Electricity, Magnetism and Monopoles... Oh My!

Plasma and electricity in space. Failure of gravity-only cosmology. Exposing the myths of dark matter, dark energy, black holes, neutron stars, and other mathematical constructs. The electric model of stars. Predictions and confirmations of the electric comet.

Moderators: MGmirkin, bboyer

Re: Wal Thornhill's theory for gravity

Unread postby rangerover777 » Fri Sep 12, 2008 9:50 pm

As a continuation to the “The Two Models for Magnets: Magnetic Poles and
Atomic Currents” article, Michael wrote :
“While magneticians (sounds a bit like "magicians") treat the magnet as though it has
discrete "poles" (magnetic monopoles), Maxwell's equations (as currently formulated and used)
appear to forbid it. Break a dipolar magnet in half and you still get a dipolar magnet. All the
way down to the atomic level. Thus far no magnetic monopole has ever been conclusively
observed. So, until it is, Maxwell's equations stand and magnetic monopoles (independent
"magnetic charges") are considered NOT to exist“.

1. Well, breaking permanent magnet bar by half and getting two permanent magnets, may
also show that the magnetic field is an independent property and not part of the bar…
Since if it was part of the bar the circulation should be break as well, or disappear….at least
to my understanding. Isn’t it obvious that the atoms were separated in the middle of the bar
and the magnetic field is still alive, even though you cannot say now that the spinning
electrons are align and causing magnetic field, since the bar was physically broke…
2. If Maxwell (which I like very much) did not find monopoles, is that means that they
are not exists ?
3. Monopoles or to be exact “any magnetic particles” of any sort - could never observed
because of wrong methods, that turned to theories that does not allow them to exists…not
observations are the ones who cause it.

Michael wrote : “IE, if there is a bulk motion of charged particles in lock-step, it's a current.
Now, if they're NOT all or mostly moving in a similar direction, then it's either a much weaker
current or not considered to be a current. Do you see what I'm saying?”

1. If there is a bulk motion in opposite direction at the same time, due to attraction between
the opposing “charged particles“, isn’t it current as well ?
2. Does it make sense that opposing “charge” particles will attract each other and by that a
current will happen ? Like in a lightning bolt maybe ?
3. The idea of “charged” particles moving in the same direction, needs a good “drive” from
somewhere, so why not opposite charged particles in the opposite direction is not a good
enough of a boost for them to run ?

Michael wrote : “So, okay, let's take a really, really simple example. You have 4 particles in
your scenario. If they're all stationary, no current is flowing. If 2 are flowing left and 2 are
flowing right, their motion cancels each other out and there is no net flow of particle and no
current. While there was motion, it was more-or-less "random" motion, insofar as the motion
was not coherent (all/most particles moving the same direction).”

1. I could not understand if you mean particles with the same “charge” or opposing ones.
If it’s the same charge, not sure what will convince them to move anywhere.
2. If they have opposing charge, then you are partially right, since if 2 will flow left and 2
will flow right - AWAY from one another - there will be no current, but if they will flow
left and right - TOWARDS one another - chances we going to get something…
3. If two particles poses opposing “charge” - they will NEVER cancel one another, since
they reacting towards one another, and the reaction itself is already “something”, anything
but cancellation…
4. Therefore there could not be “random motion”, since they will always react in some way
to one another. And they can never stay stationary (if they are everywhere in the universe).

What I’m trying to achieve is not necessarily proving that magnets are behind electricity (which
is only my opinion), but that the current accepted model is not the only choice we have. And it’s
not too late to look around and question how all this began. After all if the EU would not look
around and ask critical questions, there was no EU today….

Sorry for the long post.
Cheers.
rangerover777
 
Posts: 154
Joined: Sun Mar 16, 2008 7:28 pm

Re: Wal Thornhill's theory for gravity

Unread postby MGmirkin » Sun Sep 14, 2008 8:41 am

rangerover777 wrote:2. There is no open magnetic loop as you said, and that have nothing to do with monopoles


Actually, with regards to magnetic monopoles, that has EVERYTHING to do with it... Assertions to the contrary aside.

