Naked Science Forum

On the Lighter Side => New Theories => Topic started by: hamdani yusuf on 02/07/2016 11:54:21

Title: Origin of magnetic force
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 02/07/2016 11:54:21
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.
Title: Re: Origin of magnetic force
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 02/07/2016 13:27:16
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.
(https://lh4.googleusercontent.com/-gw7O5hzZyf4/V3eejXQ7m8I/AAAAAAAAAFU/gcj1T4oSqS0xiHIwfRYqq0lxpNvqWdSyACL0B/w311-h153-no/magnet0.jpg)
Title: Re: Origin of magnetic force
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 02/07/2016 13:32:19
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

(https://lh4.googleusercontent.com/-s_QfZ_TqfD8/V3eejjrTIYI/AAAAAAAAAFU/GcsFjvbUmk8CFtlkZL7nQLLn46uU-WmVACL0B/w311-h157-no/magnet1%2B%25281%2529.jpg)

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.
(https://lh6.googleusercontent.com/-oHltq_n3kMs/V3eej-a3L1I/AAAAAAAAAFU/Fg30lZH3usIPyvWfLPcR0fOnzNaM9R3PgCL0B/w311-h157-no/magnet2.jpg)
Title: Re: Origin of magnetic force
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 02/07/2016 13:35:26
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.

(https://lh6.googleusercontent.com/-WswDxQBqIf0/V3eekGpYNAI/AAAAAAAAAFU/JSxnRFQFEhMr6tGbjqqudQEzVAN8onwJwCL0B/w316-h185-no/magnet3.jpg)

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.
Title: Re: Origin of magnetic force
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 02/07/2016 13:37:37
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.
Title: Re: Origin of magnetic force
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 02/07/2016 13:47:55
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.

(https://lh4.googleusercontent.com/-gw7O5hzZyf4/V3eejXQ7m8I/AAAAAAAAAFU/gcj1T4oSqS0xiHIwfRYqq0lxpNvqWdSyACL0B/w311-h153-no/magnet0.jpg)

Next, the wire is zoomed to show the electrons and metal atoms inside.

(https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-itaAPsMdcJw/V3eekIoFYeI/AAAAAAAAAFU/H_xzpckJOGUyX5Qn3aIu6TFQ_PAshwM6wCL0B/w169-h96-no/magnet5.jpg)

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.

(https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-zyHAhxkPZWE/V3eekbe8MRI/AAAAAAAAAFU/d5d5CEQi9jQIiI7JCoHSE0OkvLsAizqowCL0B/w172-h113-no/magnet6.jpg)

The picture above is equivalent to the picture from previous post.

(https://lh6.googleusercontent.com/-oHltq_n3kMs/V3eej-a3L1I/AAAAAAAAAFU/Fg30lZH3usIPyvWfLPcR0fOnzNaM9R3PgCL0B/w311-h157-no/magnet2.jpg)

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.
Title: Re: Origin of magnetic force
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 02/07/2016 13:53:24
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:

(https://lh5.googleusercontent.com/-Fk7L3x7izC8/V3eekd7lU5I/AAAAAAAAAFU/88_bBRyezSkvAy7ThqPbgS4IHlkEir0GgCL0B/w462-h261-no/magnet7.jpg)

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.

(https://lh6.googleusercontent.com/-bQWaH6H2FWo/V3eekllijlI/AAAAAAAAAFU/Yf1-YLdlI9kEQHHXTTFlyswt8DItl-0lwCL0B/w756-h378-no/magnet8.jpg)
Title: Re: Origin of magnetic force
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 02/07/2016 14:34:29
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.
Title: Re: Origin of magnetic force
Post by: jerrygg38 on 02/07/2016 22:09:50
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.
Title: Re: Origin of magnetic force
Post by: kim45 on 10/10/2016 19:35:22
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"

Title: Re: Origin of magnetic force
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 25/06/2022 10:51:11
Quote
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 (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).
Title: Re: Origin of magnetic force
Post by: Deecart on 25/06/2022 20:28:24
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.

Quote from: Wikipedia
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   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   symétrie sphérique,   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 :

Quote
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






Title: Re: Origin of magnetic force
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 26/06/2022 09:34:26
hamdani yusuf, i dont really understand your claim.
You say that nobody understand the magnetic force.
Where did I say that?
Title: Re: Origin of magnetic force
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 26/06/2022 09:39:25
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
Title: Re: Origin of magnetic force
Post by: Bored chemist on 26/06/2022 10:46:15
Some of electrolytic solutions that will be used are NaCl, H2SO4, HCl, CuSO4, FeCl3.
\What happened when you used them?
Title: Re: Origin of magnetic force
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 26/06/2022 13:38:25
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.
Title: Re: Origin of magnetic force
Post by: Deecart on 26/06/2022 18:59:00
Quote from: hamdani yusuf
Where did I say that?

Yes sorry, i think i have misinterpreted.

Title: Re: Origin of magnetic force
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 27/06/2022 11:01:47
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.

(https://lh4.googleusercontent.com/-gw7O5hzZyf4/V3eejXQ7m8I/AAAAAAAAAFU/gcj1T4oSqS0xiHIwfRYqq0lxpNvqWdSyACL0B/w311-h153-no/magnet0.jpg)

Next, the wire is zoomed to show the electrons and metal atoms inside.

(https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-itaAPsMdcJw/V3eekIoFYeI/AAAAAAAAAFU/H_xzpckJOGUyX5Qn3aIu6TFQ_PAshwM6wCL0B/w169-h96-no/magnet5.jpg)

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.

(https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-zyHAhxkPZWE/V3eekbe8MRI/AAAAAAAAAFU/d5d5CEQi9jQIiI7JCoHSE0OkvLsAizqowCL0B/w172-h113-no/magnet6.jpg)

The picture above is equivalent to the picture from previous post.

(https://lh6.googleusercontent.com/-oHltq_n3kMs/V3eej-a3L1I/AAAAAAAAAFU/Fg30lZH3usIPyvWfLPcR0fOnzNaM9R3PgCL0B/w311-h157-no/magnet2.jpg)

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.

Title: Re: Origin of magnetic force
Post by: acsinuk on 27/06/2022 17:45:03
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.    (https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2F&hash=3cd4f4119996b42d10f5ed9eb0e8d712)
Title: Re: Origin of magnetic force
Post by: Bored chemist on 27/06/2022 18:23:38
We also need to explain the magnoflux spin effect of the magnetic field please.   
Unicorns did it.
Title: Re: Origin of magnetic force
Post by: paul cotter on 27/06/2022 22:14:02
Bored chemist, much as I hate to do this, you are in error. I have it on good authority that there is only one unicorn. Hence the correct expression is "the unicorn did it". I don't have to remind you of the rigour needed in all such scientific matters, correct units, correct dimensions and of course correct unicorn.
Title: Re: Origin of magnetic force
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 28/06/2022 06:11:12
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.    (https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2F&hash=3cd4f4119996b42d10f5ed9eb0e8d712)
Have you built the motor yourself, or do you know someone who has built it? Do you know a working prototype of it?
Since it uses a single phase AC power source, it would need some way to shift the phase to create asymmetry in torque direction. Commercial household fans or pumps commonly use capacitors. The secondary coil in the diagram might serve similar function. But I'm not sure if some other additional measures are necessary to produce reliable torque in one direction.
Can you share some more details, like number of turns of the coils, or rotor size? Starting from a working prototype would speed up the investigation. Otherwise, I'd have to start from scratch, which would take longer and need more effort and resources.
Title: Re: Origin of magnetic force
Post by: Colin2B on 28/06/2022 07:16:55
Bored chemist, much as I hate to do this, you are in error. I have it on good authority that there is only one unicorn. Hence the correct expression is "the unicorn did it". I don't have to remind you of the rigour needed in all such scientific matters, correct units, correct dimensions and of course correct unicorn.
Please state your authority.
I have it on excellent authority, my granddaughter, that multiple unicorns exist, apparently in many colours. However, I will concede that it is possible that only one unicorn was involved in the action (usually the pink one if I recall @Bored chemist correctly), so your expression would remain correct.
Title: Re: Origin of magnetic force
Post by: acsinuk on 28/06/2022 15:51:31
Hamdani,
The magnoflux spin effect is documented on my blogs and videos.  Have a look at this one which shows the Zanussi drain motor I used to demonstrate the effect. 
Title: Re: Origin of magnetic force
Post by: Bored chemist on 28/06/2022 16:12:45
Nobody is suggesting that electrons get accelerated to anything like the speed of light in a conductor.
So your claim at about 34 seconds makes no sense.

