Question about the existence of non-electric magnetism
Radium
> It is an interesting premise that "all magnetism is electrical
> in origin." It's not necessarily the case.
Would someone please show me any magnetism that is not electrical in
origin?
AFAIK, magnetism always result from something electric. Yet
"Puppet_Sock <puppe...@hotmail.com>" claims that there is
non-electric magnetism.
Thank,
Radium
Randy Poe
Radium wrote:
> Puppet_Sock wrote:
> > It is an interesting premise that "all magnetism is electrical
> > in origin." It's not necessarily the case.
>
> Would someone please show me any magnetism that is not electrical in
> origin?
Depends on what you mean by "not electrical in origin".
To me, that means "induced by a current or a changing
electric field".
> AFAIK, magnetism always result from something electric.
I could point out that permanent magnets are formed by
aligning the magnetic moments of electrons. That is
due neither to a current or a changing electric field.
But you might be inclined to say "aha! an electron
is by definition electric!" If any charged particle is
by your definition "electric" even without current
flowing, then that leaves us with neutral particles.
Neutrons also have a magnetic moment. Neutron stars
have very strong magnetic fields.
- Randy
Anabaena Microcystis
"Radium" <gluc...@excite.com> wrote in message
news:1161371399....@b28g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
> Puppet_Sock wrote:
>> It is an interesting premise that "all magnetism is electrical
>> in origin." It's not necessarily the case.
buy a refrigerator magnet. There is no cord on it!
Radium
> Neutrons also have a magnetic moment. Neutron stars
> have very strong magnetic fields.
Apparently neutrons are also "electric". The overall electric chage of
the neutron maybe neutral but it is still made up of charged particles.
However, the person who posted the message in
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.research/msg/029a72c00e1c69c9
claims -- at least in my interpretation -- that magnetism can exist in
the complete absence of any electricity. How is this possible?
Ahmed Ouahi, Architect
LOVE!
--
Ahmed Ouahi, Architect
Best Regards!
"Radium" <gluc...@excite.com> wrote in message
news:1161371399....@b28g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
Rock Brentwood
> Would someone please show me any magnetism that is not electrical in
> origin?
OK.
In concept, it's actually not that hard to do, but in practice, it
could take a lot of work. I relies on a loophole in the (currently
accepted) laws governing the forces that electromagnetism are a part
of; the loophole not known prior to the 1970's.
The electromagnetic force is an integral part of the electroweak force;
which is a gauge force with a U(2) symmetry. The significance of that
remark is that the symmetry group (U(2)) is non-Abelian, which -- when
rendered in the language of field equations -- translates into the
field equations being *NON*-linear and *IN*homogeneous. That includes
the equations governing magnetic sources.
By "integral part of electroweak", what that means is that the
electromagnetic force overlaps with the non-abelian sector of U(2). The
gauge group has a U(1) sector (Abelian and, in all respects similar to
a Maxwell field); but contrary to what may be popular perception, the
U(1) sector is NOT the electromagnetic force, but only overlaps with
it. U(2) also has a SU(2) sector (the non-Abelian part), which contains
a piece of the electromagnetic force in virtue of the "weak mixing
angle".
This means what had formerly been regarded as the Maxwell equations are
now superseded by the Yang-Mills equations governing the U(2) field;
and that on the right hand side of the equations governing the magnetic
sources are now ... (yup, you guessed it) non-zero contributions solely
from the field, itself. In particular, the contributions to the
magnetic charge arise from the fields associated with the W and its
antiparticle, the W*.
Roughly speaking the equations for the magnetic sources look something
like
div B = f(A,B)
curl E - dB/dt = K(A,E) - L(phi,B).
where f, K and L are bi-linear functions (which I won't detail here) in
each argument. (And note, that each component of A, B, E, phi here is a
u(2) Lie-valued vector, and so comprises 4 Lie-components per field
component; so the (B,E) field actually has 24 components, not 6).
Self-supporting solutions can be constructed out of the fields -- a
virtue of their equations being non-linear. In particular, one of the
better-known solutions for the SU(2) gauge force is the ... (yup, you
guessed it) the magnetic monopole solution.
The calculations have been worked out in detail and are provided
amongst the list of articles and papers listed under
http://federation.g3z.com/Physics/Index.htm ... where one will also
find a writeup which shows what the Yang-Mills field equations look
like when written out in full, in a manner analogous to the Maxwell
equations.