(Magnetic monopoles?)
http://farside.ph.utexas.edu/teaching/e ... ode35.html

We saw in Sect. 3.4 that the divergence of the electric field appeared, at first sight, to be zero. But, in reality, it was a delta-function, because the volume integral of Image was non-zero. Does the same sort of thing happen for the divergence of the magnetic field? Well, if we could find a closed surface S for which Image then, according to Gauss' theorem, Image, where V is the volume enclosed by S. This would certainly imply that Image is some sort of delta-function. So, can we find such a surface? The short answer is, no.

[...]

If Image then B is a solenoidal vector field. In other words, field-lines of B never begin or end.

[...]

Can we produce an isolated North or South magnetic pole: for instance, by snapping a bar magnet in two? [No.] A compass needle would always point towards an isolated North pole, so this would act like a negative "magnetic charge." Likewise, a compass needle would always point away from an isolated South pole, so this would act like a positive "magnetic charge."

[...]

[However,] the statement that magnetic fields are solenoidal, or that Image, is equivalent to the statement that there are no magnetic monopoles.

[...]

We know that if we try to make a magnetic monopole by snapping a bar magnet in two then we just end up with two smaller bar magnets. If we snap one of these smaller magnets in two then we end up with two even smaller bar magnets. We can continue this process down to the atomic level without ever producing a magnetic monopole. In fact, permanent magnetism is generated by electric currents circulating on the atomic scale, so this type of magnetism is not fundamentally different to the magnetism generated by macroscopic currents.

[...]

In conclusion, all steady magnetic fields in the Universe are generated by circulating electric currents of some description. Such fields are solenoidal: that is, they never begin or end [they must form closed loops], and satisfy the field equation

Image

This, incidentally, is the second of Maxwell's equations. Essentially, it says that there is no such thing as a magnetic monopole. We have only proved that Image for steady magnetic fields, but, in fact, this is also the case for time-dependent fields (see later).


The fact that magnetic fields cannot have "open loops" (divergent field lines) means the same as saying there are no magnetic monopoles. The fact that magnetic fields form closed loops is not a "trivial" fact to be dismissed. It is the physical / mathematical REASON that no monopoles exist.

Electric field lines can diverge. Magnetic field lines cannot diverge.
Electric monopoles can exist. Magnetic monopoles cannot exist. Magnetic fields are dipolar, and not monopolar. According to current theory. Despite decades of looking for magnetic monopoles, none have been observed. They are assumed not to exist and that is encapsulated in Image from Maxwell's Wonderful Equations equations.

Hopefully this clears up the issue of magnetic monopoles? According to Maxwell's Wonderful Equations, they simply don't exist!

Regards,
~Michael Gmirkin
Attachments
img732.png
See: http://farside.ph.utexas.edu/teaching/em/lectures/node35.html
img732.png (381 Bytes) Viewed 12300 times
img730.png
See: http://farside.ph.utexas.edu/teaching/em/lectures/node35.html
img730.png (300 Bytes) Viewed 11593 times
img729.png
See: http://farside.ph.utexas.edu/teaching/em/lectures/node35.html
img729.png (646 Bytes) Viewed 11594 times
img728.png
See: http://farside.ph.utexas.edu/teaching/em/lectures/node35.html
img728.png (592 Bytes) Viewed 11595 times
img579.png
See: http://farside.ph.utexas.edu/teaching/em/lectures/node35.html
img579.png (290 Bytes) Viewed 11585 times
"The purpose of science is to investigate the unexplained, not to explain the uninvestigated." ~Dr. Stephen Rorke
"For every PhD there is an equal and opposite PhD." ~Gibson's law
User avatar
MGmirkin
Moderator
 
Posts: 1665
Joined: Thu Mar 13, 2008 11:00 pm
Location: Beaverton, Oregon, USA

Re: Wal Thornhill's theory for gravity

Unread postby MGmirkin » Sun Sep 14, 2008 9:30 am

rangerover777 wrote:1. Well, breaking permanent magnet bar by half and getting two permanent magnets, may also show that the magnetic field is an independent property and not part of the bar… Since if it was part of the bar the circulation should be break as well, or disappear… at least to my understanding. Isn’t it obvious that the atoms were separated in the middle of the bar and the magnetic field is still alive, even though you cannot say now that the spinning electrons are align and causing magnetic field, since the bar was physically broke…


You seem to have misunderstood... The current does not circulate across the entire bar. IE, there is not a current running around the outside of the bar magnet, nor from the top to the bottom of the bar magnet. EACH ATOM has a tiny current circulating around it, in the form of electrons circling the nucleus. That current creates a tiny magnetic field. If all of the atoms' magnetic fields are aligned, then there is a more-or-less additive / reinforcing effect on the overall magnetic field.

