0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
please give me one example of a magnetic field that occurs with out the aid of a moving charge.
Quote from: mmfiore on 08/07/2016 00:37:03please give me one example of a magnetic field that occurs with out the aid of a moving charge.Neutrons have a magnetic field, and are electrically neutral. Additionally the magnetic field is independent of any motion of the neutron.Photons are also neutral, and exert a(n oscillating) magnetic field.
First answer for me one simple question. How much charge does the photon have? We must come to an agreement about this.Once this has been discussed and agreed upon then we can proceed to the rest of my argument.
They are not moving and in this case the magnetic field is absent. The only reasonable explanation for this is that the magnetic field is a torsional response in space to the motion of the electrostatic field. Moving charges create the magnetic field.
Neutrinos seem to oscillate as there seems to be evidence to support that. Photons are waves that possess a wavelength and the entire wave configuration is the particle. So I agree with main stream science about that. I just am more specific and unlike QM I believe that particles exist as real physical objects with momentum and paths. Some people may think that they oscillate because they visualize using the sine wave that is used to represent the image we have of the photon. It is a crude 2 dimensional graph of a dynamic 3 dimensional object. The photon may seem to oscillate to some because as it passes by, space rotates around it as it passes by a given point.. I believe that the photon is a physical deformation of space. This deformation is a full 360 degrees of rotation. The first 2 quadrants of rotation, the first 180 degrees are the positive component. The second two quadrants of rotation are the negative portion of the photon.This rotation of space is what charge is. There are other aspects and details I will not get into here as it would make this post huge and it is somewhat outside the scope of this discussion. The complete description will be included in the full document I am writing.Since we sort of agree that the photon is in fact a charge-full object that has two equally sized charges that cancel we can cross out this part of the argument unless you say otherwise. We agree that the photon is a charged object in motion and it has an associated magnetic field. It supports my postulate. Remember all I said is that a magnetic field is always associated with a moving charge. You are thinking of the photon as one singular object. While it is a singular object it is also true that the photon is a composition of 2 separate and distinct field types that move in unison. Imagine if you could stop a photon The question becomes would you see the magnetic field if this could be done. In my theory if the photon's motion could truly be stopped the magnetic part of the electromagnetic object would vanish.Further evidence of this fundamental truth is the electromagnet. If I stop the current flow through a coil of wire the magnetic field vanishes. Once again we have the flow or motion of electric charges as soon as we remove the charges in motion the magnetic field vanishes. As I always like to say if a thing looks like a duck and quacks like a duck and walks like a duck, that thing is a duck. The pattern in nature is clear and its up to us to simply make the cosmic connections.Now for the neutrino. I do believe that most of main stream physicists will concede that the neutrino does in fact consist of three nodes of deflection when the neutron is observed using low energy scattering technique. The low energy scattering technique is more accurate technique and it gives us a truer picture of the internal structure. Why do I say low energy scattering give us a more accurate and truthful picture? The answer is simple. It is less invasive then high energy bombardment.To these 3 nodes of deflection we have assigned the name of quarks and as I look at my standard model chart I see that the quarks inside of the neutron has 1 UP and 2 Down quarks. The up quark has a +2/3 electric charge and the 2 down quarks has a -1/3 electric charge. The quarks are in motion. We know this because when using the scattering techniques the quarks are found in different positions every time we look. So we have charges inside the neutron and they are moving. These moving charges have an associated magnetic field. Therefore the neutron supports my postulate.You also bring up more complex structures composed of multiple neutron and protons. It is certainly possible to composed many amorphic like structure. These compositions are not basic, simple particles which is part of my postulate. In the case of complex objects it is as you say. The alignment of all the components is such that their motions cancel out the magnetic component. This is not something that disproves what I have said.
. Hence, static electric fields have a frequency of 0 Hz. They are not moving and in this case the magnetic field is absent. The only reasonable explanation for this is that the magnetic field is a torsional response in space to the motion of the electrostatic field. Moving charges create the magnetic field.
Allow me to clarify. Imagine that I create an electrostatic field using a van der graaf generator. I build up a voltage of 100000 volts. I hold that field at 100000 volts I do not allow current to flow from the anode to the cathode. The field will be stationary and it will not decrease or increase and there will be no current flow. In this case no magnetic field will happen as the result of the static electrostatic field.In every case that be conceived there has never been a case where a magnetic field exists independent of a moving charge. If this detail that I have noticed is true it is an incredibly important realization.Does anyone know of an experiment that prove this concept wrong? If so give me a link to it.
Concerning the electromagnet example. When we put a magnetic field in motion via a magnet we must realize that the magnet has magnetic field because of circling charges within the magnetic material. When we move a magnetic field across a coil of wire and create an emf or an alignment of charge within the wire this causes the electrons to move as a current. The motion of the magnetic field is not really causing charge to appear from nowhere it is causing a voltage build up and alignment of charge in the wire.If in fact we could create a charge from just the motion of a magnet we would be able to build emf, a huge electric field in the void of space by just causing a magnet to spin in space. This does not happen. In order for Emf to happen as a result of a moving magnetic field the existence of free electrons in a conductor is a prerequisite. Therefore magnetism does not create charge.
Well it looks like we are not going to agree. I respectfully disagree with your reasoning as you not correct about the van de Graff generator. You are mixing up the frame of references. The large electrostatic field that is generated by the van de graff is completely separate and isolated from the particles that make up the van de graff generator. The atoms and particles that make up the van de graff generator are at a great distance from the field that exists between the anode and cathode. So those particles can not be causing the non existent cancelling effect that you speak of. The fact remains that there exists a huge electrostatic field that exists between the anode and cathode of the generator. I can cause that field to be generated in the void of outer space and the result would be the same. There would be no associated or corresponding magnetic field to match up with the huge static electrostatic field. In the void of space there are no atoms, particles or molecules there to cause the cancelling effect you seem to insist exists at the point of the stationary electrostatic field. So with out a doubt my argument holds strongly in this example. I have provided an example of a stationary electrostatic field that does not generate a magnetic field.
My quoting controls and editing controls are not working on this PC for some reason, so I cannot properly mark your text as a quote.
blah blah blah
As for the second statement you made.Quote from: chiralSPO"You do not need matter or charges to interact with an EMF for it for be real. A single charged particle in an otherwise empty universe still has an associated electric field, even if there are no other particles to interact with. As soon as a charged particle (or imaginary test particle) is introduced, the interaction manifests. The same goes for a spinning magnet in an otherwise empty universe. If there is nothing to interact with there is still a field, which becomes apparent as soon as there is a particle that can be observed interacting with it."I pretty much agree with everything you say there. For you to say those things you must believe in an objective reality. That is good.
"You do not need matter or charges to interact with an EMF for it for be real. A single charged particle in an otherwise empty universe still has an associated electric field, even if there are no other particles to interact with. As soon as a charged particle (or imaginary test particle) is introduced, the interaction manifests. The same goes for a spinning magnet in an otherwise empty universe. If there is nothing to interact with there is still a field, which becomes apparent as soon as there is a particle that can be observed interacting with it."