To actually produce such a monopole would be difficult -- to say the
least. It requires, first and foremost, that you actually be able to
manipulate the fields; particularly the W field and its conjugate.
That's hard enough in itself, never mind trying to exploit the
non-linearity of the field equations, governing a short-range field, to
build a self-supporting structure.
srp
Radium a écrit :
It is not possible.
Note that "electric charge" is not the same as "electric field".
Straight from Maxwell, both electric and magnetic fields cannot
exist separately.
In any volume of space, the density of electric field energy is always
equal to the density of magnetic field energy.
André Michaud
Sorcerer
| > It is an interesting premise that "all magnetism is electrical
| > in origin." It's not necessarily the case.
|
| Would someone please show me any magnetism that is not electrical in
| origin?
I don't put batteries in the magnets on my fridge door. Do you think I
should?
|
| AFAIK, magnetism always result from something electric.
That's as far as you know, but how far do you know?
AFAIK, you don't know very far at all. AFAIK, there
is more than one way to skin a rabbit.
| Yet
| "Puppet_Sock <puppe...@hotmail.com>" claims that there is
| non-electric magnetism.
Yet so do I. Incredible, isn't it?
Androcles
|
|
| Thank,
|
| Radium
|
Sorcerer
"Randy Poe" <poespa...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1161371946....@i3g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
Bright green flying elephants have strong magnetic fields too.
I expect you've met one.
|
| - Randy
|
Randy Poe
srp wrote:
> Radium a écrit :
> > Randy Poe wrote:
> >> Neutrons also have a magnetic moment. Neutron stars
> >> have very strong magnetic fields.
> >
> > http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.research/browse_thread/thread/3e9165cf392ad391/35837736a0f3333c#35837736a0f3333c
> >
> > Apparently neutrons are also "electric". The overall electric chage of
> > the neutron maybe neutral but it is still made up of charged particles.
> >
> > However, the person who posted the message in
> > http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.research/msg/029a72c00e1c69c9
> > claims -- at least in my interpretation -- that magnetism can exist in
> > the complete absence of any electricity. How is this possible?
>
> It is not possible.
>
> Note that "electric charge" is not the same as "electric field".
>
> Straight from Maxwell, both electric and magnetic fields cannot
> exist separately.
Nonsense.
Maxwell relates electric and magnetic fields to the TIME
DERIVATIVE of each other.
You can have an electric field which is constant, i.e.
time derivative = 0, and no magnetic field.
You can have a magnetic field with time derivative 0,
and no electric field.
- Randy
sal
>
>
> Radium a écrit :
>> Randy Poe wrote:
>>> Neutrons also have a magnetic moment. Neutron stars have very strong
>>> magnetic fields.
>>
>> http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.research/browse_thread/thread/3e9165cf392ad391/35837736a0f3333c#35837736a0f3333c
>>
>> Apparently neutrons are also "electric". The overall electric chage of
>> the neutron maybe neutral but it is still made up of charged particles.
>>
>> However, the person who posted the message in
>> http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.research/msg/029a72c00e1c69c9
>> claims -- at least in my interpretation -- that magnetism can exist in
>> the complete absence of any electricity. How is this possible?
>
> It is not possible.
>
> Note that "electric charge" is not the same as "electric field".
>
> Straight from Maxwell, both electric and magnetic fields cannot exist
> separately.
Maxwell's equations lead to no such conclusion. In any particular
reference frame, with appropriate sources for the fields, one may have a
measurable E field, a measurable B field, or both, or neither. If you
disagree, prove your claim (or at least cite a reference).
> In any volume of space, the density of electric field energy is always
> equal to the density of magnetic field energy.
Quoi??
Where on Earth did you get _this_ idea? A reference or proof might be
nice.
Just how strong do you think the magnetic field of an electron is? Just a
tad weaker than its E field, I would say.
And just how strong do you think the electric field of a neutron is? Just
a little weaker than its B field, I would say. Last I heard nobody'd
managed to measure _any_ E field from a neutron, in fact, though it _may_
have a nonzero dipole E field.
--
Nospam becomes physicsinsights to fix the email
Randy Poe
Radium wrote:
> Randy Poe wrote:
> > Neutrons also have a magnetic moment. Neutron stars
> > have very strong magnetic fields.