While the Ampère model treats the magnetic field as though there were a current circulating the circumference of the cylindrical bar magnet, it is also clear to say that such is not the actual case. The currents are on the atomic level, around each individual atom. The overall magnetic field behaves as if it were a giant solenoid. But, that does not a solenoid make.

If you cut the bar magnet in half, the individual atoms still have all or most of their magnetic fields aligned. The currents still circle the individual atomic nuclei, producing their little magnetic fields.

Think about it this way:

Put 6 little diopolar magnets [standing in for the atoms] end-to-end.

N
S
N
S
N
S
N
S
N
S
N
S

Now, cut them in half:

N
S
N
S
N
S

-----

N
S
N
S
N
S

the magnetic fields are still aligned in both halves of the magnet. Each still had a dipolar field with the same orientation as the original magnet.

Granted, your usual bar magnet is usually more than a single line of atoms:

N N N N N N N N N N N N
S S S S S S S S S S S S

N N N N N N N N N N N N
S S S S S S S S S S S S

N N N N N N N N N N N N
S S S S S S S S S S S S

N N N N N N N N N N N N
S S S S S S S S S S S S

But, splitting them in half still yields the same result:

N N N N N N N N N N N N
S S S S S S S S S S S S

N N N N N N N N N N N N
S S S S S S S S S S S S

----------------------------

N N N N N N N N N N N N
S S S S S S S S S S S S

N N N N N N N N N N N N
S S S S S S S S S S S S


2 smaller magnets with the same basic field configuration as the original.

It's when you start whacking magnets, or heating them past the curie point that the magnetic field breaks down, on account of the atoms' fields coming out of alignment with each other and the fields interfering destructively (or the atomic-scale currents themselves being disrupted due to collisions in the more energetic environment):

N S N N S N S N S S N N
S N S S N S N S N N S S

N N S S N S N S N N N S
S S N N S N S N S S S N

S S S N S S N N N S N N
N N N S N N S S S N S S

N S N S N S N S N S N S
S N S N S N S N S N S N

When the magnetic domains are all disordered and pointing randomly, there's generally no net field.

I'm not saying there's a peripheral circulation of current:

++++
+--+
+--+
++++

I'm saying each atom has its own tiny current of electrons circling it. When the electrons flow in the same direction around the nucleus, it constitutes a current/circuit (consider it like a miniaturized synchrotron particle accelerator, where the charged particles move in a ring) and creates a corresponding magnetic field.

Hope that helps...

~Michael Gmirkin
"The purpose of science is to investigate the unexplained, not to explain the uninvestigated." ~Dr. Stephen Rorke
"For every PhD there is an equal and opposite PhD." ~Gibson's law
User avatar
MGmirkin
Moderator
 
Posts: 1665
Joined: Thu Mar 13, 2008 11:00 pm
Location: Beaverton, Oregon, USA

Re: Wal Thornhill's theory for gravity

Unread postby MGmirkin » Sun Sep 14, 2008 10:39 am

MGmirkin wrote:You seem to have misunderstood... The current does not circulate across the entire bar. IE, there is not a current running around the outside of the bar magnet, nor from the top to the bottom of the bar magnet. EACH ATOM has a tiny current circulating around it, in the form of electrons circling the nucleus. That current creates a tiny magnetic field. If all of the atoms' magnetic fields are aligned, then there is a more-or-less additive / reinforcing effect on the overall magnetic field.


A few more pages noting the same, for a different source:

(Magnetism)
http://www.ndt-ed.org/EducationResource ... netism.htm

This may be hard to visualize on a subatomic scale but consider electric current flowing through a conductor. When the electrons (electric current) are flowing through the conductor, a magnetic field forms around the conductor. The magnetic field can be detected using a compass. The magnetic field will place a force on the compass needle, which is another example of a dipole.


Again, this is the same as noted in the Wikipedia article:

(Electric current)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electric_c ... omagnetism

Image

Electric current produces a magnetic field. The magnetic field can be visualized as a pattern of circular field lines surrounding the wire.


All matter is composed of atoms, and atoms are composed of protons, neutrons and electrons. The protons and neutrons are located in the atom's nucleus and the electrons are in constant motion around the nucleus. Electrons carry a negative electrical charge and produce a magnetic field as they move through space. A magnetic field is produced whenever an electrical charge is in motion. The strength of this field is called the magnetic moment.