Were you aware of that?
(That should be a simple yes/ no answer).

You might find this dispels your misunderstandings.


Title: Re: Origin of magnetic force
Post by: Origin on 28/06/2022 19:32:43
The magnoflux spin effect is documented on my blogs and videos.
Do you have any independent scientific sources (not your site, not youtube, etc.) for magnoflux spin effect.
Title: Re: Origin of magnetic force
Post by: paul cotter on 28/06/2022 21:46:46
Colin2b, I must admit to a dreadful shortcoming on my behalf: I made a dogmatic statement on a critical scientific debate without specifying my source, mea culpa, maxima mea culpa. I am further embarrassed as I cannot find the relevant reference at this moment. I will strive with maximum effort to correct this abominable state of affairs and hope to furnish said references as soon as possible. I sincerely hope you will bear with me.
Title: Re: Origin of magnetic force
Post by: acsinuk on 29/06/2022 16:15:41
No reference quotes are needed as anyone can repeat the experiments at any time. 
Sorry, I know it is a shock to physicist to hear that electricity is not electron movements but magnons or photons moving at near the speed of light in spinning magnoflux energy in the metallic core of a transformer or motor.


(https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2F&hash=3cd4f4119996b42d10f5ed9eb0e8d712)

Title: Re: Origin of magnetic force
Post by: Bored chemist on 29/06/2022 18:30:14
No reference quotes are needed as anyone can repeat the experiments at any time.
And they do exactly what Maxwell would have predicted.
So why have you introduced a fairy tale?
Also, you seem to have forgotten to answer this.

Nobody is suggesting that electrons get accelerated to anything like the speed of light in a conductor.
So your claim at about 34 seconds makes no sense.

Were you aware of that?
(That should be a simple yes/ no answer).
Title: Re: Origin of magnetic force
Post by: Eternal Student on 29/06/2022 18:45:16
Hi.

If I recall correctly this situation is actually quite complicated:

(https://lh6.googleusercontent.com/-oHltq_n3kMs/V3eej-a3L1I/AAAAAAAAAFU/Fg30lZH3usIPyvWfLPcR0fOnzNaM9R3PgCL0B/w311-h157-no/magnet2.jpg)

Where the test particle is assumed to be be at rest,   the wire has velocity v as shown.    That's complicated because the positive and negative charges in the wire then suffer a Lorentz contraction and the density of charge is changed.    It's more noticeable for the positive charges in the wire because the electrons  were moving opposite the conventional current shown and so the velocity of the electrons is less than the velocity of the positive charges.   Overall then some of the force on the test particle is due to an Electric field and not a magnetic field when you choose that reference frame.

    This has been the mainstream view of electric and magnetic fields for quite a while:   Changing frames of reference can make an Electric field look like a Magnetic Field and vice versa.

Best Wishes.
Title: Re: Origin of magnetic force
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 30/06/2022 10:29:13
This has been the mainstream view of electric and magnetic fields for quite a while:   Changing frames of reference can make an Electric field look like a Magnetic Field and vice versa.
The problem identified here is the asymmetric response between the movement of positive and negative charges in the wire. If only electrons that move, there's no force. If only the positively charged metal lattice moves, there's a force.
Title: Re: Origin of magnetic force
Post by: Eternal Student on 30/06/2022 13:40:36
Hi.

The problem identified here is the asymmetric response between the movement of positive and negative charges in the wire.
    Is it a problem?   It's often required that the positive charges don't and can't spread out despite a Lorentz contraction.   The positive charges are the metal atoms and they are locked into a lattice.    Even when Lorentz contraction puts them closer together and suggests there should be increased repulsion between them, the metal atoms cannot move apart.
     However the electrons are not like that, they are free to move around and can spread out.

Here's a 3 minute 40 sec. video from  Science Asylum  available on You Tube  that explains the general idea:

    There are many other videos such as a later video where Science Asylum explain electromagnetism again and Veritasium have quite a nice video about Magnetism.
    Alternatively you can see a textbook describing General relativity like  Spacetime and Geometry, Sean Carroll.   Where the basic approach is to say:   There's an electromagnetic field strength tensor, Fμν, and that's what's important.   A Magnetic field or Electric field are not fundamental or intrinsically real - they are only things that appear in certain reference frames.

Best Wishes.
Title: Re: Origin of magnetic force
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 30/06/2022 15:47:47
Is it a problem?   It's often required that the positive charges don't and can't spread out despite a Lorentz contraction.   The positive charges are the metal atoms and they are locked into a lattice.    Even when Lorentz contraction puts them closer together and suggests there should be increased repulsion between them, the metal atoms cannot move apart.
     However the electrons are not like that, they are free to move around and can spread out.
Yes, it is a problem. If the difference is due to the formation of crystal lattice, then we would be able to distinguish the different response in liquid metals like mercury, or ionic solutions like some acids, bases, or salts.
Lorentz hypothesized contraction of the rod in Michelson-Morley experiment, which is a solid object, due to its movement through aether. He wasn't talking about freely moving electron.
Title: Re: Origin of magnetic force
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 30/06/2022 15:57:28
Let's make an experiment where the positively charged test particle is at rest, while the electrons in a wire move to the left at v m/s, and the metal atoms move to the right at v m/s. Will the test particle accelerate? In what direction?
Title: Re: Origin of magnetic force
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 30/06/2022 17:12:56
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.
I think I just found a way to solve this problem. But It will take a while to build the experimental setups.
Currently I am tightly occupied by my daily job which puts me as the project manager of DCS expansion for process automation. Some other tasks and projects are already on the line.
The next in the list is editing videos of polarized diffraction which I've done recording. I've also acquired some materials which will be used in some other experiments such as heat transfer in melting ice, microwave oven and transceiver, radio transceiver, and a few others. I'm not even sure which one to be done first.
Title: Re: Origin of magnetic force
Post by: Eternal Student on 30/06/2022 19:41:24
Hi.

Let's make an experiment where the positively charged test particle is at rest, while the electrons in a wire move to the left at v m/s, and the metal atoms move to the right at v m/s. Will the test particle accelerate? In what direction?
   There may be insufficient information here - but here is the standard prediction based on conventional theory:
You said "wire" so we'll assume the positive charges are the metal atoms and they are locked in a lattice.
Translate to another frame where the wire stays sill  <=>  the positive charges stay still.
It's also very hard to give the electrons an arbitrarily high velocity, they tend to have an average velocity that is the drift velocity indicated by conventional theory which is actually a very low speed.   You'd need to maintain a large voltage across the wire if you want a faster dift velocity and that is difficult to do in practice.  We'll assume the velocity of the electrons is low.