>
> http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.research/browse_thread/thread/3e9165cf392ad391/35837736a0f3333c#35837736a0f3333c
>
> Apparently neutrons are also "electric".
Well, as I said, if by "electric" you just mean "associated
with charge", then the answer is that the electromagnetic
field is always associated with charged particles. In
the neutron, it is indeed the quarks which (in the standard
theory) are charged and give rise to the magnetic
moment.
However, to me the statement you are referring to
when you started this thread, meant that you could have
magnetic fields and no electric field. It didn't mean you
could have magnetic field with no charges at all.
>The overall electric chage of
> the neutron maybe neutral but it is still made up of charged particles.
But it has no electric field.
- Randy
FrediFizzx
"srp" <sr...@globetrotter.net> wrote in message
news:453937D3...@globetrotter.net...
>
>
> Radium a crit :
Hi André,
I think perhaps you might want to make extra qualifications about this.
;-) Certainly, magnets have no electric field macroscopically. And a
charged up ballon that I stick to my wall has no magnetic field
macroscopically.
FrediFizzx
Quantum Vacuum Charge papers;
http://www.vacuum-physics.com/QVC/quantum_vacuum_charge.pdf
or postscript
http://www.vacuum-physics.com/QVC/quantum_vacuum_charge.ps
http://www.arxiv.org/abs/physics/0601110
http://www.vacuum-physics.com
Bill Hobba
"Randy Poe" <poespa...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1161371946....@i3g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
>
Just to expand a bit on the above - we now think neutrons are composed of
other charged particles - so one can mount a reasonable argument that
magnetism is always associated with charge. But of course such semantics is
of zero practical value.
Thanks
Bill
>
> - Randy
>
Researcher
Particularly :
Why does it affect iron and not lead or speaking of its partiality among
ever metals ?
So, is it an 'electron' or 'electromagnet'
Researcher
"Radium" <gluc...@excite.com> wrote in message
news:1161371399....@b28g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
Sam Wormley
> What exactly is magnetism?
>
> Particularly :
>
> Why does it affect iron and not lead or speaking of its partiality among
> ever metals ?
>
> So, is it an 'electron' or 'electromagnet'
>
See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magnetism
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electromagnetic
Researcher
"Researcher" <no...@email.com> wrote in message
news:45398875$0$19615$8826...@free.teranews.com...
> What exactly is magnetism?
>
> Particularly :
>
> Why does it affect iron and not lead or speaking of its partiality among
> ever metals ? [read even for 'ever']
Sorcerer
| Repost :
|
| "Researcher" <no...@email.com> wrote in message
| news:45398875$0$19615$8826...@free.teranews.com...
| > What exactly is magnetism?
A subject with insufficient research.
What exactly is gravity?
Researcher
Maybe Newton's initial thought about Gravity only was right all through.
Researcher
"Sorcerer" <Headm...@hogwarts.physics_b> wrote in message
news:ouh_g.4308$3D1....@fe3.news.blueyonder.co.uk...
--
srp
Just like you can draw a plan of the front of a building
without any reference of its thikness.
> You can have a magnetic field with time derivative 0,
> and no electric field.
Just like you can draw a plan of the side of a building
without any reference to its width.
Electromagnetic energy, although mathematically describable
with plane waves, is not physically made up of mathematical
plane waves, and it is not 2 dimensional.
André Michaud
srp
>
> "srp" <sr...@globetrotter.net> wrote in message
> news:453937D3...@globetrotter.net...
>>
>>
>> Radium a crit :
>>> Randy Poe wrote:
>>>> Neutrons also have a magnetic moment. Neutron stars
>>>> have very strong magnetic fields.
>>>
>>> http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.research/browse_thread/thread/3e9165cf392ad391/35837736a0f3333c#35837736a0f3333c
>>>
>>>
>>> Apparently neutrons are also "electric". The overall electric chage of
>>> the neutron maybe neutral but it is still made up of charged particles.
>>>
>>> However, the person who posted the message in
>>> http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.research/msg/029a72c00e1c69c9
>>> claims -- at least in my interpretation -- that magnetism can exist in
>>> the complete absence of any electricity. How is this possible?
>>
>> It is not possible.
