Pre-magnetic dipoles

3 views
Skip to first unread message

z@z

unread,
Feb 20, 2000, 3:00:00 AM2/20/00
to
Attraction and repulsion between current carrying conductors has never
been explained in a consistent way.

Whittaker wrote in "A History of the Theories of Aether and
Electricity", 1951, Vol. 1, p. 205-206:

"The assumption that positive and negative charges move with equal
and opposite velocities relative to the matter of the conductor is
one to which, for various reasons which will appear later, objection
may be taken; but it is an integral part of Weber's theory, cannot
be excised from it. In fact, if this condition were not satisfied,
and if the law of force were Weber's, electric currents would exert
forces on electrostatic charges at rest; ...

It has been shown, indeed, that the assumption of opposite
electricities moving with equal and opposite velocities in a circuit
is almost inevitable in any theory of the type of Weber's, so long
as the mutual action of two charges is assumed to depend only their
relative (as opposed to their absolute) motion."

Maxwell's theory has not only NOT resolved this problem (at least in
a laboratory at rest wrt the ether), but it has even added further
inconsistencies (e.g. momentum conservation). Whereas Weber's
explanation relies on relative velocities in the order of 1 mm/s,
Maxwell's explanation ultimately relies on magnetic effects resulting
from our velocity wrt the ether (at least in the order of 100 km/s).

Because I do not adhere to the "scientific" belief that obvious and
transparent inconsistencies have dark and ONLY APPARENTLY inconsistent
solutions in less concrete and less transparent theories, I propose
here an alternative solution to magnetism.
___________________________________________________________

PRE-MAGNETIC DIPOLES

Electrons (and probably also protons) could be little dipoles, not
magnetic but pre-magnetic ones. There is an attractive force between
parallel and a repulsive force between antiparallel dipoles. I call
them pre-magnetic, because they are constituents of magnetic dipoles.
Three, four or more of them can form a loop (all in the same rotation
direction). There is an attractive force between two parallel loops
with the same rotation sense. There is a repulsive force between two
parallel loops with opposite rotation sense.

If there is a current in a straight conductor, the dipols are no
longer randomly distributed. It is easy to explain the proportionality
between current and magnetic field. But a theoretical limit would be
reached if the dipoles of all conducting electrons were 100% parallel
to the conductor.

There is also the alternative that premagnetism is not a permanent
property. It is possible to assume that electrons (and protons) only
show the premagnetic dipole property in special situations, e.g. when
they are moving relative to other charges.
___________________________________________________________

Further explanations

These premagnetic dipoles have to be quite different from magnetic
dipoles. While there is an attraction between antiparallel rod
magnets, there is an attraction between parallel premagnetic dipoles.

Attraction between magnetic dipoles:

- ===== + ===== ====== =====
+ ===== - - + - + - +

Attraction between premagnetic dipoles:

- ===== + (type 1) ===== ====== ===== (type 2)
- ===== + - + - + - +

In a magnet there are lots of closed loops of type 2 which are
orthogonal to the magnetic flux. In this way it should be possible
to explain why the principle of Stokes can be applied. There is an
attraction of type 1 between parallel loops (same torque) at
different layers.

The saturation of ferromagnetic cores can be explained in a very
elegant way.

The formation of molecules like CH4, NH3 or H2O is based on electron
pair bonding. Two electrons form a unit which can even remain at
the same place (e.g. in ice). For this reason the Bohr model must be
wrong.

Maybe it is the pre-magnetic (parallel) attraction between electrons which
compensates the electrostatic repulsion. The electron pair should have
pre-magnetic properties.

- ====== +
- ====== +

Maybe it is even the pre-magnetic (antiparallel) repulsion between electron
and proton which compensates the electrostatic attraction in a neutron
(electron-proton-pair). Therefore the neutron should have no (pre)magnetic
properties.

- ====== +
+ ====== -
___________________________________________________________


Wolfgang Gottfried G.