When charges are engaged in a net flow in a circuit around an atomic nucleus, that atom has a magnetic dipole. Same thing as in macroscopic currents.

(Electromagnetic fields)
http://www.ndt-ed.org/EducationResource ... Fields.htm

Magnets are not the only source of magnetic fields. In 1820, Hans Christian Oersted discovered that an electric current flowing through a wire caused a nearby compass to deflect. This indicated that the current in the wire was generating a magnetic field. Oersted studied the nature of the magnetic field around the long straight wire. He found that the magnetic field existed in circular form around the wire and that the intensity of the field was directly proportional to the amount of current carried by the wire. He also found that the strength of the field was strongest next to the wire and diminished with distance from the conductor until it could no longer be detected. In most conductors, the magnetic field exists only as long as the current is flowing (i.e. an electrical charge is in motion). However, in ferromagnetic materials the electric current will cause some or all of the magnetic domains to align and a residual magnetic field will remain.

Oersted also noticed that the direction of the magnetic field was dependent on the direction of the electrical current in the wire. A three-dimensional representation of the magnetic field is shown below. There is a simple rule for remembering the direction of the magnetic field around a conductor. It is called the right-hand rule. If a person grasps a conductor in one's right hand with the thumb pointing in the direction of the current, the fingers will circle the conductor in the direction of the magnetic field.

A word of caution about the right-hand rule
For the right-hand rule to work, one important thing that must be remembered about the direction of current flow. Standard convention has current flowing from the positive terminal to the negative terminal. This convention is credited to Benjamin Franklin who theorized that electric current was due to a positive charge moving from the positive terminal to the negative terminal. However, it was later discovered that it is the movement of the negatively charged electron that is responsible for electrical current. Rather than changing several centuries of theory and equations, Franklin's convention is still used today.


I might also point out that the 'word of caution' about the 'right hand rule' seems to have left out that fact that in some situations both charges of particles flow, but in opposite directions in the same electric field. Say, positives to the right, and negatives to the left. So, there's not necessarily one "dominant" particle. IE, it's not ALWAYS the electron that's the charge carrier in a "current."

(Conventional current vs electron flow/current)
Image

(Which Way Does the "Electricity" Really Flow?)
http://amasci.com/amateur/elecdir.html

So, the convention is more-or-less arbitrary... But it serves a purpose in simplifying discussing currents, and in simplifying circuit diagrams (not having to worry about the actual directions of positive or negative charges when figuring out current strength, etc.).

In any event, again, the description notes that magnetic fields are produced when electric currents flow. The strength of the magnetic field depends directly on the strength of the current. In most materials, when you take away the electric current, the magnetic field completely disappears. Ferromagnetic materials are a special case where the magnetic field does not go away, because the magnetic domains (the magnetic dipoles, more-or-less) of the atoms get aligned and stay that way. The article glosses over the fact that for the atoms to have a magnetic field, a current must be present. As I've stated, and the Hyperphysics site has stated and other sites have stated, that current is quite simply formulated as the motion of electrons orbiting the atomic nucleus of the atom, like a mini synchrotron.

(Magnetic domains)
http://www.ndt-ed.org/EducationResource ... omains.htm

During solidification, a trillion or more atom moments are aligned parallel so that the magnetic force within the domain is strong in one direction. Ferromagnetic materials are said to be characterized by "spontaneous magnetization" since they obtain saturation magnetization in each of the domains without an external magnetic field being applied. Even though the domains are magnetically saturated, the bulk material may not show any signs of magnetism because the domains develop themselves and are randomly oriented relative to each other.

Ferromagnetic materials become magnetized when the magnetic domains within the material are aligned. This can be done by placing the material in a strong external magnetic field or by passing electrical current through the material. Some or all of the domains can become aligned. The more domains that are aligned, the stronger the magnetic field in the material. When all of the domains are aligned, the material is said to be magnetically saturated. When a material is magnetically saturated, no additional amount of external magnetization force will cause an increase in its internal level of magnetization.


It's all about the little magnetic fields getting aligned to create the big magnetic field. Since all magnetic fields appear to arise from electric currents, the atoms' magnetic fields must as well, no? Ergo, the atoms must [each] have an atomic-scale electric current in order to have an atomic-scale magnetic field.

