. Howard has the N fields assisting each other in the arrangement he showed of square magnets. What Johnson does in effect is a true monopole effect, correct?

Magnetic Monopoles as Solitons. Of course this is a good model because of the scalar soliton. But the atomic model is not a vortex duel.
Quote:

magnetic monopoles appear as soliton solutions in certain field theories.
The paper concludes with brief comments on S duality.
monopole is that it has not been observed experimentally.
Nevertheless, as Ed Witten once asserted in his Loeb Lecture
at Harvard, almost all theoretical physicists believe in
the existence of magnetic monopoles, or at least hope that
there is one. There was an upsurge of interest in the subject
in 1970s and 1980s for several compelling reasons.The
study of magnetic monopoles has brought together many
seemingly unrelated concepts in physics through the fascinating
notion of duality. Duality is a symmetry that relates
two distinct theories in such a way that they describe the
same physics. Descriptions of magnetic monopoles in the
modern physics lead to the strong/weak coupling duality

http://www.hcs.harvard.edu/~jus/0302/song.pdf

When you read the modern models of the atom you do not get the same ideas as when you introduce vortex duals as elementary particles.
http://magnetism.otc.co.nz/Theory.htm
The illusion from which we are seeking to extricate ourselves is not that constituted by the realm of space and time, but that which comes from failing to know that realm from the standpoint of a higher vision. -L.H.

StefanR

Posts: 1371
Joined: Sun Mar 16, 2008 8:31 pm
Location: Amsterdam

### Re: Recovered: Magnetism: Form, Structure, & Dynamics

Arc-us
Posted: Mon Feb 11, 2008 8:03 pm Post subject: Reply with quote
junglelord wrote:
Here is a new find on the existance of magnetic monopoles.

Quote:
The lack of symmetry between electric and magnetic fields is one of the oldest puzzles in physics. Why is it possible to isolate positive and negative electric charges, but not north and south magnetic poles? Dirac linked the existence of magnetic monopoles with the quantization of electric charge - another puzzle that is still not fully understood

Tokura and co-workers placed a high-quality crystal made of strontium, ruthenium and oxygen in a magnetic field that pointed in the z direction, and then measured the transverse resistivity – the resistivity in the y direction - as a current flowed in the x direction. They found that the resistivity did not change linearly with temperature, as expected, but varied non-monotonously and even changed sign.

The researchers also measured the transverse optical conductivity of a thin film of the crystal using a technique known as high-resolution Kerr microscopy and found a sharp peak at low energies. According to Tokura and co-workers, this peak can only be explained by the presence of monopoles in the band structure of the crystal.

http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/news/18338

I thought that was interesting because the Wilbert Smith group of today are working with scalar waves and crystals at low energies. How ever it should be clear from the work of Howard Johnson why a magnetic monopole is not something we find isolate due to the dual N/S spiral vortex in each pole. But we can cancel out one of the two spin elements and therefore come spintronics but not from monopole conditions. Howard has the N fields assisting each other in the arrangement he showed of square magnets. Is that not correct? [I think it is - @rc-us] Or is what Johnson does in effect a true monopole?

1) Re Tokura et al. I think they are mistaken in their interpretation of what they are experiencing. [EDIT]: Part of their starting premise is "Why is it possible to isolate positive and negative electric charges, but not north and south magnetic poles?" [/EDIT] Outside the realm of imagination I don't think purely separated positive and negative charges can be achieved. Doesn't make sense to me at all. Like with Johnson's magnetic pole topology I suspect there is probably similar topology with "charge" topology (and very important, I think, not to discount the voided center, layers, or boundaries - depending on the visualization methods e.g. topological vs 2d or 3d modeling, whatever). I'm still trying to conceptualize this and it may be complete nonsense, so I just don't know where I'm going with this yet.

2) I think your last sentence is appropos, especially "in effect." Even without fully grasping the fundamental principles, and even often completely mistating and misinterpreting them, the mind is terrific at demonstrating its cleverness and ingenuity in designing applications for observed relative effects. Johnson's magnetic motor is an excellent example of this imo. I don't think there ever was, ever will be, a perfectly isolated monopole nor monocharge. Not in this universe. Rolling Eyes But I think the apparent effect of one could be engineered. But what do I know. Embarassed Smile
The illusion from which we are seeking to extricate ourselves is not that constituted by the realm of space and time, but that which comes from failing to know that realm from the standpoint of a higher vision. -L.H.

StefanR

Posts: 1371
Joined: Sun Mar 16, 2008 8:31 pm
Location: Amsterdam

### Re: Recovered: Magnetism: Form, Structure, & Dynamics

MGmirkin
Posted: Tue Feb 12, 2008 2:46 am Post subject: Reply with quote
@rc-us wrote:
1) Re Tokura et al. I think they are mistaken in their interpretation of what they are experiencing. Outside the realm of imagination I don't think purely separated positive and negative charges can be achieved. Doesn't make sense to me at all.