>>
>> Note that "electric charge" is not the same as "electric field".
>>
>> Straight from Maxwell, both electric and magnetic fields cannot
>> exist separately.
>>
>> In any volume of space, the density of electric field energy is always
>> equal to the density of magnetic field energy.
>
> Hi André,
>
> I think perhaps you might want to make extra qualifications about this.
> ;-) Certainly, magnets have no electric field macroscopically.
Right on the money, as usual, Fred :-)
You're right, of course.
The magnetic dipole moments are additive (do not cancel each other
when in parallel alignment.
In my model, the summed up elementary dipole moments making up the
macroscopic field of magnets are those of the carrying energy of
the electrons involved, not those of the electrons themselves.
Since the (unsigned) charge pairs of each microscopic carrying
photon amounts to neutral, they do not add up and remain locally
individual.
The so-called Bohr magneton mu_B for example, is not the dipole
moment of the electron, but that of the energy induced at
the ground state of the H atom. It is the dipole moment of
the electron carrying-photon at the H ground state.
> And a charged up ballon that I stick to my wall has no magnetic field
> macroscopically.
You are talking about ionization here. Magnetic field builds up
additively only when unpaired electrons in material have the
possibility (and are forced) have their spins aligned parallel.
So, no conflict here either.
> FrediFizzx
>
> Quantum Vacuum Charge papers;
> http://www.vacuum-physics.com/QVC/quantum_vacuum_charge.pdf
> or postscript
> http://www.vacuum-physics.com/QVC/quantum_vacuum_charge.ps
> http://www.arxiv.org/abs/physics/0601110
> http://www.vacuum-physics.com
André Michaud
Sam Wormley
> Maybe Newton's initial thought about Gravity only was right all through.
>
GTR is clearly in better agreement with nature than Newton's Law of
Gravitation, however, Newton is adequate for classical applications.
References
http://scienceworld.wolfram.com/physics/GravitationalForce.html
http://scienceworld.wolfram.com/physics/Gravity.html
Ref: Hartle, "Gravity: An Introduction to Einstein's General Relativity", Addison Wesley (2003)
"A few properties of the gravitational interaction that help explain when
gravity is important can already be seen from the gravitational force law
F_grav = G m_1 m_2 / r_12^2
o Gravity is a universal interaction in Newtonian theory between all mass, and,
since E = mc^2, in relativistic gravity between all forms of energy.
o Gravity is unscreened. There are no negative gravitational charges to cancel
positive ones, and therefore it is not possible to shield (screen) the gravitational
interaction. Gravity is always attractive.
o Gravity is a long-range interaction. The Newtonian force law is a 1/r^2
interaction. There is no length scale that sets a range for gravitational
interactions as there is for the strong and weak interactions.
o Gravity is the weakest of the four fundamental interactions acting between
individual elementary particles at accessible energy scales. The ratio of
the gravitational attraction to the electromagnetic repulsion between two
protons separated by a distance r is
F_grav G m_p^2 / r^2 G m_p^2
-------- = -------------------- = ------------- ~ 10^-36
F_elec e^2 / (4 pi e_0 r^2) (e^2/4pi e_0)
where m_p is the mass of the proton and e is its charge.
These four facts explain a great deal about the role gravity plays in physical
phenomena. They explain, for example, why, although it is the weakest force,
gravity governs the organization of the universe on the largest distance
scales of astrophysics and cosmology. These distance scales are far beyond
the subatomic ranges of the strong and the weak interactions. Electromagnetic
interactions COULD be long range were there any large-scale objects with net
electric charge. But the universe is electrically neutral, and electromagnetic
forces are so much stronger than gravitational forces that any large-scale net
charge is quickly neutralized. Gravity is left to govern the structure of the
universe on the largest scales.
For a more thorough comparison see: Observational and Experimental
Evidence Bearing on General Relativity
http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/RelWWW/tests.html
John Graeme
I understand the classical theory: A static electric field can exist
without a magnetic field. In another, moving coordinate system, one
would see a magnetic field--electric and magnetic fields are really
different aspects of one phenomenon.
But some years ago it was theorized that magnetic monopoles may exist.
I don't see how this could be possible even in theory.