Maxwell's theory untenable:
http://www.deja.com/=dnc/getdoc.xp?AN=582450140
http://www.deja.com/=dnc/getdoc.xp?AN=583845550
http://www.deja.com/=dnc/getdoc.xp?AN=584326906

Harry H Conover

unread,
Feb 20, 2000, 3:00:00 AM2/20/00
to
z@z (z...@z.lol.li) wrote:
: Attraction and repulsion between current carrying conductors has never

: been explained in a consistent way.

Most physicists would disagree. Check any text on electomagnetics
to learn why.

Harry C.

Richard Perry

unread,
Feb 20, 2000, 3:00:00 AM2/20/00
to
"z@z" wrote:
Attraction and repulsion between current carrying conductors has never
been explained in a consistent way.

Whittaker wrote in "A History of the Theories of Aether and

Electricity", 1951, Vol. 1, p. 205-206:

  "The assumption that positive and negative charges move with equal
  and opposite velocities relative to the matter of the conductor is
  one to which, for various reasons which will appear later, objection
  may be taken; but it is an integral part of Weber's theory, cannot
  be excised from it. In fact, if this condition were not satisfied,
  and if the law of force were Weber's, electric currents would exert
  forces on electrostatic charges at rest; ...

  It has been shown, indeed, that the assumption of opposite
  electricities moving with equal and opposite velocities in a circuit
  is almost inevitable in any theory of the type of Weber's, so long
  as the mutual action of two charges is assumed to depend only their
  relative (as opposed to their absolute) motion."
There seems to be some confusion as to the nature of charge and it's relative motion.
We seem to have no trouble accepting the theory of positive hole conduction, as regards the operation of the semiconductor diode; we do so because it is the only tenable solution.
The motion of charge and the motion of charge carriers are not one in the same event.

If we line up a short row of protons, we have a positive charge with a definite center relative to an outside charge carrier.  Now if we superimpose an electron over the proton at one end of the segment, we have effectively neutralized that point on the segment, viz. there is no charge emanating from that point relative to an outside charge carrier. The outside charge carrier will then "see" only the remaining protons and will therefore react to a center of charge slightly shifted relative to the previous segment. This represents a change in position of the positive charge, relative to the outside charge carrier.
As the electron moves from one end of the segment to the other the center of positive charge moves in the opposite direction.
This is identical to the transmission of energy through space via mechanical wave motion. The molecules of water that form a wave do not transmit "with the wave" but serve only as temporary carriers of the wave energy.
When positron flow is viewed in this manner the Weber force is completely consistent with observation. This notion is also consistent with semiconductor diode theory, infact required by it.

 
Maxwell's theory has not only NOT resolved this problem (at least in
a laboratory at rest wrt the ether), but it has even added further
inconsistencies (e.g. momentum conservation). Whereas Weber's
explanation relies on relative velocities in the order of 1 mm/s,
Maxwell's explanation ultimately relies on magnetic effects resulting
from our velocity wrt the ether (at least in the order of 100 km/s).

Because I do not adhere to the "scientific" belief that obvious and
transparent inconsistencies have dark and ONLY APPARENTLY inconsistent
solutions in less concrete and less transparent theories, I propose
here an alternative solution to magnetism.
___________________________________________________________

PRE-MAGNETIC DIPOLES

Electrons (and probably also protons) could be little dipoles, not
magnetic but pre-magnetic ones. There is an attractive force between
parallel and a repulsive force between antiparallel dipoles. I call
them pre-magnetic, because they are constituents of magnetic dipoles.
Three, four or more of them can form a loop (all in the same rotation
direction). There is an attractive force between two parallel loops
with the same rotation sense. There is a repulsive force between two
parallel loops with opposite rotation sense.
 

A continuation of the Weber view of this interaction will inevitably lead to the postulation that the Coulomb force between two charge carriers is due to the same motional effect that produces the magnetic field, the difference being randomness as opposed to order.
Since the linear velocities of electrons can be measured and found to be less than c (per requirement of above view)it follows that the electrons have rotational energy. Since the dipoles are formed of one type of electricity they will not behave as a normal dipole. When their axis align and their rotational motions are in the same direction they will simply not react. They will be in phase.

