[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

Nowadays most people explain daily electromagnetic phenomena using Maxwell’s theory, which was a summary and development of the thoughts of 19th century scientists like Gauss, Faraday, and Ampere. When it was realized that Maxwell’s theory is not compatible with Newton’s mechanics, Einstein chose to modify Newton’s mechanics to comply with Maxwell’s equations, hence established the SR theory. As time goes by, thermodynamics led Max Planck to start quantum theory which was later developed to explain microscopic world. But on macroscopic scale, its result is similar to Maxwell’s theory.
I guess that the incompatibility can be resolved by modifying or even replacing Maxwell’s theory, instead of Newton’s mechanics. One thing that I concern the most is about the origin of magnetic force. Maxwell’s theory implies that magnetism comes from moving electric charge. Magnetic field was introduced to explain how magnetic force works. The field was based on magnetic lines of force which were introduced by Faraday.
Basically, Maxwell’s theory explains magnetic force in two steps. First, moving electric charges produce magnetic fields around their trajectory, according to right hand rule. Then the field will do a magnetic force to any electric charge which moves relative to it. Therefore, this theory seems to have difficulties when explaining point to point interaction, especially regarding asymmetry between action and reaction. This kind of interaction is the very thing that should be explained by any fundamental physics theories like Newton’s gravity and Coulomb’s static electricity, since point is the simplest geometric element, and any other geometric forms are built from it.

As an alternative, Edward Purcell tried to explain electromagnetic force relativistically, here
http://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.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

1.   Existence of magnetic field
Ampere’s law states that electric current produces magnetic field around it. In classical electromagnetic understanding, this is often thought that the space around the electric current contains magnetic field, hence the magnitude and direction of magnetic field at some point is the properties of the space at that point, which is stated by Biot-Savart’s law as vector summary of electric current components around it.
Following experiment shows that magnetic field at any point is not a property of the space at that point. This experiment also shows that magnetic lines of forces are not real, but only a tool to help in doing calculations. It will be shown that electrically charged material will suffer magnetic force although theoretically, it receives zero magnetic fields.
This can be proven by placing an electrically charged particle between two wires with constant electric current in the same direction and magnitude, hence at the particle’s position, the magnetic field generated by the first wire will neutralize the magnetic field generated by second wire. Then both wires are moved with the same speed, but opposite direction. Let’s take the first wire moves in the same direction as the electric current. If Lorentz force done by first wire is calculated separately from the force by second wire, the result is that those forces have the same direction as well as magnitude, hence the total force is twice as much as the force by each wire individually.
Shortly, if the magnetic fields are calculated first, we get zero force on the charged particle. But if the forces by each wire are calculated separately, we get twice as much.
To help visualize the situation, here is a picture of magnetic fields created by a long wire with constant electric current.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

The magnetic fields below the wire are towards picture plane as described by right hand rule. Positively charged particle below the wire moves to the left and feels magnetic down force F = q.B.v since B is perpendicular to v.
In this case, B = µ0I/2πr



According to Maxwellian understanding, magnetic field B is a property of the space around the wire, and it’s not affected by v.
If the particle is used as reference frame then the moving part is the wire. The static particle feels downward magnetic force like before.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

Now we add another wire below the particle with the same direction of electric current but physically move in opposite direction to the first wire.



In the place where the particle resides, B=0 because the second wire produces magnetic fields with the same magnitude but opposite direction to the first wire. Nevertheless, the second wire gives down force as much as the first, thus the resultant force becomes twice. From here on it can be concluded that the idea about magnetic fields that fill the space is not adequate to explain electromagnetic phenomena.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

2.   Speed reference
Lorentz’ force states that electrically charged particle moving in a magnetic field will get magnetic force F = q . B x v
F:force; q:electric charge; B:magnetic field; v:speed (relative to the source of magnetic field).
If the source of magnetic field is a long wire with constant electric current, then v is measured relative to the wire. Note that inside the wire there are electrons which are moving relative to the metal atoms in the wire. The equation above shows that if an electrically charged particle is stationary to the wire, it will not get magnetic force, no matter how fast the speed of the electron (negative charge carrier) inside the wire.
If the wire is moved in the same speed but opposite direction with the electrons, then the charged particle is stationary relative to the free electrons inside the wire, but moving relative to the metal atom of the wire. Then it is shown that in the particle’s reference, movement of metal atoms (positive charge carrier) produce magnetic force, while movement of electrons (negative charge carrier) doesn’t have direct effect on its own. Nevertheless, electron’s movement can neutralize metal atom’s movement if both of them move in the same speed and direction. Electron can even reverse the direction of the force if it’s moving in the same direction with the metal atom but with higher speed.
There are two fundamental differences between positive charge carrier (metal atom) and negative charge carrier (electron) inside a wire with electric current, i.e. charge sign and mass. In the prepared experiment we will examine the effect of charge sign and mass of the electric current producers to the magnetic forces that they produce. This can be done by replacing electron as the current producer with ions with various charges and masses, while the metal wire will be replaced by a hose containing electrolyte solutions.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