Sorcerer
"John Graeme" <jdgr...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
news:1161479300.0...@h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
| I understand the classical theory: A static electric field can exist
| without a magnetic field. In another, moving coordinate system, one
| would see a magnetic field--electric and magnetic fields are really
| different aspects of one phenomenon.
| But some years ago it was theorized that magnetic monopoles may exist.
| I don't see how this could be possible even in theory.
But some years ago it was theorized that electrons may exist.
You don't see how this could be possible even in theory.
May I suggest an optician?
Androcles.
Topquark
I suggest that you go back to playing with your blocks and stop
interupting the adults.
srp
John Graeme a écrit :
> srp wrote:
>> Radium a écrit :
>>> Randy Poe wrote:
>>>> Neutrons also have a magnetic moment. Neutron stars
>>>> have very strong magnetic fields.
>>> http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.research/browse_thread/thread/3e9165cf392ad391/35837736a0f3333c#35837736a0f3333c
>>>
>>> Apparently neutrons are also "electric". The overall electric chage of
>>> the neutron maybe neutral but it is still made up of charged particles.
>>>
>>> However, the person who posted the message in
>>> http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.research/msg/029a72c00e1c69c9
>>> claims -- at least in my interpretation -- that magnetism can exist in
>>> the complete absence of any electricity. How is this possible?
>> It is not possible.
>>
>> Note that "electric charge" is not the same as "electric field".
>>
>> Straight from Maxwell, both electric and magnetic fields cannot
>> exist separately.
>>
>> In any volume of space, the density of electric field energy is always
>> equal to the density of magnetic field energy.
>
> I understand the classical theory: A static electric field can exist
> without a magnetic field.
At the macro level, certainly. But not at the elementary particle
level. At that level, the above is always the case.
> In another, moving coordinate system, one
> would see a magnetic field--electric and magnetic fields are really
> different aspects of one phenomenon.
>
> But some years ago it was theorized that magnetic monopoles may exist.
> I don't see how this could be possible even in theory.
It is not possible in straight Maxwell, confirmed by 150 years of
never observing any.
André Michaud
Sorcerer
|
|
| John Graeme a écrit :
| > srp wrote:
| >> Radium a écrit :
| >>> Randy Poe wrote:
| >>>> Neutrons also have a magnetic moment. Neutron stars
| >>>> have very strong magnetic fields.
| >>>
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.research/browse_thread/thread/3e9165cf392ad391/35837736a0f3333c#35837736a0f3333c
| >>>
| >>> Apparently neutrons are also "electric". The overall electric chage of
| >>> the neutron maybe neutral but it is still made up of charged
particles.
| >>>
| >>> However, the person who posted the message in
| >>>
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.research/msg/029a72c00e1c69c9
| >>> claims -- at least in my interpretation -- that magnetism can exist in
| >>> the complete absence of any electricity. How is this possible?
| >> It is not possible.
| >>
| >> Note that "electric charge" is not the same as "electric field".
| >>
| >> Straight from Maxwell, both electric and magnetic fields cannot
| >> exist separately.
| >>
| >> In any volume of space, the density of electric field energy is always
| >> equal to the density of magnetic field energy.
| >
| > I understand the classical theory: A static electric field can exist
| > without a magnetic field.
|
| At the macro level, certainly. But not at the elementary particle
| level. At that level, the above is always the case.
http://www68.pair.com/willisb/millikan/experiment.html
I see no magnetic field.
The Earth weighs 180 lb in my gravitational field, it should go on a diet
and exercise more.
Randy Poe
There's an asymmetry in Maxwell's equations. One says that
div E is proportional to electric charge density, another that div B is
proportional to zero. "In theory" you'd just have to write the
analogous equation, div B ~ magnetic charge density, and
add the idea that moving magnetic monopoles appear as a
magnetic current with analogous effects.
- Randy
srp
It is because only ionization is basically involed in this type of
current flow.
To have a macroscopically measurable magnetic fields, you need
to have materials involved in which the spins of a crowd of electrons
are locally forced to align parallel (this is the key to macroscopic
magnetic fields), either by constant flow of current or use of
magnetic materials, in which you have segments in which some
unpaired electrons are statically forced to remain parallel.
Ref "CRC Handbook of Chemistry and Physics" section 12, starting
at "Properties of Magnetic Materials".