Richard Perry    rp...@cswnet.com

Tom Roberts

unread,
Feb 21, 2000, 3:00:00 AM2/21/00
to
"z@z" wrote:
> Attraction and repulsion between current carrying conductors has never
> been explained in a consistent way.

Try: Jackson, _Clessical_Electrodynamics_, or any other standard
textbook on electrodynamics.


> "The assumption that positive and negative charges move with equal

> and opposite velocities relative to the matter of the conductor [...]

This is now well known to be wrong. In a metal, the valence electrons
(a subset of the negative charges) move and the atomic nuclei (positive
charges) do not. The non-valence electrons also do not move. Here I use
"move" in the sense of a long-term motion along the wire, ignoring any
localized motions around an associated lattice position in the wire.


You would be well advised to understand existing theories of such
phenomena before attempting to make up theories of your own. It is
impossible in any one lifetime to reproduce all of physics which
has been done before....


Tom Roberts tjro...@lucent.com

Ralph Sansbury

unread,
Feb 21, 2000, 3:00:00 AM2/21/00
to

Tom Roberts <tjro...@lucent.com> wrote in message
news:38B1676F...@lucent.com...

> "z@z" wrote:
> > Attraction and repulsion between current carrying conductors has never
> > been explained in a consistent way.
>
> Try: Jackson, _Clessical_Electrodynamics_, or any other standard
> textbook on electrodynamics.
>
>
> > "The assumption that positive and negative charges move with equal
> > and opposite velocities relative to the matter of the conductor [...]
>
> This is now well known to be wrong. In a metal, the valence electrons
> (a subset of the negative charges) move and the atomic nuclei (positive
> charges) do not. The non-valence electrons also do not move. Here I use
> "move" in the sense of a long-term motion along the wire, ignoring any
> localized motions around an associated lattice position in the wire.
>
I think he said as much but he also said that the theory implicitly
seems to require the movement of positive charges
and so we may have a contradiction.

>
> You would be well advised to understand existing theories of such
> phenomena before attempting to make up theories of your own. It is
> impossible in any one lifetime to reproduce all of physics which
> has been done before....

The history of physics is the history of change and the replacement of
one model by another or the addition of epicycles
and new premises to avoid apparent contradictions like this. You seem to
prefer additional epicycles and premises.
And as to WGG making up new theories of his own, the theory of
electrostatic dipoles has been discussed by me for the last 20 years and
before that by Frerich Zollner and probably others. See the 1984 issues of
the Rev of Sci. Instr. and my web page http://www.bestweb.net/~sansbury


> Tom Roberts tjro...@lucent.com

z@z

unread,
Feb 22, 2000, 3:00:00 AM2/22/00
to
I wrote in http://www.deja.com/=dnc/getdoc.xp?AN=587566869 :

> Whittaker wrote in "A History of the Theories of Aether and
> Electricity", 1951, Vol. 1, p. 205-206:

> " In fact, if this condition were not satisfied,


> and if the law of force were Weber's, electric currents would exert
> forces on electrostatic charges at rest; ... "

> Maxwell's theory has not only NOT resolved this problem (at least in
> a laboratory at rest wrt the ether), but ...

It is rather the contrary: only in a laboratory at rest wrt the
ether no obvious contradictions arise in Maxwell's explanation
of Ampere's law. Let us assume two neighbouring parallel wires at
rest. Because apart from the valence electrons all other charges
are "at rest" wrt the ether, Maxwell's fourth equation can be used
in order to correctly predict the forces between the wires.

The current in wire 1 leads to a magnetic field of a certain
intensity. Valence electrons of wire 2, moving e.g. at a speed
of 1 mm/s experience therefore a Lorentz force towards or away
from wire 1. So the whole force on wire 2 results from the movement
of a small electron subset with velocity 1 mm/s wrt the ether.

No let us suppose that we have a terrestrian laboratory. Velocities
up to at least 30 km/s wrt the ether are unavoidable in Maxwell's
theory. If the two wires are parallel to the laboratory's speed wrt
the ether then a current in wire 1 would exert huges forces on all
electrons and protons of wire 2, because they all move at e.g.
30 km/s (as opposed to 1 mm/s) wrt the ether.