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.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

3.   Magnetostatic
Magnetostatic is usually connected with Biot-Savart’s law since it can calculate the strength of magnetic field at any point around an electric current. This law states that magnetic field produced by current fraction in a conductor at a point around the conductor is:



In the equation above there are vector cross product between dL and 1r, thus if r is in the same direction with dL then dB equals 0. In the next experiment we will examine the electromagnetic effect by current fractions whose direction are straight toward or leaving a test particle.
Picture A shows a test particle put above a hose that follows a zigzag route. It contains conductive liquid that flows from left to the right. Electric current also flows in it in the same direction.
In picture B we add one more hose in front of the first with alternating path. It’s as if the second hose has “half period phase difference” with the first. To make it clear, the second hose is colored red. The red and blue hose contain the same liquid flowing from left to right, and electric currents flow inside both of them in the same magnitude also from left to right. According to Biot-Savart’s law, the magnetic field felt by the test particle is only affected by horizontal current fractions, because the rest are directing toward or leaving the particle, hence the cross product is 0.
Therefore picture B can be simplified to picture C to calculate the magnetic field sensed by the test particle. If experiments using picture B produce larger magnetic force than in picture C then Biot-Savart’s law is proven to be not a fundamental physics law. Rather it only explains a special case where current fractions move uniformly relative to the charged particle.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

Currently magnetism is seen as moving electricity, whose magnitude is determined by electric charge and velocity of the electric charge carriers.
If evidence provided by experiments above shows that magnetic force is also determined by the mass of electric charge carriers, we would need to redefine magnetism as an electro-gravity effect, since inertial mass is equivalent to gravitational mass to a very high precision.

[jerrygg38]

Currently magnetism is seen as moving electricity, whose magnitude is determined by electric charge and velocity of the electric charge carriers.
If evidence provided by experiments above shows that magnetic force is also determined by the mass of electric charge carriers, we would need to redefine magnetism as an electro-gravity effect, since inertial mass is equivalent to gravitational mass to a very high precision.

  Your conclusions appear correct to me. The problem with mathematical science is that it is assumed that space itself has properties such as permeability, permitivity, gravitational constant, etc. As I see it space itself has no properties whatsoever. Everything in the universe is composed of dot-waves which have a charge of 2.755E-61 coulombs and mass of 1.566E-72Kilograms. The gravitational field is the result of the radiation of bipolar dot-waves and the electric field is the result of the radiation of positive or negative dot-waves. Stationary dot-waves produce electric fields and rotating dot-waves produce magnetic fields. As bipolar dot-waves leave the proton they expand the universe and the loss of the dot-waves produces a back presssure which is our gravity. The electric and magnetic fields are a little fancier than the gravitational field but it is basically the same process.

[kim45]

this is a good attempt to explain the origin of magnetic force. however, I've read a work where it explains the magnetic force as a result of electric force interactions between current charges. it provides a new current representation where an electric current is equivalently represented by positive and negative charges moving at the speed of light. the explanation is proved by deriving the magnetic force law and biot-savart law for the magnetic field using the basis of electric forces. also, it explains the Newton's third law for the magnetic force. full details can be found in a paper with title "Two New Theories for the Current Charge Relativity and the Electric Origin of the Magnetic Force Between Two Filamentary Current Elements"

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

Scientists have often thought that magnetic (and electric) fields are fundamental quantities that relate to real, physical, observable things in the universe. And they are. But, it may be possible that their potentials are even more fundamental!

Hey everyone, in this video I wanted to discuss how a quantity initially created purely for mathematical convenience, ends up being a really important fundamental quantity in the study of quantum mechanics.

Magnetic fields (B) are used to describe how magnets interact with each other - both the creator of the field, and any magnet placed within the field. And these fields are thought to be fundamental quantities, neatly describing the behaviour of all magnetic objects. However, sometimes magnetic fields are not mathematically simple to deal with.

To overcome this issue, physicists made use of a neat math trick. They took an identity that states that the divergence of the curl of any vector must be zero, as well as the Maxwell equation that states that the divergence of any magnetic field must always be zero ( https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0jW74lrpeM0 ) to define a "magnetic vector potential" (A). The relationship is that a magnetic field is equal to the curl of its vector potential.

Now vector potentials are often easier to work with mathematically, but they aren't uniquely defined ("gauge invariance"). If we have a certain B-field, this can be described by multiple related A-fields. But when given an A-field, we can uniquely find the corresponding B-field. This is important later.

When studying quantum mechanics, it turns out that the A-field can have a real, measurable impact on a system, despite only being considered a mathematical convenience. Importantly, this measurable impact has nothing to do with the corresponding B-field! This is because in a region of space where B is zero, but A is not zero, we can find the wave function of an electron being changed. Specifically, the phase of the wave function changes, and this can be measured using a particular type of double-slit experiment. This effect is known as the Aharonov-Bohm Effect.