André Michaud
Sorcerer
You are making it up as you go along. I see no current flow.
badd...@yahoo.com
Rock Brentwood wrote:
> Radium wrote:
> > Would someone please show me any magnetism that is not electrical in
> > origin?
>
> OK.
>
> In concept, it's actually not that hard to do, but in practice, it
> could take a lot of work. I relies on a loophole in the (currently
> accepted) laws governing the forces that electromagnetism are a part
> of; the loophole not known prior to the 1970's.
I'm not sure precisely what the author who posted the original
question means by not electrical in nature, nor what you mean by
a loophole not known prior to the 1970's, but it isn't necessary
to invoke the weak interaction or magnetic monopoles to endow a
neutral particle with a magnetic moment. A massive Dirac particle
can have a magnetic moment which arises entirely through the
electromagnetic current in vacuum polarization loops. I assume
you are not referring to the so-called weak-magnetism, which is
the weak analogy to magnetism obtained by decomposing the charged
weak current and has appeared in the literature since the 1950's
(originally due to Feynman and Gell-Mann), prior to the discovery
of neutral currents.
*snip*
> The calculations have been worked out in detail and are provided
> amongst the list of articles and papers listed under
> http://federation.g3z.com/Physics/Index.htm ... where one will also
> find a writeup
I can't read any of those witeups since you chose to provide
them only in Word format.
Timothy Golden BandTechnology.com
> > Would someone please show me any magnetism that is not electrical in
> > origin?
I have a very primitive and simple neotheory on this topic.
It is called simply n-poles.
Suppose that Maxwells equations are not unified and that they have
prolonged unification by so tightly relating the two supposed forces of
electricity and magnetism; that instead there is just one underlying
force interposed with spacetime.
Suppose that n-poles are fundamental. A 1-pole, a 2-pole, and a 3-pole
may suffice.
Each n-pole has one emanating line of flux and n-1 receptors of flux.
Hence for a 1-pole there is just an emanating line of flux. A 2-pole
has one emanating and one receiving pole. A 3-pole has one emanating
and two receptor poles. There is merely an affinity of flux to
receptors.
I have gone through renditions of this model and settled at an electron
as 1-pole, a photon as 2-pole, and a proton as 3-pole. without any
further construct it is very easy to see that three-poles can unite
into nucleii and that 1-poles would like to attach to these nucleii and
that when the number of 1-poles equals the number of 3-poles that the
model will be atomic.
2-poles can be imposed in chains along any line of flux.
This quantized flux system satisfies numerous requirements with very
little material.
It is completely lacking geometry so I call it a neophyte theory.
Flux dynamics are also lacking.
These areas provide room for this theory to take shape.
This model treats electron and proton as different species of particle
and should not require strong and weak forces. There may be room for
gravity. Net affinity could be a flux dynamic.
Spin and charge mesh consistently with existing theory. The 2-pole can
be self-attached and free or tied in to a structure so would naturally
interact.
It looks too easy and childish but I thought I would share it here in
the event that it sparks ideas for you. It looks semiclassical since
none of modern physics is involved.
Many gaps need to be filled in but please do freely attack this basis.
Perhaps it is flawed from the get-go.
-Tim
sal
So are you saying the energy density of the B field around the magnet is
actually zero, or are you claiming that in some way the energy density of
the (zero-strength) E field is somehow nonzero and equal to the B field's
energy density?
You originally claimed they were always equal, you may recall.
>
>> And a charged up ballon that I stick to my wall has no magnetic field
>> macroscopically.
>
> You are talking about ionization here. Magnetic field builds up
> additively only when unpaired electrons in material have the possibility
> (and are forced) have their spins aligned parallel.
>
> So, no conflict here either.
So, are you claiming there's no electric field around the balloon, or are
you claiming that its energy density is zero (despite the field being
nonzero), or are you claiming that the energy density of the balloon's
magnetic field is nonzero even though it hasn't got one?
Again, you claimed the energy density of the B field and E field are
always equal, everywhere. Please explain how that's true around either
the balloon or permanent magnet you were just discussing.