The mobility of the valence electrons would cause a substantial
hall voltage in wire 2 (resulting from the Lorentz force acting on
the moving electrons and their corresponding protons) even in the
absence of a current in it.

Therefore at least the belief of pre-relativistic scientists that
Maxwell's theory consitutes a consistent synthesis (and basis) of
electromagnetism was completely unjustified. This belief was rather
the result of a mass hysteria (in which even Einstein participated)
than the result of scientific reasoning. The unreasonable excitement
about a rather obscure theory was triggered off by the experimental
confirmation of e.m. waves and the incredible progress of electricity
related technology.

The only possibility to save Maxwellian theory in the case of
Ampere's law is to generalize the classical relativity principle (as
advocated e.g. by Ockham, Cusanus and Kant) and to assume that every
(uniformly moving) laboratory has equal rights to the ether.
___________________________________________________________

: PRE-MAGNETIC DIPOLES
:
: Electrons (and probably also protons) could be little dipoles, not
: magnetic but pre-magnetic ones. There is an attractive force between
: parallel and a repulsive force between antiparallel dipoles. I call
: them pre-magnetic, because they are constituents of magnetic dipoles.
: Three, four or more of them can form a loop (all in the same rotation
: direction). There is an attractive force between two parallel loops
: with the same rotation sense. There is a repulsive force between two
: parallel loops with opposite rotation sense.

:
: If there is a current in a straight conductor, the dipols are no


: longer randomly distributed. It is easy to explain the proportionality
: between current and magnetic field. But a theoretical limit would be
: reached if the dipoles of all conducting electrons were 100% parallel
: to the conductor.

It is easy to quantify the force between two premagnetic dipoles
if the only imposed condition is an agreement with the Biot-Savart law
in the case of straight wires. For simplicity I assume that the dipoles
are point-like particles.

The force between dipoles does depend not only on the inverse
distance square law, but also on the direction of the dipoles wrt
each other and wrt their tie line. If both dipoles are parallel to
each other and perpendicular to their tie line then the attractive
force is maximal. If they are antiparallel to each other and
perpendicular to the tie line then the repulsive force is maximal.
If the they are parallel (or antiparallel) to each other, then the
force depends on the sine function of the angle between this direction
and their tie line (as required by the Biot-Savart law).

Let us assume that dipole 1 is fixed and its angle wrt the tie
line is 40 deg. Whether dipole 2 is also at 40 deg or at 90 deg (i.e.
perpenduclar to the tie line) does not matter, the force is the same
in both cases. The orientation of dipole 2 which leads to the highest
force is 65 deg (i.e. [40 deg + 90 deg] / 2 ). It should not be
difficult to formalize these simple relations.

A big advantage of premagnetic dipoles is (or would be) that they
explain magnetic forces as interactions between particles. Such
direct interactions at a distance do not lead to the well-known
violations of momentum conservation of both the pre-relativistic
and the relativistic version of Maxwell's theory.
http://www.deja.com/=dnc/getdoc.xp?AN=538880440


Wolfgang Gottfried G.

Tom Roberts

unread,
Feb 22, 2000, 3:00:00 AM2/22/00
to
"z@z" wrote:
> The current in wire 1 leads to a magnetic field of a certain
> intensity. Valence electrons of wire 2, moving e.g. at a speed
> of 1 mm/s experience therefore a Lorentz force towards or away
> from wire 1. So the whole force on wire 2 results from the movement
> of a small electron subset with velocity 1 mm/s wrt the ether.

You also need to consider the charge density of both the moving
valence electrons and the stationary nuclei (by "nuclei" I really
mean nuclear charge minus the charge of the non-valence electrons).


> No let us suppose that we have a terrestrian laboratory. Velocities
> up to at least 30 km/s wrt the ether are unavoidable in Maxwell's
> theory. If the two wires are parallel to the laboratory's speed wrt
> the ether then a current in wire 1 would exert huges forces on all
> electrons and protons of wire 2, because they all move at e.g.
> 30 km/s (as opposed to 1 mm/s) wrt the ether.