(Demagnetization)
http://www.ndt-ed.org/EducationResource ... zation.htm

Removal of a field may be accomplished in several ways. This random orientation of the magnetic domains can be achieved most effectively by heating the material above its curie temperature. The curie temperature for a low carbon steel is 770 deg C or 1390 deg F. When steel is heated above its curie temperature, it will become austenitic and loses its magnetic properties. When it is cooled back down, it will go through a reverse transformation and will contain no residual magnetic field. The material should also be placed with it long axis in an east-west orientation to avoid any influence of the Earth's magnetic field.

It is often inconvenient to heat a material above it curie temperature to demagnetize it, so another method that returns the material to a nearly unmagnetized state is commonly used. Subjecting the component to a reversing and decreasing magnetic field will return the dipoles to a nearly random orientation throughout the material ...


Again, this emphasizes that it's the collective alignment of the magnetic domains [of all the atoms] that gives ferromagnetic substances their macroscopic permanent magnetism. Those atomic magnetic domains come from the same place as macroscopic fields come from in an electromagnet: circulating currents. In this case, the currents are electrons spinning in a circuit around the atomic nucleus, rather than flow in a circuit around a macroscopic solenoid or in a synchrotron particle accelerator, etc.

Regards,
~Michael Gmirkin
"The purpose of science is to investigate the unexplained, not to explain the uninvestigated." ~Dr. Stephen Rorke
"For every PhD there is an equal and opposite PhD." ~Gibson's law
User avatar
MGmirkin
Moderator
 
Posts: 1665
Joined: Thu Mar 13, 2008 11:00 pm
Location: Beaverton, Oregon, USA

Re: Wal Thornhill's theory for gravity

Unread postby MGmirkin » Sun Sep 14, 2008 12:24 pm

rangerover777 wrote:So I made a rough sketch, hope it would help :

Image


I take it then, from the location of the image...

http://www.leedskalnin.net/scan0311.jpg

...that you are the proprietor of that site (dedicated to the work of Leedskalnin, among other things)?

Just wondering?

In any event... I note that there appears to be an inconsistency in the diagram with regard to symmetry about the [wire / current] axis. I wonder if this is the source of the confusion? You had previously said:

If you take a U-shape magnet hold the North prong level with this wire (1” away), at the right side of the wire, while the South prong up. The North prong will pull the wire, now put the South prong in the same place - it will push the wire. Do the same at the left side of the wire and see the opposite results.


I'm referring specifically to the the schematic in the lower right corner of the drawing.

The magnets are not rotationally symmetric about the axis, but rather reflected across the plane between them. IE, if you rotate the upper left magnet (blue on top, red on the bottom, with the red 'pole' in the same plane [call it XZ, with X being the direction of the magnet and Z being the direction of the current]) about the axis (the wire), you should come up with a true reflection (blue on the bottom, red on top, with the red pole in the same plane as the wire). But this is not the case. The magnet has apparently been reflected across the plane YZ.

Or, to put it another way, if we have axes X, Y and Z, with X being the left-right axis, and Y being the up-down axis and Z being forward-backward axis (the direction of the wire / current in the drawing), then it appears the horseshoe magnets were rotated around the Y axis rather than being rotated around the Z axis. So, the relationship to the wire is apparently not the same.

Again, I wonder if this contributes to the observed behavior of the magnet's red pole "pushing" while on one side, and "pulling" while on the other. Does the same effect of a change in "push vs. pull" occur if you leave the magnet on the left side of the wire, keep the red pole level with the wire, and rotate the magnet around the axis of the red pole so that the blue pole is located below the wire rather than above? That would be an equivalent rotated image of the magnet drawn in on the right side of the wire. (To simplify, take the above example and rotate the magnet round the X axis, rather than the Y axis; I'd wager good money you'll see the same "push-turns-to-pull" behavior...)

In other words, if the current is flowing in a particular direction, and creating a consistent magnetic field in a circle around the electrical flow through the conductor, then "rotating" the magnet in the same configuration around the axis of the wire / current should result in the same effect on the wire (be that a push or be that a pull). Reflecting the magnet from one side of the image to the other, however, changes the relationship between the magnet and the wire, and may change that effect for purely mundane reasons having little to do with "monopoles" (which Maxwell's equations [as currently formulated] say don't exist)...