>
>> FrediFizzx
>>
>> Quantum Vacuum Charge papers;
>> http://www.vacuum-physics.com/QVC/quantum_vacuum_charge.pdf or
>> postscript
>> http://www.vacuum-physics.com/QVC/quantum_vacuum_charge.ps
>> http://www.arxiv.org/abs/physics/0601110 http://www.vacuum-physics.com
>
> André Michaud
--
sal
FWIW it makes a mess of a good bit of E&M theory, but the mess is
supposedly fixable. Some time back Bilge posted a reference which deals
with it which, unfortunately, I still haven't hashed through.
The main problem that I see with monopoles in E&M is that the relationship
F=dA which summarizes (half of) Maxwell's equations in relativity theory
also implies dF=0 (because d^2==0) which in turn implies del B = 0. So if
del B <> 0 then there is a problem with using the vector magnetic
potential as the source of the field.
But from the POV of Maxwell's equations as stated in most elementary E&M
texts monopoles are not a problem.
Anyhow I'm wiped, time for bed.
Dr.Video
"Radium" <gluc...@excite.com> wrote in message
news:1161371399....@b28g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
> Puppet_Sock wrote:
> > It is an interesting premise that "all magnetism is electrical
> > in origin." It's not necessarily the case.
>
> Would someone please show me any magnetism that is not electrical in
> origin?
>
Y.Porat
Sam Wormley wrote:
> Researcher wrote:
> > Maybe Newton's initial thought about Gravity only was right all through.
> >
>
> GTR is clearly in better agreement with nature than Newton's Law of
> Gravitation, however, Newton is adequate for classical applications.
>
>
>
> >
>
> o Gravity is a universal interaction in Newtonian theory between all mass, and,
> since E = mc^2, in relativistic gravity between all forms of energy.
>
> o Gravity is unscreened. There are no negative gravitational charges to cancel
> positive ones, and therefore it is not possible to shield (screen) the gravitational
> interaction. Gravity is always attractive.
you are palying chess with youself !!
based on the wrong assumption that
YOU UNDERSTAND GRAVITY!!!
the very factt hat gravity is 'laways attractive' is no profe
that you cant screen it !!
for me
the very fact that it is attrractive meanse that
it can be screened!!
because there is no real attractive force in nature
the is only the REPULSIVE FORCE!!
and the attractive force comes only from
UNBALLANCED REPULSIVE FORCESS!!
so
if we only understood better agravity and not live in the paradise of
fools
that you know it (and that you know everything !!!)
you could screen gravity !!
old Catto said:
NATURE HAS STILL A LOT OF UNWRITTEN BOOKS !!!!
>
> o Gravity is a long-range interaction.
NOT ONLY LONG RANGE !!!
ATB
Y.Porat
----------------------
Eric Gisse
Y.Porat wrote:
> Sam Wormley wrote:
> > Researcher wrote:
> > > Maybe Newton's initial thought about Gravity only was right all through.
> > >
> >
> > GTR is clearly in better agreement with nature than Newton's Law of
> > Gravitation, however, Newton is adequate for classical applications.
> >
> >
> >
> > >
> > F_grav = G m_1 m_2 / r_12^2
> >
> > o Gravity is a universal interaction in Newtonian theory between all mass, and,
> > since E = mc^2, in relativistic gravity between all forms of energy.
> >
> > o Gravity is unscreened. There are no negative gravitational charges to cancel
> > positive ones, and therefore it is not possible to shield (screen) the gravitational
> > interaction. Gravity is always attractive.
> -----------------------------------------
>
> you are palying chess with youself !!
> based on the wrong assumption that
> YOU UNDERSTAND GRAVITY!!!
>
> the very factt hat gravity is 'laways attractive' is no profe
> that you cant screen it !!
Actually, it is.
[snip broken english]
Y.Porat
The little parrot became an expert for gravity as well !!
he knows everything for sure
and you dont have to jump anytime you see the name Y.Porat
you are sick
Y.P
-------------------------
Eric Gisse
That is because gravity is my primary interest, and is the reason I'm
studying physics.
Which of course doesn't matter to you because you are a crank.
> he knows everything for sure
> and you dont have to jump anytime you see the name Y.Porat
> you are sick
Your whining bores me, as does your insatiable persecution complex.
>
> Y.P
> -------------------------
Edward Green
> Radium wrote:
> > Puppet_Sock wrote:
> > > It is an interesting premise that "all magnetism is electrical
> > > in origin." It's not necessarily the case.
> >
> > Would someone please show me any magnetism that is not electrical in
> > origin?