In other words, we find that the magnetic vector potential can have a real-world impact WITHOUT any influence from its corresponding magnetic field. The Aharonov-Bohm effect is telling us that electric and magnetic fields are not the fundamental quantities that we initially thought, and their potentials are the fundamental quantities! This despite potentials only being created for mathematical convenience!

Caveat to the Aharonov-Bohm effect: It *may* be possible to describe the effect by purely dealing with the magnetic field and not the vector potential, but this would involve having to give up the idea of locality - we would need nonlocal fields!

Timestamps:
0:00 - Magnetic Field Lines: Vectors for Magnetic Interactions
1:46 - Magnetic Fields vs Mathematical Convenience
2:17 - A Neat Trick for Defining Magnetic Vector Potential
4:00 - Sponsor Chat: Thanks to Skillshare, Check Out a Free Trial Below!
5:00 - Gauge Invariance, Uniquely Defining the Vector Potential
6:08 - B Fields are the Real Fundamental Quantity... Right?!
6:45 - Passing an Electron Near a Solenoid (Coil of Wire)
7:56 - Phase and the Aharonov-Bohm Effect
9:40 - Final Thoughts

It seems that answering the OP question involves identifying the "magnetic vector potential" (A).

[Deecart]

hamdani yusuf, i dont really understand your claim.
You say that nobody understand the magnetic force.
Then you argue that our actual knowledge is based on newtonian and maxwell theory (perhaps i dont undrerstand well so forgive me if so).
But i think "we" already know (perhaps it can be done better, i dont know) what magnetic force come from.

En 1905, Albert Einstein montra comment le champ magnétique apparaît, comme un des aspects relativistes du champ électrique22, plus précisément dans le cadre de la relativité restreinte.

Il se présente comme le résultat de la transformation lorentzienne d'un champ électrique d'un premier référentiel à un second en mouvement relatif.

Lorsqu'une charge électrique se déplace, le champ électrique engendré par cette charge n'est plus perçu par un observateur au repos comme à symétrie sphérique, à cause de la dilatation du temps prédite par la relativité. On doit alors employer les transformations de Lorentz pour calculer l'effet de cette charge sur l'observateur, qui donne une composante du champ qui n'agit que sur les charges se déplaçant : ce que l'on appelle « champ magnétique ».

On peut ainsi décrire les champs magnétique et électrique comme deux aspects d'un même objet physique, représenté en théorie de la relativité restreinte par un tenseur de rang 2, ou de manière équivalente par un bivecteur.

https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Champ_magn%C3%A9tique

Translated by the very powerful Deep translate :

In 1905, Albert Einstein showed how the magnetic field appears as one of the relativistic aspects of the electric field22 , more precisely in the framework of special relativity.

It appears as the result of the Lorentzian transformation of an electric field from a first reference frame to a second one in relative motion.

When an electric charge moves, the electric field generated by this charge is no longer perceived by an observer at rest as spherically symmetric, because of the time dilation predicted by relativity. One must then use the Lorentz transformations to calculate the effect of this charge on the observer, which gives a component of the field that acts only on the moving charges: this is called "magnetic field".

We can thus describe the magnetic and electric fields as two aspects of the same physical object, represented in SRT by a rank 2 tensor, or equivalently by a bivector.

Translated with www.DeepL.com/Translator (free version)

In the english version of wikipedia for the same subject(magnetic field), the Einsteinian model is lost (i dont know why) :
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magnetic_field

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

hamdani yusuf, i dont really understand your claim.
You say that nobody understand the magnetic force.

Where did I say that?

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

In the english version of wikipedia for the same subject(magnetic field), the Einsteinian model is lost (i dont know why) :
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magnetic_field

I think it's moved to a separate article.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relativistic_electromagnetism

[Bored chemist]

Some of electrolytic solutions that will be used are NaCl, H2SO4, HCl, CuSO4, FeCl3.

\What happened when you used them?

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

Some of electrolytic solutions that will be used are NaCl, H2SO4, HCl, CuSO4, FeCl3.

\What happened when you used them?

My previous experiment didn't produce conclusive result yet. I'll try again if I can find a way to improve the experimental setup and increase the signal over noise ratio.

[Deecart]

Where did I say that?

Yes sorry, i think i have misinterpreted.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

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.

The difficulty in working with electrically charged particles/objects is that they are attracted to even neutral objects due to electric displacement. An electrically charged metal ball is attracted to the plastic hose even when it's empty and electrically neutral.

But I'm convinced about the physical interpretation of magnetic vector potential because of experiments and applications of toroid, such as in toroidal conductivity meter and toroidal transformers. They produce measurable electromagnetic phenomena even though they produce 0 magnetic field outside of the coil. IMO, the physical existence of magnetic vector potential would undermine the search for magnetic monopole.

[acsinuk]

Hamdani,
I am so pleased that you are investigating magnetic force fields.  We also need to explain the magnoflux spin effect of the magnetic field please.   

[Bored chemist]

We also need to explain the magnoflux spin effect of the magnetic field please.   

Unicorns did it.