~Michael Gmirkin
"The purpose of science is to investigate the unexplained, not to explain the uninvestigated." ~Dr. Stephen Rorke
"For every PhD there is an equal and opposite PhD." ~Gibson's law
User avatar
MGmirkin
Moderator
 
Posts: 1665
Joined: Thu Mar 13, 2008 11:00 pm
Location: Beaverton, Oregon, USA

Re: Wal Thornhill's theory for gravity

Unread postby MGmirkin » Sun Sep 14, 2008 1:11 pm

rangerover777 wrote:1. Well, breaking permanent magnet bar by half and getting two permanent magnets, may also show that the magnetic field is an independent property and not part of the bar… Since if it was part of the bar the circulation should be break as well, or disappear… at least to my understanding. Isn’t it obvious that the atoms were separated in the middle of the bar and the magnetic field is still alive, even though you cannot say now that the spinning electrons are align and causing magnetic field, since the bar was physically broke…


As I've now read very briefly the material on the Leedskalnin page, unfortunately, the above problem seems to be more of a problem for his work than for current theory, for exactly the reason you noted above. He posits a "circulation" of "magnetic monopoles" in and around the magnet.

But, as you say, if you break the magnet, shouldn't that proposed circulation stop or reconfigure itself significantly? But it doesn't. You just have the same magnetic field that the original bar magnet had (just in smaller component pieces). It *is* intrinsic to the magnet (when the magnetic domains of the atoms are aligned; those magnetic domains are predicated upon electric currents in the same [just as in an electromagnet, only much, much, much smaller], not to anything external to the magnet).

(Unmagetized material - chaotic magnetic domains)
Image

(Magnetized material - aligned / well-ordered magnetic domains)
Image

Aside from which, again, magnetic monopoles don't exist under Maxwell's equations. since the equations have worked for hundreds of years and continue to work today in industry, it's a pretty safe bet that they describe things to the best of our ability to measure them and build things based upon them. If they're valid then magnetic monopoles aren't.

Regards,
~Michael Gmirkin
"The purpose of science is to investigate the unexplained, not to explain the uninvestigated." ~Dr. Stephen Rorke
"For every PhD there is an equal and opposite PhD." ~Gibson's law
User avatar
MGmirkin
Moderator
 
Posts: 1665
Joined: Thu Mar 13, 2008 11:00 pm
Location: Beaverton, Oregon, USA

Re: Wal Thornhill's theory for gravity

Unread postby MGmirkin » Sun Sep 14, 2008 1:57 pm

rangerover777 wrote:
MGmirkin wrote:IE, if there is a bulk motion of charged particles in lock-step, it's a current.
Now, if they're NOT all or mostly moving in a similar direction, then it's either a much weaker
current or not considered to be a current. Do you see what I'm saying?


1. If there is a bulk motion in opposite direction at the same time, due to attraction between the opposing “charged particles“, isn’t it current as well?


Oops, I should have been slightly clearer there. Apologies. Probably should have read:

"IE, if there is a bulk motion of LIKE charged particles in lock-step, it's a current."

Yes, as noted previously opposite charges moving in opposite directions are also considered to be a current (a bi-directional flow; as opposed to strictly conventional current [following the path of the positive charges] or strictly electron current / electron flow [following the path of the negative charges]). IE, in the presence of an electric field, both types of charged particles will be accelerate, but in opposite directions. Two particles of opposite charge will be attracted to one another. Their opposite motion, I think, would technically be called a current (albeit an infinitesimally small / negligible one). Usually "currents" are concerned with large quantities of charged particles, but the rule still holds down to that very small level (as far as I know).

rangerover777 wrote:2. Does it make sense that opposing “charge” particles will attract each other and by that a current will happen? Like in a lightning bolt maybe?


Yes, quite so. If you have a cloud of positive charges in one place, and a cloud of negative charges in a different place (charge separation), they will attract each other (this is generally referred to as an electric field or a voltage drop). In reality there's usually an insulating medium (such as air) that screens out all or most of the electric field. But if the field gets large enough then dielectric [insulator] breakdown occurs, and opposite charges from the two clouds start flowing toward each other. This is how a spark or a lightning bolt works. Depending on how much charge flows, and how quickly, you can have a "dark mode" current (as in most wires) where current flows but we can't see it, a glow mode discharge (wherein some amount of light is given off) or an arc mode discharge (copious amounts of light are given off, other effects such as a pinch might occur).

rangerover777 wrote:3. The idea of “charged” particles moving in the same direction, needs a good “drive” from somewhere, so why not opposite charged particles in the opposite direction is not a good enough of a boost for them to run?