But you forgot the opposing currents in wire 1 -- the nuclei and the
valence electrons both have huge currents which approximately cancel
out, so the "huge forces" are actually on the order of the forces
when the lab was at rest wrt the ether.

In modern electrodynamics the force in the moving frame
is _exactly_ the same as when the lab was at "rest in the
ether". I don't know what Maxwell's theory would predict
for this, because AFAIK in Maxwell's theory the transform
from ether-rest-frame to moving-frame is not specified.
This lack was of course what ultimately generated such
interest 30-40 years after he published his theory....


> The mobility of the valence electrons would cause a substantial
> hall voltage in wire 2 (resulting from the Lorentz force acting on
> the moving electrons and their corresponding protons) even in the
> absence of a current in it.

I believe this, too, is not true -- the charge densities of the nuclei
and the valence electrons are the same in the rest frame of the wire.
I believe this effect cancels the "Hall voltage" you're thinking of.


> Therefore at least the belief of pre-relativistic scientists that
> Maxwell's theory consitutes a consistent synthesis (and basis) of
> electromagnetism was completely unjustified.

I think you greatly overstate the case. Yes, there were
inconsistencies in Maxwell's theory -- Why do you think Lorentz,
Abraham, Ritz, Poincare', Larmor, Einstein, et al were so interested
in proposing new theories of electrodynamics in moving bodies?


> The only possibility to save Maxwellian theory in the case of
> Ampere's law is to generalize the classical relativity principle (as
> advocated e.g. by Ockham, Cusanus and Kant) and to assume that every
> (uniformly moving) laboratory has equal rights to the ether.

That was Einstein's route (though he found no need for an ether).
Lorentz's route was different. Again you greatly overstate the case.

BTW I believe Huygens is usually associated with the
"classical" principle of relativity.


Tom Roberts tjro...@lucent.com

z@z

unread,
Feb 23, 2000, 3:00:00 AM2/23/00
to
: = Tom Roberts
:: = Wolfgang G.

[no snips]

:: The current in wire 1 leads to a magnetic field of a certain


:: intensity. Valence electrons of wire 2, moving e.g. at a speed
:: of 1 mm/s experience therefore a Lorentz force towards or away
:: from wire 1. So the whole force on wire 2 results from the movement
:: of a small electron subset with velocity 1 mm/s wrt the ether.

:
: You also need to consider the charge density of both the moving


: valence electrons and the stationary nuclei (by "nuclei" I really
: mean nuclear charge minus the charge of the non-valence electrons).

No, not in Maxwell's original theory. The stationary nuclei are (in
the discussed case) at rest wrt the ether, so they don't experience
magnetic forces.


:: No let us suppose that we have a terrestrian laboratory. Velocities


:: up to at least 30 km/s wrt the ether are unavoidable in Maxwell's
:: theory. If the two wires are parallel to the laboratory's speed wrt
:: the ether then a current in wire 1 would exert huges forces on all
:: electrons and protons of wire 2, because they all move at e.g.
:: 30 km/s (as opposed to 1 mm/s) wrt the ether.

:
: But you forgot the opposing currents in wire 1 -- the nuclei and the


: valence electrons both have huge currents which approximately cancel
: out, so the "huge forces" are actually on the order of the forces

: when the lab was at rest wrt the ether.

My argument concerns wire 2, and not wire 1 which is assumed to
generate the magnetic field. It is clear that in the case of a high
velocity wrt the ether both protons and electrons of wire 1 produce
huge magnetic fields which cancel out.

Your defense of the orthodox point of view is typical: an
inconsistency arises in a certain situation; a similar situation
where the inconsistency does not arise is then declared to be a
demonstration that the theory is consistent in all cases.

: In modern electrodynamics the force in the moving frame
: is _exactly_ the same as when the lab was at "rest in the


: ether". I don't know what Maxwell's theory would predict
: for this, because AFAIK in Maxwell's theory the transform
: from ether-rest-frame to moving-frame is not specified.
: This lack was of course what ultimately generated such
: interest 30-40 years after he published his theory....