>
>
> To me, that means "induced by a current or a changing
> electric field".
>
> > AFAIK, magnetism always result from something electric.
>
> aligning the magnetic moments of electrons. That is
> due neither to a current or a changing electric field.
Just for the sake of argument, I note electrons have charge and have
intrinsic angular momentum. Of course they don't have "current" in the
usual sense of the word, and spin has no classical analogue, yadda,
yadda, but this does appear to be a limiting case of a coil magnet,
rather than otherwise.
> But you might be inclined to say "aha! an electron
> is by definition electric!" If any charged particle is
> by your definition "electric" even without current
> flowing, then that leaves us with neutral particles.
>
> Neutrons also have a magnetic moment. Neutron stars
> have very strong magnetic fields.
As was mentioned neutrons are not elementary -- presumably there is a
charged constituent with spin.
I noticed a while ago the strong similarity of the Coriolis law and the
magnetic force law, which suggests to the open mind that magnetic field
may be a kind of rotation of the local inertial coordinate system as
seen by charge; magnetic fields with matter sources indeed always seem
to be associated with the combination of angular momentum and charge.
A kind of frame dragging by charge, perhaps.
Not, however, that I am taking Radium's postion -- whatever that is.
I remember a counter argument to the idea that magnetic fields are
"just" electric fields viewed through an appropriate relativistic
perspective: strongly related under relativity as aspects of the same
phenomenon they may be, but one recalls that fields pure electric in at
least one inertial frame cannot be convereted to pure magnetic in any
frame, and the other way around too. There is something like an
intrinsically magnetic field, irreducible to merely an electric field
seen from a certain perspective.
puppe...@hotmail.com
> Puppet_Sock wrote:
> > It is an interesting premise that "all magnetism is electrical
> > in origin." It's not necessarily the case.
>
> Would someone please show me any magnetism that is not electrical in
> origin?
>
> "Puppet_Sock <puppe...@hotmail.com>" claims that there is
> non-electric magnetism.
Geeze. Since you posted it to all those news groups, I'm not going
to answer you.
Socks
Donnaboo
Ok,SOme dude, I dont recall who. Has a web site was on coasttocoastanm
last month.
He said theypuit someting in a vaccum and when they removed it it still
held the magnetic in side the vaccum. proving that we have conection
withouht knowing it necessarily to things and that pisoincs works cause
its all a hologram. if this helps
so it held magnetic pull in vaacum with out the magnet nor the thing t
was held to or such. interesting . very interesting. he probably dead in
adesssert somewhere now
sal:
> On Fri, 20 Oct 2006 20:51:56 +0000, srp wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> Radium a écrit :
>>> Randy Poe wrote:
>>>> Neutrons also have a magnetic moment. Neutron stars have very
strong
>>>> magnetic fields.
>>>
>>>
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.research/browse_thread/thread/3e9165cf392ad391/35837736a0f3333c#35837736a0f3333c
>>>
>>> Apparently neutrons are also "electric". The overall electric chage
of
>>> the neutron maybe neutral but it is still made up of charged
particles.
>>>
>>> However, the person who posted the message in
>>>
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.research/msg/029a72c00e1c69c9
>>> claims -- at least in my interpretation -- that magnetism can exist
in
>>> the complete absence of any electricity. How is this possible?
>>
>> It is not possible.
>>
>> Note that "electric charge" is not the same as "electric field".
>>
>> Straight from Maxwell, both electric and magnetic fields cannot
exist
>> separately.
>
> Maxwell's equations lead to no such conclusion. In any particular
> reference frame, with appropriate sources for the fields, one may have
a
> measurable E field, a measurable B field, or both, or neither. If you
> disagree, prove your claim (or at least cite a reference).
>
>> In any volume of space, the density of electric field energy is
always
>> equal to the density of magnetic field energy.
>
> Quoi??
>
> Where on Earth did you get _this_ idea? A reference or proof might
be
> nice.
>
> Just how strong do you think the magnetic field of an electron is?
Just a
> tad weaker than its E field, I would say.
>
> And just how strong do you think the electric field of a neutron is?
Just
> a little weaker than its B field, I would say. Last I heard nobody'd
> managed to measure _any_ E field from a neutron, in fact, though it
_may_
> have a nonzero dipole E field.