Electric fields generally give the "drive." IE, there's a force between oppositely charged particles. Get enough charges in separate spaces and they'll want to rush toward each other and "neutralize." However, this can be prevented by insulating media and/or "double layers."

However, flowing currents may, I think, also sometimes spawn secondary currents. As you say, the motions of charged particles may induce the motion of other charged particles. Things eventually get complicated. ;)

Anywho, good times!
~Michael Gmirkin
"The purpose of science is to investigate the unexplained, not to explain the uninvestigated." ~Dr. Stephen Rorke
"For every PhD there is an equal and opposite PhD." ~Gibson's law
User avatar
MGmirkin
Moderator
 
Posts: 1665
Joined: Thu Mar 13, 2008 11:00 pm
Location: Beaverton, Oregon, USA

Re: Magnetism - various ideas

Unread postby rangerover777 » Mon Sep 15, 2008 7:06 am

Thanks Michael for your efforts and time.

Unfortunately I’m moving places now and not sure when I could post again on EU.

Be well all,

Amit
rangerover777
 
Posts: 154
Joined: Sun Mar 16, 2008 7:28 pm

Re: Magnetism - various ideas

Unread postby MGmirkin » Mon Sep 15, 2008 10:42 pm

rangerover777 wrote:Thanks Michael for your efforts and time.

Unfortunately I’m moving places now and not sure when I could post again on EU.

Be well all,
Amit


Hey, no problem. Hope the move goes well! :D

Stop by again when you get a chance...

Regards,
~Michael Gmirkin
"The purpose of science is to investigate the unexplained, not to explain the uninvestigated." ~Dr. Stephen Rorke
"For every PhD there is an equal and opposite PhD." ~Gibson's law
User avatar
MGmirkin
Moderator
 
Posts: 1665
Joined: Thu Mar 13, 2008 11:00 pm
Location: Beaverton, Oregon, USA

Re: Electricity, Magnetism and Monopoles... Oh My!

Unread postby StefanR » Wed Sep 17, 2008 3:19 am

I think these links might give some extra insight :

Well into the late 1800s, people were fairly content to think of electricity and magnetism as two different things. Today, electric fields and magnetic fields are treated as separate entities, when in fact that line of thinking is remnants of when electricity and magnetism were thought to be fundamentally different.

The following is an explanation of magnetic fields from the perspective of connected monopolar, equi-charged bodies - in other words, equally charged electric field sources.

Image
What's displayed in the images above is well known as an electric dipole. It looks exactly like a magnetic field, and for a very good reason - because that is exactly what a magnetic field is. This is the primary theme of this page, and one that will be aptly demonstrated as we go.

In reality, every atom presents a magnetic field, precisely due to separated electric field sources (electrons and protons). Our little bar magnet is a sufficient enough abstraction of that arrangement to make the next series of images meaningful.
Image
What we see in this configuration is that where the two magnets meet, there is a local "compression" or "cancellation" of the resultant dipolar field between the meeting ends and a resultant expansion of the field strengths at the ends of the entire configuration. In the middle of the new configuration, we can see that the force experienced external to the configuration is such that it's as if the two magnets, end to end, were only one (but stronger, naturally).

What the charge potential visualization shows is that the overall positive and negative charge influence grows at the ends of the chain configurations to an overshadowing degree over the main length of the chain itself.

In reality, electric fields neither compress, bend, balloon, nor subtract. The fields overlap, and above all else, the fields themselves are descriptions of charge on charge behavior. That being said, it appears foolish to consider magnetic fields as fundamental as electric fields. When magnetic field properties can be demonstrated by taking into consideration only electric fields, it strongly points to the true fundamental nature of magnetism - electricity!
http://pfhoenix.com/em/

And for some more imagery:

http://web.mit.edu/8.02t/www/802TEAL3D/visualizations/electrostatics/index.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.
User avatar
StefanR
 
Posts: 1310
Joined: Sun Mar 16, 2008 8:31 pm
Location: Amsterdam

Re: Electricity, Magnetism and Monopoles... Oh My!