Do you mean "electric charges," as in the elementary charges on electrons and protons?

Or do you mean "magnetic charges," the theoretical "magnetic monopoles?"

It seems to me that somehow the definition of the things and their progenitors should give some clue as to what's going on...?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electromagnetic_field

Quote:
The electromagnetic field is a physical field produced by electrically charged objects. It affects the behaviour of charged objects in the vicinity of the field.

[...]

The field can be viewed as the combination of an electric field and a magnetic field. The electric field is produced by stationary charges, and the magnetic field by moving charges (currents); these two are often described as the sources of the field. The way in which charges and currents interact with the electromagnetic field is described by Maxwell's equations and the Lorentz Force Law.

Whereas the magnetic field article has the following to say:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magnetic_field

Quote:
"Gauss's law for magnetism" states that the magnetic field is solenoidal (has zero divergence). This is equivalent to the simple statement that, in any field-line depiction of a magnetic field, the field lines cannot have starting or ending points; they must form a closed loop [...]

----------

Brain flash:

Of course Magnetic monopoles can't exist! Magnetic fields MUST be closed circuits. It's the same reason why "magnetic reconnection" is bogus!

Good GOD, it's so simple, if we assume that magnetic fields must be closed loops (closed circuits, so to speak)!

Let me back up.

I was thinking, how do we define a magnetic field, typically? Well, we draw the field lines.

(The Earth's magnetic field, which is approximately a dipole. However, the "N" and "S" (north and south) poles are labeled here geographically, which is the opposite of the convention for labeling the poles of a magnetic dipole moment.)

What do we notice about the field lines? They appear to sprout from the north side, and curve around back into the south side, forming a "closed circuit" (so to speak).

There's always a "north" (outflowing, if you want to think of it that way) and a "south" (inflowing, again, if you want to think of it that way).

However, if we make the assumption that magnetic fields must be "closed loops," then magnetic monopoles would be a bit nonsensical, I think. Essentially, one would be saying that a particle ONLY allows for unidirectional flow. That seems to be inconsistent with the notion of "zero divergence."

IE, *if a magnetic field is non-zero* it will form a closed loop. There will always be two opposite poles, one for the "inflow" and one for the "outflow."

Not to mention that the definition of the electromagnetic field states that magnetic fields are derived from the net flow of like charge in like direction (current). And the magnetic dipole is formed through currents through closed circuits.

The dipole article had the following to say:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dipole

Quote:
An electric dipole is a separation of positive and negative charge. The simplest example of this is a pair of electric charges of equal magnitude but opposite sign, separated by some, usually small, distance. A permanent electric dipole is called an electret.

By contrast, a magnetic dipole is a closed circulation of electric current. A simple example of this is a single loop of wire with some constant current flowing through it.

So, how exactly would one propose to create a magnetic monopole, if the definition of the magnetic dipole includes a closed circulation of current? No closed circulation of current, no magnetic field. Open circuit = no current circulation. You do the math!

http://www.wordwebonline.com/en/OPENCIRCUIT
http://www.audioenglish.net/dictionary/open_circuit.htm
http://dictionary.die.net/open%20circuit
http://wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn ... %20circuit
Quote:
open circuit
n : an incomplete electrical circuit in which no current flows
[ant: closed circuit]

http://www.electricmotorwarehouse.com/Glossary.htm
Quote:
A break in an electrical circuit that prevents normal current flow.

http://www.autobodyexpert.com/cons_info ... _terms.htm
Quote:
Break or open condition in an electric circuit that interrupts current flow.

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/open+circuit
Quote:
An electric circuit in which the normal path of current has been interrupted, either by the disconnection of one part of its conducting pathway from another, or by the intervention of an electric component, such as a transistor. Compare closed circuit.

Quote:
Sci-Tech Dictionary wrote:
(electricity) An electric circuit that has been broken, so that there is no complete path for current flow.

Sci-Tech Encyclopedia: wrote:
A condition in an electric circuit in which there is no path for current between two points; examples are a broken wire and a switch in the open, or off, position. See also Circuit (electricity) ...

wrote:
Architecture: Open Circuit
A discontinuous electric circuit through which no current can flow.

Is it really that simple? I guess I'll leave it up to the viewer...

Hell, they even know what an "open circuit" is in such disparate fields as automotive, electric motors, and architecture, for chrissake!

It simply seems to me that there must always be a closed loop for any field lines from some source. As such there will be antipodal duality (N / S; outflow / inflow; whatever you want to call them), and there CAN'T be "only one" pole (the entire thing would have to be the same sign and have only "one direction").
The illusion from which we are seeking to extricate ourselves is not that constituted by the realm of space and time, but that which comes from failing to know that realm from the standpoint of a higher vision. -L.H.

StefanR

Posts: 1371
Joined: Sun Mar 16, 2008 8:31 pm
Location: Amsterdam

PreviousNext