In Maxwell's original theory there was no need for a "transform
from ether-rest-frame to moving-frame". The fact that the
physicists (including Lorentz, Helmholtz, Michelson and so on)
were surprised by the failures of detecting an ether wind of
around 30 km/s or more clearly shows that they did not notice
the huge inconsistencies of Maxwell's theory.


:: The mobility of the valence electrons would cause a substantial
:: Hall voltage in wire 2 (resulting from the Lorentz force acting on


:: the moving electrons and their corresponding protons) even in the
:: absence of a current in it.

:
: I believe this, too, is not true -- the charge densities of the nuclei


: and the valence electrons are the same in the rest frame of the wire.
: I believe this effect cancels the "Hall voltage" you're thinking of.

In Maxwell's original theory, the Lorentz force is the result of
the velocity wrt the ether. If this velocity is e.g. 370 km/s,
then an electron at rest wrt the earth would suffer (in a magnetic
field) a corresponding Lorentz force in one direction, whereas a
proton would suffer the same force in the opposite direction. An
electrical polarization would be the result.

BTW, does anybody know what happens with the Hall voltage if the
wire moves in such a way that the conducting electrons are at rest
wrt the magnetic field?


:: Therefore at least the belief of pre-relativistic scientists that


:: Maxwell's theory consitutes a consistent synthesis (and basis) of
:: electromagnetism was completely unjustified.

:
: I think you greatly overstate the case. Yes, there were


: inconsistencies in Maxwell's theory -- Why do you think Lorentz,
: Abraham, Ritz, Poincare', Larmor, Einstein, et al were so interested
: in proposing new theories of electrodynamics in moving bodies?

A positive result of the Michelson-Morley experiment would have been
interpreted as a confirmation of Maxwell's theory by the physicists.
In fact however, the detection of the ether would have reduced the
theory to absurdity.


:: The only possibility to save Maxwellian theory in the case of


:: Ampere's law is to generalize the classical relativity principle (as
:: advocated e.g. by Ockham, Cusanus and Kant) and to assume that every
:: (uniformly moving) laboratory has equal rights to the ether.

:
: That was Einstein's route (though he found no need for an ether).


: Lorentz's route was different. Again you greatly overstate the case.

No, I'm not overstating at all! Maxwell's theory and an absolute
ether go as well together as water and fire!

: BTW I believe Huygens is usually associated with the
: "classical" principle of relativity.

It would be a very interesting project to carefully document the
emergence and history of the principles of inertia and relativity
(the latter presupposes the former). The first scientist I know of
who consistently advocated the principle of inertia was the Arab
philosopher Avicenna (or Ibn Sina, around 980 - 1037).


Wolfgang Gottfried G.

Begriffliche Begründung einer Relationalitätstheorie:
http://members.lol.li/twostone/relationality.html

Bilge

unread,
Mar 5, 2000, 3:00:00 AM3/5/00
to

>


>It is rather the contrary: only in a laboratory at rest wrt the
>ether no obvious contradictions arise in Maxwell's explanation
>of Ampere's law. Let us assume two neighbouring parallel wires at
>rest. Because apart from the valence electrons all other charges
>are "at rest" wrt the ether, Maxwell's fourth equation can be used
>in order to correctly predict the forces between the wires.
>

>Therefore at least the belief of pre-relativistic scientists that


>Maxwell's theory consitutes a consistent synthesis (and basis) of
>electromagnetism was completely unjustified. This belief was rather


Maxwell got it right for the wrong reason. So, don't try to fit
an aether into the picture. It doesn't work any better now than it
did then. It's not unheard of to try and prove one thing, but
prove the opposite.


>
>The only possibility to save Maxwellian theory in the case of
>Ampere's law is to generalize the classical relativity principle (as
>advocated e.g. by Ockham, Cusanus and Kant) and to assume that every
>(uniformly moving) laboratory has equal rights to the ether.

In effect, that's what special relativity does. The photon has no
rest rest frame. Photons are how charges communicate forces.


Reply all
Reply to author
Forward
0 new messages