Unread postby junglelord » Wed Sep 17, 2008 6:13 am

It is quite clear to me there is no monopole at any level. The Secret World of Magnets shows that each pole has a dipole of vortex's. The APM model has dipole atomic units. I have never seen a monopole. It does not exist, like black holes, it just kinda sucks thinking about it....LOL.
If you only knew the magnificence of the 3, 6 and 9, then you would have a key to the universe.
— Nikola Tesla
Casting Out the Nines from PHI into Indigs reveals the Cosmic Harmonic Code.
— Junglelord.
Knowledge is Structured in Consciouness. Structure and Function Cannot Be Seperated.
— Junglelord
User avatar
junglelord
 
Posts: 3693
Joined: Mon Mar 17, 2008 5:39 am
Location: Canada

Re: Electricity, Magnetism and Monopoles... Oh My!

Unread postby MGmirkin » Wed Sep 17, 2008 12:59 pm

StefanR wrote:I think these links might give some extra insight :

The following is an explanation of magnetic fields from the perspective of connected monopolar, equi-charged bodies - in other words, equally charged electric field sources.


I assume that the author meant "electrically monopolar" as opposed to "magnetically monopolar," since he also talks of charged bodies. IE, according to Maxwell, magnetic monopoles are verboten, whereas electric monopoles are OK...

Just to clarify. Hopefully I've got that right? ;)

Regards,
~Michael Gmirkin
"The purpose of science is to investigate the unexplained, not to explain the uninvestigated." ~Dr. Stephen Rorke
"For every PhD there is an equal and opposite PhD." ~Gibson's law
User avatar
MGmirkin
Moderator
 
Posts: 1665
Joined: Thu Mar 13, 2008 11:00 pm
Location: Beaverton, Oregon, USA

Re: Electricity, Magnetism and Monopoles... Oh My!

Unread postby MGmirkin » Wed Sep 17, 2008 1:09 pm

junglelord wrote:It is quite clear to me there is no monopole at any level. The Secret World of Magnets shows that each pole has a dipole of vortex's. The APM model has dipole atomic units. I have never seen a monopole. It does not exist, like black holes, it just kinda sucks thinking about it....LOL.


Again, are we talking electric monopoles, or magnetic monopoles or both?

According to Maxwell, assuming he's right, I'd agree that magnetic monopoles don't exist, according the explanation I'd listed previously from another site (assuming they're right/rigorous).

Electric monopoles, however, would be the charged particles themselves. Electrons are of a negative charge. Protons are of a positive charge. (Except perhaps under Sansbury / Thornhill, where are are theoretically oppositely charged "subtrons" that combine to give the overall charge of the particle. But, that's a different discussion, I suppose?)

Regards,
~Michael Gmirkin
"The purpose of science is to investigate the unexplained, not to explain the uninvestigated." ~Dr. Stephen Rorke
"For every PhD there is an equal and opposite PhD." ~Gibson's law
User avatar
MGmirkin
Moderator
 
Posts: 1665
Joined: Thu Mar 13, 2008 11:00 pm
Location: Beaverton, Oregon, USA

Re: Electricity, Magnetism and Monopoles... Oh My!

Unread postby junglelord » Wed Sep 17, 2008 1:35 pm

Strictly speaking magnetic monopoles. Sorry for the confusion. The universe is awash with electric monopoles. Ions unite.
:lol:
If you only knew the magnificence of the 3, 6 and 9, then you would have a key to the universe.
— Nikola Tesla
Casting Out the Nines from PHI into Indigs reveals the Cosmic Harmonic Code.
— Junglelord.
Knowledge is Structured in Consciouness. Structure and Function Cannot Be Seperated.
— Junglelord
User avatar
junglelord
 
Posts: 3693
Joined: Mon Mar 17, 2008 5:39 am
Location: Canada

Re: Electricity, Magnetism and Monopoles... Oh My!

Unread postby Marnee » Wed Sep 17, 2008 1:41 pm

"Except perhaps under Sansbury / Thornhill, where are are theoretically oppositely charged "subtrons" that combine to give the overall charge of the particle. But, that's a different discussion, I suppose?"

Not really. It's the same principle just at a much smaller scale. Right?
Marnee
 
Posts: 24
Joined: Sat Sep 13, 2008 11:19 pm
Location: Tucson, Arizona

PreviousNext

Return to Electric Universe

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests