0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Here is the visualization of the second experiment, which start from the first as described before. If the charged particle is stationary to the wire, no magnetic force is received.Next, the wire is zoomed to show the electrons and metal atoms inside.From the picture above, the electrons inside the wire move to the left with speed v, but particle q doesn't receive magnetic force.Now if the wire is moved to the right with speed v, the speed of electrons becomes 0, while the speed of the metal atoms = v. It is shown that magnetic force F is produced downward.The picture above is equivalent to the picture from previous post.Here we can conclude that electron's movement is not responded by the particle, while atom's movement produces magnetic force to the particle. It seems that for a long time we had missed the difference between atoms and free electrons which cause electric current and produce magnetic force.For the second experiment, we will study the effect of the movement of charged particles inside a conductor (or convector) toward the test particle. We will study the hypothesis that magnetic force is not only affected by the magnitude of electric charge that moves inside a conductor (or convector), but also affected by the mass of the particle.Electric current in a copper wire is produced by the flow of electrons inside. The charge and mass of electrons are always the same, so we need some other particles as electric current producers to get reference. For that we will replace the conductor by a hose filled by electrolyte solution that contains ions, since ions are also electrically charged and have various masses. Some of electrolytic solutions that will be used are NaCl, H2SO4, HCl, CuSO4, FeCl3.
We can make a table showing the force experienced by the stationary test particle in various velocities of both positive and negative particles in the wire. I'll use standard Lorentz force to calculate the force, which states thatF = B.q.vWhere B is proportional to electric current in the wire, which depends on velocity difference between positive and negative particles in the wire.v represents the velocity difference between the test particle and the wire. Since the test particle is stationary, it's merely determined by the velocity of positive particles in the wire.It's assumed that all positive particles have uniform velocity. Negative particles has uniform velocity as well.
doing thought experiments are generally much easier, and cheaper than physical experiments.
Can these patterns be explained using length contraction and time dilation?
As an alternative, Edward Purcell tried to explain electromagnetic force relativistically, herehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relativistic_electromagnetism#The_origin_of_magnetic_forces.There was shown that electric current in the wire is produced by the stream of positively charged particles, while common knowledge says that it is produced by the flow of electron which is negatively charged. If we see closer, it will be seen that positive and negative charges in the wire act asymmetrically.
Magnetism is one of the most bizarre of known classical physics phenomena, with many counter intuitive effects. Even weirder, when one uses Maxwell?s equations (the laws that describe electromagnetism) and traditional Galilean relativity, you can see that magnetism makes no sense at all. However, when one uses Einstein?s theory of relativity, it all makes perfect sense. In this video, Fermilab?s Dr. Don Lincoln helps sort it all out.
Magnetism is a fundamentally quantum phenomenon.Maxwell's equations aren't.
The search for a relation between electricity and gravity comprised one of MichaelFaraday?s last research undertakings. During his first period of experimentation, Faraday himself deemed his chances of success very slim. His colleagues almost unanimously ignored or criticized his theoretical ruminations on the subject, and Faraday openly courted hostility by espousing them. When his results of 1849 yielded nothing useful, Faraday published them anyway, writing that, ?[The negative results] do not shake my strong feeling of the existence of a relation between gravity and electricity, though they give no proof that such a relation exists.? In 1855, Faraday lamented, ?I suppose that nobody will accept the idea [of gravity interconversion with electricity] as possible.? Yet, four years later, he executed another round of electrogravity investigations. These also failed. Faraday again sought publication, but this time, he was prevailed upon to withdraw his paper.
Regarding his gravity researches, Faraday declared, ?Let the imagination go, guiding itby judgment and principles, but holding it in and directing it by experiment.? Yet as noted above, for this scientist some ?principles? rest upon absolute truth. Neither negative experiments nor conflicting theories can disprove such ?principles.? A tension thus resides in Faraday?s method, although neither he nor scholars of his work necessarily have admitted as much.Of course, Faraday was motivated, too, by the prospect that a successful unificationwould revolutionize science. As he confessed one day in 1849: It was almost with a feeling ofawe that I went to work, for if the hope should prove wellfounded, how great and mighty and sublime in its hitherto unchangeable character is the force I am trying to deal with, and how large may be the new domain of knowledge that may be opened up to the mind ofman. Other scientists seeking some grand synthesis must have shared this ?feeling of awe.? Thus, even Einstein was driven to spend years in an endeavor similar to Faraday?s; yet electrogravity eluded him as well.
There are more positive values than negative values. Thus if the velocities of particles in the wire are random, it's more likely for the test particle to be pushed away.When the electrons in the wire are kept stationary, the Lorentz force to the test particle is proportional to the square of wire's speed.
In this video Paul Andersen shows you how to develop and use models in a mini-lesson on modeling phenomena. Two examples are included in the video and two additional examples are included in the linked thinking slides. TERMSComponents - a part of a larger wholeDescription - a given account in wordsDevelop - to build or createModel - a simplified representation of a systemPhenomenon - observable events in the natural world (require explanations)Prediction - to say that an event will happen in the futureRelationship - interconnection between parts of a systemThis progression is based on the Science and Engineering Practices elements from the NRC document A Framework for K-12 Science Education. ?Develop a model to describe a phenomena.? Source: https://www.nextgenscience.org/
It's a bit suspicious that Maxwell didn't realize that his equations can't make sense of magnetism, as asserted in the beginning of the video.
The video explains why light has momentum even without mass.
Quote from: hamdani yusuf on 14/09/2023 03:53:00It's a bit suspicious that Maxwell didn't realize that his equations can't make sense of magnetism, as asserted in the beginning of the video.Why should they? His equations predict the propagation of electromagnetic waves, nothing else. You mighty as well be suspicious than an engineer built a bridge but didn't make sense of the shear strength of steel.
In order to reduce friction and improve performance, it has been suggested by the community to replace the copper contact bands with a conducting liquid, such as mercury. While the use of mercury in homopolar generators has been demonstrated, (see Bruce dePalma N-Machine), there seems to be no instance of using such liquids in homopolar motors. In this video we explain why contact liquids won't work.