   Anyway, making the translation to the frame where the wire is stationary, this leaves the test particle moving at velocity v to the left.   Meanwhile, the electrons are moving with velocity not quite 2v to the left (find the exact velocity by the velocity addition formula).   Where the wire is stationary and the electron velocity is low, then the electrons do tend to be distributed so that    the density of negative charge ≈ the density of the positive charges in the wire.   That leaves us with negligible conventional electric field generated by the charges in the wire.   Indeed in conventional theory, we consider most of what is there and surrounding the wire to be a magnetic field.   So we have a particle with velocity. v to the left in a magnetic field that is going into the page (if the test particle is below the wire,  while it's coming out of the page if the test particle was above the wire).   By the usual Lorentz force law that should be a force pushing the test particle away from the wire.   (The direction of that force is dynamic, it will change slightly as the test particle changes velocity but initially it's directly away from the wire).
    That should happen in any inertial reference frame although in some frames the explanation will be due to some contribution from an Electric field and not just a Magnetic field.
    Going back to your original frame of reference, the distance between the metal atoms would have been contracted slightly while the distance between the electrons would have been increased slightly compared to the frame I have just used.   Overall there would have been a net +ve charge density in the wire and that would have created an Electric field that repelled the test particle.

   However, if it wasn't a conventional wire and the positive metal atoms weren't locked into a lattice then I don't think you have enough information to proceed.   If the positive atoms can move and spread out then you need to know how and that would affect the charge density and hence the electric field you would observe.

Best Wishes.
Title: Re: Origin of magnetic force
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 01/07/2022 06:44:22
It's also very hard to give the electrons an arbitrarily high velocity, they tend to have an average velocity that is the drift velocity indicated by conventional theory which is actually a very low speed.   You'd need to maintain a large voltage across the wire if you want a faster dift velocity and that is difficult to do in practice.  We'll assume the velocity of the electrons is low.
Let's assume that the effects of high velocity electrons in opposite directions cancel each other. Hence we can use their average value.
Title: Re: Origin of magnetic force
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 01/07/2022 06:47:24
You said "wire" so we'll assume the positive charges are the metal atoms and they are locked in a lattice.
Translate to another frame where the wire stays sill  <=>  the positive charges stay still.
Why can't we translate to the frame where the electrons stay still instead?  Will it change the expected result?
Title: Re: Origin of magnetic force
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 01/07/2022 06:57:04
Going back to your original frame of reference, the distance between the metal atoms would have been contracted slightly while the distance between the electrons would have been increased slightly compared to the frame I have just used.   Overall there would have been a net +ve charge density in the wire and that would have created an Electric field that repelled the test particle.
If in the next experiment the velocities are doubled to 2v, the classical Lorentz force would be quadrupled, because the electric current is doubled, so is the relative velocity between the test particle and the wire.
Do we get the same results when using length contraction method? Do we have to also take time dilation into account? why or why not?
Title: Re: Origin of magnetic force
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 01/07/2022 07:02:28
However, if it wasn't a conventional wire and the positive metal atoms weren't locked into a lattice then I don't think you have enough information to proceed.   If the positive atoms can move and spread out then you need to know how and that would affect the charge density and hence the electric field you would observe.
Let's replace the wire with a hose. Wire atoms are replaced by Na+ ions, and electrons are replaced by Cl- ions.
What's the expected result?
Title: Re: Origin of magnetic force
Post by: Eternal Student on 01/07/2022 10:37:38
Hi.

Why can't we translate to the frame where the electrons stay still instead?  Will it change the expected result?
    You could but it's harder.  You lose the ability to assume the density of positive charge in the wire ≈ the density of negative charge in the wire in that frame.   (I think I would just keep changing frames of reference in my head so that the wire was stationary).
    No it shouldn't change the overall result, the test charge would still be repelled, just for slightly different reasons.

Best Wishes.

Title: Re: Origin of magnetic force
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 01/07/2022 12:31:22
You could but it's harder.  You lose the ability to assume the density of positive charge in the wire ≈ the density of negative charge in the wire in that frame.   (I think I would just keep changing frames of reference in my head so that the wire was stationary).
    No it shouldn't change the overall result, the test charge would still be repelled, just for slightly different reasons.
If I assume that translation to the frame of the electrons is symmetrical to translation to the frame of the wire atoms anyway, will the test particle still be expected to experience repulsion instead of attraction?
Title: Re: Origin of magnetic force
Post by: Eternal Student on 01/07/2022 17:57:37
Hi.

    Sometimes I hate making replies, especially when they just aren't likely to say what the original poster wanted to hear.   I don't know what I can do about that, sorry.   Let's just start by saying that Magnetism is complicated and not entirely understood.   I don't claim to understand all of it.

If I assume that translation to the frame of the electrons is symmetrical to translation to the frame of the wire atoms anyway
    Why or how could you do this?   In what way is the situation symmetric or the same?

Here's a typical electrical circuit:

(https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcSZgFG0Q0HDGDI2jIe2l2ESiqvDcgKodGcPfA&usqp=CAU)   
    The conventional current moves anti-clockwise around the circuit, so the electrons move clockwise.
Now if you have a test charge at the bottom of the circuit and you use a frame of reference where the positive charges of the wire are stationary, then the situation looks a certain way.     Neither the top, bottom or side wires in the circuit are moving,  a certain total length of the wire is obtained and the electrons, being free to move, will tend to spread out so as to be uniformly dense throughout the wire*.
    *This is an approximation but a very good one when the electrons have low velocity and the wire is stationary.  The electrons will tend to move to a region of lower electrical potential just by ordinary electrostatics until all regions reach an equi-potential.   In a more thorough treatment we must note that every charge creates both an electric field and, if the charge is moving, a magnetic field.   The total pattern of movement of electrons is not quite as simple as moving so as to spread out uniformly along the wire.  More generally, we actually do think that the electrons distribute themselves to be slightly more dense at the peripheral (outer edges of the wire) and slightly less dense at the core of the wire, that's how a net electric field along the wire is maintained and what drives the electrons along the wire with the usual drift velocity.    The surface density of charge also changes very slightly as you progress along the wire from the +ve end of the cell to the -ve end  -  BUT overall, this is just complicated and not making a significant difference to the overall density of electrons along the wire anyway, it is almost uniform along the wire.     For low electron velocities and a stationary wire, it's a reasonable approximation the electrons are uniformly spread along the wire.   Specifically, by experiment we notice that if we have current flowing in a wire and we bring a test charge close to it (but the test charge has 0 velocity relative to the wire) then there is no electrostatic attraction to/from the wire (no E field exists).  Conversely if we bring a compass close to such a wire then it swings (a B field does seem to exist).

   As it happens there is an overall conservation of charge in special relativity, so the total number of electrons = the total number of positive atoms in any frame of reference you choose.   The atoms weren't moving and so they are equally spread out (indeed their separation is totally determined by the lattice in which they are held anyway) and then we have seen that the electrons will tend to be equally spread out.   Overall the net density of charge in the wire at any small volume element is 0.

    Meanwhile, if you switch to a frame of reference where the electrons were stationary, then the situation looks completely different.    Presumably you meant the electrons in the bottom wire closest to your test charge were stationary because the electrons move in a loop and there's no way to have ALL the electrons stationary everywhere.   Then the electrons in the top wire are moving at almost 2v and in the side wires the electrons have non-aligned but equal valued diagonal velocities of almost √2 v.   The most striking difference is that the wires themselves are moving in this frame.   There is very little about the situation that is the same as how things look in the other frame of reference.   You can "assume symmetry" but it doesn't make it exist.  Nothing much looks the same in this new frame of reference and the approximation about the electrons distributing themselves uniformly (marked with a * earlier) doesn't hold well.
    Overall there tends to be a lower density of electrons in the bottom wire and a correspondingly higher density of electrons in the top wire (so total charge is conserved as it should be in every frame of reference).   While the positive charges were locked in a lattice and can not be re-distributed like this - both the top and bottom wire show the same length contraction and hence the same density of +ve charges is observed.

    I completely agree that this is a bit weird and little hard to believe and any sensible person would want a reference or something to back this up.   Trying to keep things simple, take a look at this video   ("How special relativity fixed electromagnetism",  Science Asylum, available on YouTube)   around time index  7:00 to 7:20 where the unequal distribution of -ve charge density in the top and bottom wires is exhibited and discussed in much the same way as it was done here.   This is an example where observers in different frames of reference disagree about something that might have seemed like it should have been an invariant:  Specifically the density of electrons in the top and bottom wires are not agreed on they aren't always the same in every frame of reference, that is not an invariant.   This could take ages to think about and resolve and I haven't tried to do it myself much.   This is where I would start:   The electrons weren't all at the same place and that's the problem -  you might count all the electrons in the bottom wire at a fixed time t0 in one reference frame.   By conservation of charge (or just plain old conservation of events),  you'd expect all those events to be mapped to distinct events in the other frame and the total number of them to be the same.  That will happen (hooray!) but, of course, there's a simultaneity problem because the electrons were not all at the same location in space.   In the new frame you have a collection of events you can count but the time co-ordinates are all different.   So you're not counting anything that looks like a density of negative charge at one fixed time (in the new frame) in the bottom wire.  If you did apply equations of motion and determine where all of those electrons would have been at one fixed time in the new frame, then some of them have left the bottom wire and are now in the side wires etc.   Overall, you really do seem to be able to get a different density of -ve charge in the bottom wire in the new frame (compared to the density in the top wire in the new frame).



Final Notes:   
1.  The movement and behaviour of a test charge is never exactly the same as you observe in real life.   This is because in real life, the test charge is making it's own electric field and when it starts moving, then it is making it's own magnetic field.   Trying to solve Maxwell's equations for the real-life situation is then extremely complicated and usually reduced to finding reasonable numerical approximations.

2.   As mentioned before,  by far the best way to consider electric and magnetic fields is just to give up on handling them separately.   A separate E field and B field is a useful way to describe what happens for some situations,  however describing the both of them with a single electromagnetic field strength tensor is by far more consistent.    There really doesn't have to be a magnetic field, it's not fundamental, it's just what the elctromagnetic field looks like in some frames of reference.   Similar comment goes for the Electric field.

3.   You asked this question earlier:
Do we have to also take time dilation into account? why or why not?
    Yes but it makes everything more complicated.   It's best if you use a Lorentz 4-force to describe the effect of an electromagnetic field.   Here you are using derivatives w.r.t. proper time, τ.   So all the effects like time dilation are already built-in and taken as a contribution to the final conventional Newtonian 3-force you would observe.
   See Wikipedia:  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Four-force    especially the short section about the example of the Lorentz 4-force determined from the electromagnetic field strength tensor  Fμν.

Best Wishes.

LATE EDITING:  To try and empahsise that it's not just the density of -ve charges that varies when you change frames, it's the difference in density between top and bottom wires that isn't an invariant.   (The density of +ve charge in the top and bottom wires would also change - but they change in the same way so the difference between +ve charge density of the top and bottom wires remains invariant).
Title: Re: Origin of magnetic force
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 02/07/2022 03:31:27
The total pattern of movement of electrons is not quite as simple as moving so as to spread out uniformly along the wire.  More generally, we actually do think that the electrons distribute themselves to be slightly more dense at the peripheral (outer edges of the wire) and slightly less dense at the core of the wire, that's how a net electric field along the wire is maintained and what drives the electrons along the wire with the usual drift velocity.    The surface density of charge also changes very slightly as you progress along the wire from the +ve end of the cell to the -ve end  -  BUT overall, this is just complicated and not making a significant difference to the overall density of electrons along the wire anyway, it is almost uniform along the wire.   
We can simplify it by replacing the wire with a hollow pipe, or a bundle of thin wires electrically  isolated from one another.
Title: Re: Origin of magnetic force
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 02/07/2022 05:33:26
Going back to your original frame of reference, the distance between the metal atoms would have been contracted slightly while the distance between the electrons would have been increased slightly compared to the frame I have just used.   Overall there would have been a net +ve charge density in the wire and that would have created an Electric field that repelled the test particle.
If in the next experiment the velocities are doubled to 2v, the classical Lorentz force would be quadrupled, because the electric current is doubled, so is the relative velocity between the test particle and the wire.
Do we get the same results when using length contraction method? Do we have to also take time dilation into account? why or why not?
Have you tried to calculate the repulsive force when v is 1 mm/s?
What happens to the force if the velocities are doubled?
What must be done to make the force attractive instead of repulsive?
Title: Re: Origin of magnetic force
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 02/07/2022 05:57:42

Here's a typical electrical circuit:

(https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcSZgFG0Q0HDGDI2jIe2l2ESiqvDcgKodGcPfA&usqp=CAU)   
Let's make the bottom horizontal wire much longer and free to move horizontally. Electrical contacts with vertical wires use carbon brushes. Will your reasoning still hold?
Title: Re: Origin of magnetic force
Post by: Eternal Student on 02/07/2022 11:58:26
Hi.

Have you tried to calculate the repulsive force when v is 1 mm/s?
What happens to the force if the velocities are doubled?
What must be done to make the force attractive instead of repulsive?
   No.  I'm also sorry if the previous reply wasn't all that well structured.   I seem to have CoVid and can't concentrate.  I'll be handling light topics for a few days.

Best Wishes.
Title: Re: Origin of magnetic force
Post by: Bored chemist on 02/07/2022 12:05:27
I seem to have CoVid
Get well soon.
Title: Re: Origin of magnetic force
Post by: Spring Theory on 03/07/2022 00:45:08
A deterministic explanation of magnetic force needs to begin with electric charge. A charge can be thought as a rotating pulse in space from a particle's charge dipoles (bear with me here). A positive charge can be thought of a compression of space or a pulse of negative curvature. A negative charge can be thought of as a decompression of space or a pulse of positive curvature.

Like curvatures create interfering or repelling forces and opposite curvatures cause intensifying or attractive forces. This is the nature of electric charge.

Magnetic force is the result of spacial effects perpendicular to the electric effects. This is why the charge and its partner in magnetic force causes it to curve in trajectory. It is a transverse curvature.

Likewise, similar magnetic fields create repulsion and opposite magnetic fields result in attraction.

And now I have linked gravitational forces (curvature) and electromagnetic forces rather elegantly.
Title: Re: Origin of magnetic force
Post by: Origin on 03/07/2022 02:57:01
. A positive charge can be thought of a compression of space or a pulse of negative curvature. A negative charge can be thought of as a decompression of space or a pulse of positive curvature.
That can't be correct it seems.  If space was curving then all matter would be effected, but only charged particles are.
Title: Re: Origin of magnetic force
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 03/07/2022 13:17:41
A charge can be thought as a rotating pulse in space from a particle's charge dipoles
A rotation requires an axis. An electrostatic charge doesn't seem to have any.
Title: Re: Origin of magnetic force
Post by: Spring Theory on 03/07/2022 13:22:58
. A positive charge can be thought of a compression of space or a pulse of negative curvature. A negative charge can be thought of as a decompression of space or a pulse of positive curvature.
That can't be correct it seems.  If space was curving then all matter would be effected, but only charged particles are.


The total effect of curvature is still the total mass or average mass of the particle. The dipole is a point like pulse of curvature. For negative particles, the convex curvature pulse subtracts from the overall curvature mass but not enough to make the mass less than zero.

For positive particles the concave curvature pulse adds a bit of gravitational curvature to the total mass of the particle.

The effect on neutral particles is a pulse of positive or negative mass, but overall gravitational effect is just due to the net mass. 

Charged particles however create an attraction when a convex pulse meets a concave pulse from opposite directions because the result is a curvature that is intensified. A repulsion is created when like pulses interact because the result is the curvature is interference.

Of course this is my theory, hence located here in the speculative board.
Title: Re: Origin of magnetic force
Post by: Spring Theory on 03/07/2022 13:30:01
A charge can be thought as a rotating pulse in space from a particle's charge dipoles
A rotation requires an axis. An electrostatic charge doesn't seem to have any.

All charged particles have a magnetic moment due to its "intrinsic" spin.

An intrinsic spin requires an intrinsic axis and hence a source for an instrisic pulse.
Title: Re: Origin of magnetic force
Post by: Origin on 03/07/2022 16:04:18
The total effect of curvature is still the total mass or average mass of the particle. The dipole is a point like pulse of curvature. For negative particles, the convex curvature pulse subtracts from the overall curvature mass but not enough to make the mass less than zero.
That is just word salad.
For positive particles the concave curvature pulse adds a bit of gravitational curvature to the total mass of the particle.
Nope, charge has nothing to do with a gravitational field, charge has to do with the electric field.
Charged particles however create an attraction when a convex pulse meets a concave pulse from opposite directions because the result is a curvature that is intensified. A repulsion is created when like pulses interact because the result is the curvature is interference.
More word salad it seems.
Of course this is my theory, hence located here in the speculative board.
This is clearly not a theory, this what is referred to as a WAG.
Title: Re: Origin of magnetic force
Post by: puppypower on 03/07/2022 20:25:25
Here is an interesting twist nobody may have seen. A magnet has two poles. However, magnetic monopoles has never been seen in the lab or in space. How can two nothings; two monopoles, add to something?

The analogy is like taking two fairies, which do not exist, but if we combine these two nonexistent entities, we can make a real unicorn appear. There is a conceptual problem with this tradition of two nonexistent monopoles per magnet.

In magnetic iron, the magnetism comes from how the outer electrons of iron are arranged in the orbitals. The magnetic phase of iron is not the lowest energy state of iron. The magnetic phase has potential, due to be in a state with more unpaired electrons.

Normally lowest energy would occur from two opposite spin electrons per orbital. With magnet iron, extra electrons remain unpaired. It is not about two imaginary things; monopoles, but one electron replacing two electrons. We get residual potential that appears to extend the range of the orbitals, out toward infinity. 

In another topic, I once did a thought experiment of a wave tank with two wave generators, one on each side of the tank, each 180 degree out of phase. Even with energy being pumped into the tank by each generator, the center of the tank will appear still as waves cancel and hide the energy.

We can get this hidden energy back by placing a partition in the center of the tank, so the two sets of waves cannot cancel.  Or we can also shut off one of the two wave generators, so we have only one wave generator, to help amplify the energy via standing waves. This allows for magnetic iron and iron pieces, to all stick together like polymers in macro-space.

The electron is an elementary particle, meaning it is one thing that cannot broken down any further. According to the traditions, it has two properties; mass and negative charge. But since we cannot break down the electron to isolate these two separate properties, implied by the traditions, these two things do not exist, in the classic way, within the electron. If you could break the electron down to mass and charge, the electron would not be an elementary particle.

To solve this paradox, two properties of the electron need to be part of a single thing, like part of a unified force, that can blend mass and negative charge to where they are interchangeable. This way you always get one thing, as implied by an elementary particle.
Title: Re: Origin of magnetic force
Post by: Origin on 03/07/2022 21:08:34
The electron is an elementary particle, meaning it is one thing that cannot broken down any further.
OK.
According to the traditions
Not tradition, experimental evidence.
it has two properties; mass and negative charge.
That is not correct.  There is at least also spin.
But since we cannot break down the electron to isolate these two separate properties, implied by the traditions,
Again, this is not tradition.  We are not talking about religion we are talking about science.
implied by the traditions, these two things do not exist, in the classic way, within the electron.
Of course they do!
If you could break the electron down to mass and charge, the electron would not be an elementary particle.
Obviously.
To solve this paradox,
What paradox?  Your confusion is not a paradox for us.
Title: Re: Origin of magnetic force
Post by: Spring Theory on 03/07/2022 23:07:53

That is just word salad.


Read it a few times and it will help you grasp the concept. It will be way over your head the first time.
Title: Re: Origin of magnetic force
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 04/07/2022 06:57:48
All charged particles have a magnetic moment due to its "intrinsic" spin.

An intrinsic spin requires an intrinsic axis and hence a source for an instrisic pulse.
But the charge is not because of the rotation.
What's the evidence for the pulse? What's the frequency and duty cycle?
Title: Re: Origin of magnetic force
Post by: Bored chemist on 04/07/2022 09:59:13

That is just word salad.


Read it a few times and it will help you grasp the concept. It will be way over your head the first time.
Reading it repeatedly will not help.
It can not help because your word salad has phrases in it that do not have a meaning. (e.g. " dipole is a point like pulse of curvature"
You have been asked to explain them.
You failed to do so.


Do not try to tell us that it is our fault that you refuse to make sense.
Title: Re: Origin of magnetic force
Post by: Spring Theory on 04/07/2022 15:09:05

That is just word salad.


Read it a few times and it will help you grasp the concept. It will be way over your head the first time.
Reading it repeatedly will not help.
It can not help because your word salad has phrases in it that do not have a meaning. (e.g. " dipole is a point like pulse of curvature"
You have been asked to explain them.
You failed to do so.


Do not try to tell us that it is our fault that you refuse to make sense.

Try asking some meaningful questions instead of pontificating.
Title: Re: Origin of magnetic force
Post by: Bored chemist on 04/07/2022 15:20:57
Try asking some meaningful questions
Why?
It's not as if you answer them when others ask..
What's the evidence for the pulse? What's the frequency and duty cycle?
What paradox?
Title: Re: Origin of magnetic force
Post by: Spring Theory on 04/07/2022 23:30:28
All charged particles have a magnetic moment due to its "intrinsic" spin.

An intrinsic spin requires an intrinsic axis and hence a source for an instrisic pulse.
But the charge is not because of the rotation.
What's the evidence for the pulse? What's the frequency and duty cycle?

Defining the source of the pulse - the dipole is appropriate.  The dipole is formed when a photon circles in on itself in a double orbit. The electric charge points of the photon wave overlap.  The magnetic fields also overlap. In the case of the electron, the negative charge points radially outward and positive charge points inward.  With a photon pair or two dipoles, you have a shielded positive charge and only the negative charge presented:

(https://acct89456.app.netsuite.com/core/media/media.nl?id=7358&c=ACCT89456&h=tf6bwN8ToyTU3aW1SN8yt3rK0Izkd5OPDl2L7Zii8pENY7lX)
The frequency for the dipoles in the free electron is about 2.3229884563E+24 cycles per second. Not sure what you mean by duty cycle.

The best evidence for a pulse would be the fine structure constant.  If the electron was "still", the charge force at the dipole would be 137ish times it's observed average charge,  This is why the fine structure is the electron coupling constant for interactions with photons.

When an electron absorbs a photon, it locks on to the electron dipole in alignment with the photon's electric fields. The photon essentially wraps around the electron in theory. The quantum nature of the photon "selected" for absorption is determined by how many wraps around the electron the photon can make geometrically and have its own dipole created.  You would have 4 wraps for the first photon, 9 wraps for the next one and 16 for the next one, etc. It follows the n^2 energy levels similar to Bohr's model.
Title: Re: Origin of magnetic force
Post by: Origin on 05/07/2022 03:43:33
Defining the source of the pulse - the dipole is appropriate.  The dipole is formed when a photon circles in on itself in a double orbit. The electric charge points of the photon wave overlap.
I see you are doubling down on your word salad approach.
Title: Re: Origin of magnetic force
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 05/07/2022 05:01:56
Not sure what you mean by duty cycle.
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/02/PWM_duty_cycle_with_label.gif)
Title: Re: Origin of magnetic force
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 05/07/2022 05:24:57
Before we offer new hypotheses to explain observations, let's learn how previous scientists developed classical model of electromagnetism which eventually led to Maxwell's equations. We can also learn the difficulties they faced, which modern students may often overlook or take for granted.
 
Ohm's Law: History and Biography

Biography of Coulomb and his Equation
Title: Re: Origin of magnetic force
Post by: Bored chemist on 05/07/2022 10:30:32
Before we offer new hypotheses to explain observations, let's learn how previous scientists developed classical model of electromagnetism which eventually led to Maxwell's equations. We can also learn the difficulties they faced, which modern students may often overlook or take for granted.
 
Ohm's Law: History and Biography


Biography of Coulomb and his Equation

Two interesting tales.
They both show the importance of experiment and evidence.
Title: Re: Origin of magnetic force
Post by: Spring Theory on 05/07/2022 12:24:06
Not sure what you mean by duty cycle.
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/02/PWM_duty_cycle_with_label.gif)

0.7297352562787%
Title: Re: Origin of magnetic force
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 05/07/2022 12:34:33
0.7297352562787%
Where does it come from?
Title: Re: Origin of magnetic force
Post by: Spring Theory on 05/07/2022 12:53:12
0.7297352562787%
Where does it come from?

The fine structure constant.
Title: Re: Origin of magnetic force
Post by: alancalverd on 05/07/2022 14:24:13
All charged particles have a magnetic moment due to its "intrinsic" spin.
Only those with unpaired spins. An alpha particle has charge -2e but no magnetic moment. A uranium nucleus may or may not have a magnetic moment, depending not on its charge (which is always -92e) but on how many uncharged neutrons it contains.
Title: Re: Origin of magnetic force
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 05/07/2022 16:11:30
Defining the source of the pulse - the dipole is appropriate.  The dipole is formed when a photon circles in on itself in a double orbit. The electric charge points of the photon wave overlap.  The magnetic fields also overlap. In the case of the electron, the negative charge points radially outward and positive charge points inward.  With a photon pair or two dipoles, you have a shielded positive charge and only the negative charge presented:
What are the advantages that your model can offer compared to currently existing models? Do they produce different experimental predictions?
Title: Re: Origin of magnetic force
Post by: Spring Theory on 06/07/2022 13:47:09
All charged particles have a magnetic moment due to its "intrinsic" spin.
Only those with unpaired spins. An alpha particle has charge -2e but no magnetic moment. A uranium nucleus may or may not have a magnetic moment, depending not on its charge (which is always -92e) but on how many uncharged neutrons it contains.

I was mainly focused on what are typically considered fundamental particles.
Title: Re: Origin of magnetic force
Post by: Spring Theory on 06/07/2022 13:57:04
Defining the source of the pulse - the dipole is appropriate.  The dipole is formed when a photon circles in on itself in a double orbit. The electric charge points of the photon wave overlap.  The magnetic fields also overlap. In the case of the electron, the negative charge points radially outward and positive charge points inward.  With a photon pair or two dipoles, you have a shielded positive charge and only the negative charge presented:
What are the advantages that your model can offer compared to currently existing models? Do they produce different experimental predictions?

It actually matches current experimental results. It also offers an explanation of the Stern Gerlach experiment and superpositions of states.

One testable prediction will be that a particle that decays into (2) photons will have the trajectories of those photons in opposite directions but with an offset on the order of the particle’s diameter and proportional to the wavelength (λ) of the photons emitted:

6aa6b2c85b7003d7dc81c342b6137aa9.gif

Picture (2) ball like photons in orbit held together by a piece of string between the photons.  If the string is cut (particle decays), then the photons will fly off in opposite directions along lines that are tangent to the orbit diameter.  The path is parallel but it is not collinear

Title: Re: Origin of magnetic force
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 07/07/2022 12:19:40
It actually matches current experimental results. It also offers an explanation of the Stern Gerlach experiment and superpositions of states.
How does your model explain electrostatic/Coulomb's force between two point particles? 
Title: Re: Origin of magnetic force
Post by: Spring Theory on 07/07/2022 13:29:43
It actually matches current experimental results. It also offers an explanation of the Stern Gerlach experiment and superpositions of states.
How does your model explain electrostatic/Coulomb's force between two point particles? 

My model has no point particles, there are only ring shaped particles.

A deterministic description of Coulomb's electric force can be modeled in the form of momentum. Since the outer side dipoles are either a localized compression of space for positive charge and a localized decompression for negative charge, it can be modeled as pulses of momentum.  The point of the dipoles can be thought of as radius velocities.  These radius velocities multiplied by the mass pulse are the charge momentum. This is the mechanism behind the Coulomb forces.

A negative charge decompression pulses a negative mass while a positive charge pulses a positive mass.  This could also be thought of in terms of curvature.  Positive charge pulses a convex curvature of space while a negative charge pulses a concave curvature of space. When a convex curvature meets a concave curvature from opposite directions, the curvatures add together to create an effective attractive force. This is the mechanism behind a positive charge attracting a negative charge. When two concave curvatures, such as two negative charge pulses, meet from opposite directions, the curvature interferes to create a repulsive effect.  This is the reason like charges repel each other. It's like the momentum pulses bounce off of each other like billiard balls.

(https://acct89456.secure.netsuite.com/core/media/media.nl?id=11029&c=ACCT89456&h=Jv268qUIJZcycILhn0VLKSKfqxPZUuvZwkwllQhtguktqqx4)
Title: Re: Origin of magnetic force
Post by: Origin on 07/07/2022 13:46:11
One testable prediction will be that a particle that decays into (2) photons
What particle decays into 2 photons?
Title: Re: Origin of magnetic force
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 08/07/2022 02:29:44
(https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=67448.0;attach=33135)

What happens if one of the electrons is moving? How do the electrons know the position of the other electrons to direct the concave curvature of space?
What's the picture for attractive force between a positive charge and a negative charge?
Title: Re: Origin of magnetic force
Post by: Spring Theory on 08/07/2022 20:05:39
One testable prediction will be that a particle that decays into (2) photons
What particle decays into 2 photons?

Pions
Eta mesons
Positronium

Title: Re: Origin of magnetic force
Post by: Origin on 08/07/2022 20:20:47
Pions
Eta mesons
Positronium
Thanks.
Title: Re: Origin of magnetic force
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 09/07/2022 03:30:11
Here's an experiment to reveal the origin of magnetic force by showing different predictions between classical theory based on em field and relativistic theory based on length contraction which causes change in charge density, and the force can then be treated as electrostatic interaction.

Let a 12 Volt battery on the left of the page. A copper wire is connecting the negative terminal of the battery to a 12 ohm incandescent light bulb 10 meters away on the right side of the page. The electric circuit is completed by double wires, each is identical to previous wire, connecting the light bulb to the positive terminal of the battery. Those wires are wrapped in a conduit.

The resistance of the wires are negligible compared to the light bulb. Hence the current is around 1 Ampere.

The electrons move to the right through single wire, and move to the right through double wire. Since the current is the same, average velocity of the electrons through single wire must be twice as the electrons through double wire.

In classical explanation, the magnetic field  from single wire cancels out since the wires connected to positive terminal has the same magnitude but opposite current from the wire connected to negative terminal.
Title: Re: Origin of magnetic force
Post by: Spring Theory on 09/07/2022 13:05:01
(https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=67448.0;attach=33135)

What happens if one of the electrons is moving? How do the electrons know the position of the other electrons to direct the concave curvature of space?
What's the picture for attractive force between a positive charge and a negative charge?

The electrons are always spinning and flipping.  Picture the electron tumbling all over the place. Think of the effect as an average of the pulse the another particle might "feel".

No graphic yet for the positron - electron interaction, but just flip the charge sign and the curvature to convex on one side and now you have a negative billiard ball collision (attraction).

Another testable prediction for this model is that positrons are unstable and will decay without interaction from an electron.
Title: Re: Origin of magnetic force
Post by: Bored chemist on 09/07/2022 13:18:29
Another testable prediction for this model is that positrons are unstable and will decay without interaction from an electron.
So, that's testable.
No positron decay has been observed. Positrons are stable.
So we know that the idea failed the test.
Title: Re: Origin of magnetic force
Post by: Spring Theory on 09/07/2022 13:26:40
Positrons
Another testable prediction for this model is that positrons are unstable and will decay without interaction from an electron.
So, that's testable.
No positron decay has been observed. Positrons are stable.
So we know that the idea failed the test.

Incorrect.  Never been tested. Positrons find an electron too quickly.
Title: Re: Origin of magnetic force
Post by: Bored chemist on 09/07/2022 13:33:09
Incorrect.  Never been tested. Positrons find an electron too quickly.
You are right; your statement there is incorrect.
It has been tested.
The positrons  in accelerators are stable.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Large_Electron%E2%80%93Positron_Collider

Were you not aware of what is probably one of the best known bits of scientific kit in the world?
Title: Re: Origin of magnetic force
Post by: paul cotter on 09/07/2022 13:35:04
Positronium? particle or cationic species?
Title: Re: Origin of magnetic force
Post by: Spring Theory on 09/07/2022 14:22:22
Incorrect.  Never been tested. Positrons find an electron too quickly.
You are right; your statement there is incorrect.
It has been tested.
The positrons  in accelerators are stable.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Large_Electron%E2%80%93Positron_Collider

Were you not aware of what is probably one of the best known bits of scientific kit in the world?


Pretty useless comment, but I will attempt to penetrate the steel trap...

Show me a similar test like the Kamiokande experiment.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proton_decay
Title: Re: Origin of magnetic force
Post by: puppypower on 09/07/2022 16:26:52
The electron is an elementary particle, which means it is a single thing that cannot be broken down further. It cannot be composed of mass and charge that are treated as two separate things, since the electron behaves as one thing and has never been broken down into the assumed two things. The easiest way to explain this is that the mass and charge of the electron are connected via an aspect of the unified force, allowing the mass and charge to become interchangeable; one thing.

Mass and gravity have not been integrated into the unified theory of force. This is because the obvious has been overlooked. You guys went down the  wrong rabbit hole and did did not infer the obvious.

Positron and electrons are both elementary particles each with mass and charge. These tend to find each other and annihilate. On the other hand the electron and proton can find each other but do not annihilate.

The reason electrons and protons can also find each other, but do not annihilate, like electrons and positrons, is because only electrons and positrons can interact via an aspect of the unified force. The electron and proton cannot do this, since the proton is not an elementary particle; its mass and charge can break apart, so they cannot both use the unified force under normal conditions.

If I was to model the unified mass and charge of the electron, as connected to the unified force, it would be graphed as a sine wave with charge above the x-axis and mass below the x-axis. The only time mass and charge appear as separated, is at the top and bottom of the sine wave peaks. In the middle, is  mass/charge under the unified force. The positron and electron can interact via the entire sine wave, while electron and proton, only as the peaks. 

Title: Re: Origin of magnetic force
Post by: Bored chemist on 09/07/2022 16:33:43
Incorrect.  Never been tested. Positrons find an electron too quickly.
You are right; your statement there is incorrect.
It has been tested.
The positrons  in accelerators are stable.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Large_Electron%E2%80%93Positron_Collider

Were you not aware of what is probably one of the best known bits of scientific kit in the world?


Pretty useless comment, but I will attempt to penetrate the steel trap...

Show me a similar test like the Kamiokande experiment.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proton_decay

No.
That's not the way it works.
You are the one making the extraordinary claim.
Responsibility to show that your idea is right falls to you.
Show us your extraordinary evidence.
Title: Re: Origin of magnetic force
Post by: Bored chemist on 09/07/2022 16:35:47
It cannot be composed of mass and charge that are treated as two separate things, since the electron behaves as one thing and has never been broken down into the assumed two things
This is nonsense.
It's like saying that, because a soda can has a height and a colour, you think that colour and height are the same thing.
Title: Re: Origin of magnetic force
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 09/07/2022 16:57:58
Another testable prediction for this model is that positrons are unstable and will decay without interaction from an electron.
How did you derive that prediction from the axioms in your model?
Title: Re: Origin of magnetic force
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 15/01/2023 13:28:17
Is it a problem?   It's often required that the positive charges don't and can't spread out despite a Lorentz contraction.   The positive charges are the metal atoms and they are locked into a lattice.    Even when Lorentz contraction puts them closer together and suggests there should be increased repulsion between them, the metal atoms cannot move apart.
     However the electrons are not like that, they are free to move around and can spread out.
What happens to those metal atoms?
Does the same thing happen to ions in electrolytic solutions?
Title: Re: Origin of magnetic force
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 15/01/2023 13:30:27
Here's another video trying to explain electromagnetic force using length contraction.

Imagine that the wire is replaced by a hose containing electrolytic solution. Positive ions and negative ions move to the opposite direction at the same speed. Will the test particle experience a force?
Title: Re: Origin of magnetic force
Post by: alancalverd on 15/01/2023 14:58:46
The electrons move to the right through single wire, and move to the right through double wire. Since the current is the same, average velocity of the electrons through single wire must be twice as the electrons through double wire.
No. The drift velocity is the same but twice as many are moving through any plane perpendicular to the axis of the wire. Imagine a wide road with a rigid speed limit. If you want to move more cars in a given time, you just occupy more lanes.
Title: Re: Origin of magnetic force
Post by: alancalverd on 15/01/2023 15:02:46
Positronium? particle or cationic species?
Particle, definintely. A single positron or proton is cationic but positronium is electrically neutral during its brief life. Not to be confused with positronium ions, however, which contain an additional p or e and are much less stable..
Title: Re: Origin of magnetic force
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 15/01/2023 17:16:55
The electrons move to the right through single wire, and move to the right through double wire. Since the current is the same, average velocity of the electrons through single wire must be twice as the electrons through double wire.
No. The drift velocity is the same but twice as many are moving through any plane perpendicular to the axis of the wire. Imagine a wide road with a rigid speed limit. If you want to move more cars in a given time, you just occupy more lanes.
What is the fundamental reason for the emergence/constancy of the drift velocity?
Is it the same for different substances?
Is it still the same if the current is nearly zero?
Title: Re: Origin of magnetic force
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 15/01/2023 17:33:34
Here's another video trying to explain electromagnetic force using length contraction.

Imagine that the wire is replaced by a hose containing electrolytic solution. Positive ions and negative ions move to the opposite direction at the same speed. Will the test particle experience a force?

A problem with the video is it doesn't provide quantitative explanation. How much change in the force if the velocities are changed?
If the velocity of the particle is doubled, will the force also double?
If the wire also moves, will the formula still give the correct answer?
Title: Re: Origin of magnetic force
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 18/01/2023 15:56:18
Magnetic Vortices in motion and Magnetic Gradients
Quote
Magnetic gradients help explain how magnetism works.  In this video SuperMagnetMan presents new ways to see the magnetic vortices and understand how magnetic gradients can affect magnetic applications.  Many different applications depend on understanding gradients in order to develop the right solution.
I don't think I can find the explanation in this video in a physics textbook.
Title: Re: Origin of magnetic force
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 17/03/2023 22:26:57
Here's another video trying to explain electromagnetic force using length contraction.

Imagine that the wire is replaced by a hose containing electrolytic solution. Positive ions and negative ions move to the opposite direction at the same speed. Will the test particle experience a force?

A problem with the video is it doesn't provide quantitative explanation. How much change in the force if the velocities are changed?
If the velocity of the particle is doubled, will the force also double?
If the wire also moves, will the formula still give the correct answer?
Imagine a simple parallel electric circuit consisting of 3 horizontal wires 1 meter long with 1 cm separation. Top wire contains a 1 Volt battery, while the other wires each contain 1 Ohm resistor.

When the circuit is closed, electrons in top wire move to the right, while in the other wires, electrons move to the left. Middle wire is pushed down by top wire while being pulled down by bottom wire. Positively charged test particles stationary to the circuit doesn't seem to experience electromagnetic force by the wires.

Where do the force on the wires come from?
Title: -
Post by: Christylalge on 24/03/2023 08:21:01
how about one that activates with The Clapper?

"Size matters not. Look at me Judge me by my size do you? And well you should not For my ally is the force, and a powerful ally it is"
Title: Re: Origin of magnetic force
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 26/03/2023 23:11:34
Here's a newly discovered phenomenon involving magnet.
Title: Re: Origin of magnetic force
Post by: Spring Theory on 20/04/2023 20:35:57
Incorrect.  Never been tested. Positrons find an electron too quickly.
You are right; your statement there is incorrect.
It has been tested.
The positrons  in accelerators are stable.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Large_Electron%E2%80%93Positron_Collider

Were you not aware of what is probably one of the best known bits of scientific kit in the world?


Pretty useless comment, but I will attempt to penetrate the steel trap...

Show me a similar test like the Kamiokande experiment.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proton_decay

No.
That's not the way it works.
You are the one making the extraordinary claim.
Responsibility to show that your idea is right falls to you.
Show us your extraordinary evidence.


I'm only here to make extraordinary predictions.  Leave it to the experimentalists to do the testing.  I can't do everything and leave nothing else for others.
Title: Re: Origin of magnetic force
Post by: Bored chemist on 20/04/2023 22:51:27
I'm only here to make extraordinary prediction
Anyone can make up nonsense.
You don't even seem to realise that you are useless.
Title: Re: Origin of magnetic force
Post by: Spring Theory on 21/04/2023 14:23:44
I'm only here to make extraordinary prediction
Anyone can make up nonsense.
You don't even seem to realise that you are useless.
That's not very nice.  Hurts my feelings.
Title: Re: Origin of magnetic force
Post by: alancalverd on 22/04/2023 17:18:23
Hurt feelings? Oh dear. Bruno was burned and Galileo excommunicated for stating the obvious.

"The student of physics must become accustomed to having his common sense violated five times before breakfast" (Eddington).

If you are going to go further and make predictions that defy all existing knowledge, you need a pretty thick skin in this business.
Title: Re: Origin of magnetic force
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 23/04/2023 14:39:42
Recently I found out that Rowland made experiment with rotating copper disc at high voltage which can move small magnetic needles. In other words, moving charged conductor produces magnetic field. Unfortunately I can't find the reference in Wikipedia.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry_Augustus_Rowland

It's possible that the magnet simply moved due to Eddy current. If that's the case, removing the voltage should have no effect. I guess we can find out by replicating the experiment. I'm curious why it's not more widely known.
Title: Re: Origin of magnetic force
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 24/04/2023 12:40:44
Basically, the experiment would be like the video below, but instead of a magnet, the disc is connected to a high voltage generator.

Rotating Copper Disc Demo
Title: Re: Origin of magnetic force
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 23/08/2023 04:42:27
There's an interesting case with induction motor related to magnetism. Stator coils and rotor act like primary and secondary coils of a transformer.

During starting up, the rotor isn't rotating yet, and act simply like single turn coils with shorted outputs.

When the rotor is free to rotate at the same rate as the rotating magnetic field, and no friction from bearings nor the air, it will act like secondary coils with opened ends.
The power supply will observe the load of stator coils as if they are just normal inductors, unmodified by the rotor.

During the speeding up from standing still to maximum speed, the rotor acts like secondary coils with their ends connected with capacitors. The capacitance of the capacitor is proportional to the rotational inertia of the rotor. If the rotor has an extremely small rotational inertia, then it will be quickly accelerated to maximum speed, just like a small capacitor which is quickly become charged.
Title: Re: Origin of magnetic force
Post by: paul cotter on 23/08/2023 09:50:12
The rotor never reaches synchronous speed. The difference is called the slip. When used as a motor the rotor speed will be less than synchronous, when used as a generator the rotor speed will be greater synchronous. The degree of slip depends on the load and of course the design of the motor. A full rigorous analysis of the squirrel cage motor is quite complex.
Title: Re: Origin of magnetic force
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 23/08/2023 11:08:36
The rotor never reaches synchronous speed. The difference is called the slip. When used as a motor the rotor speed will be less than synchronous, when used as a generator the rotor speed will be greater synchronous. The degree of slip depends on the load and of course the design of the motor. A full rigorous analysis of the squirrel cage motor is quite complex.
That can be caused by rotor load or losses due to friction, either mechanical or electrical types, which is called resistance. Reducing those friction reduces the slip. Ideally, it's 0. Practically, it can be made very small by removing loads (including motor's rear fan), reducing friction on bearings (e.g. using magnetic bearings) and air friction (e.g. by running in vacuum), and use superconductor for the rotor.

The diagram below shows an analogy between an induction motor and a transformer with capacitive load on secondary coil. To simplify, resistive loads are made negligible.
(https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=67448.0;attach=34071;image)
Title: Re: Origin of magnetic force
Post by: paul cotter on 23/08/2023 11:15:23
Yes, what you say is correct but what is the point? Zero slip=zero torque and your motor is then just an expensive paper weight.
Title: Re: Origin of magnetic force
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 23/08/2023 12:01:28
My analogy draws the equivalence between capacitance and rotational inertia. It can explain why there's mass in the dimensional analysis of capacitance. It might be a clue to the incompleteness of Maxwell's equations to describe electrodynamics phenomena. His equations don't involve mass.
Title: Re: Origin of magnetic force
Post by: paul cotter on 23/08/2023 14:41:50
There is nothing missing from Maxwell's equations, they do exactly what's written on the tin, no more, no less.
Title: Re: Origin of magnetic force
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 23/08/2023 16:00:00
There is nothing missing from Maxwell's equations, they do exactly what's written on the tin, no more, no less.
Can Lorentz force be derived from Maxwell's equations?

How do they describe capacitance and inductance to have mass in their dimensional analysis?
Title: Re: Origin of magnetic force
Post by: Bored chemist on 23/08/2023 16:23:48
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.
Any news?
Title: Re: Origin of magnetic force
Post by: paul cotter on 23/08/2023 17:57:31
Hamdani, inductance and capacitance do not have mass in their dimensional analysis. The Lorenz force equation is separate from Maxwell's equations, just as the gravitation equations are separate from Maxwell. We do not as yet have a theory of everything so we have to continue with separate equations for each particular phenomenon.
Title: Re: Origin of magnetic force
Post by: paul cotter on 23/08/2023 18:22:08
Hamdani, I posted in haste without reducing to basic units and I was in error. But dimensional analysis is a separate discipline to Maxwell's equations, so what if mass turns up in the analysis? As I said, more than once, Maxwell's equations do what they do, they don't tell me the lottery numbers to pick or any other matters outside their scope. I don't understand your obsession with Maxwell, all our equations have limited but valuable applications.
Title: Re: Origin of magnetic force
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 24/08/2023 04:22:05
Hamdani, I posted in haste without reducing to basic units and I was in error. But dimensional analysis is a separate discipline to Maxwell's equations, so what if mass turns up in the analysis? As I said, more than once, Maxwell's equations do what they do, they don't tell me the lottery numbers to pick or any other matters outside their scope. I don't understand your obsession with Maxwell, all our equations have limited but valuable applications.
I often found someone claimed that Maxwell's equations can be used to describe all classical electromagnetic phenomena.
My analogy between rotor rotational inertia of an induction motor and a capacitor connected to output of secondary coil in a transformer shows the similarity between them. By simply increasing rotor rotational inertia, we can increase effective capacitance. It can be done in several ways, such as adding plastic or ceramic plate to the rotor shaft, or reconfigure mass distribution of the rotor to be further away from rotational axis.
Title: Re: Origin of magnetic force
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 24/08/2023 05:04:50
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.
Any news?
Thanks for the reminder.

I found it the hard way that to reduce noise to signal ratio and get conclusive results, I need to scale up the experimental equipment, especially increasing the electric current significantly, with all of its consequences. It would need significant amount of resources, including time and funding to build the equipment, which I currently don't have, unfortunately. It turns out that doing thought experiments are generally much easier, and cheaper than physical experiments.

So for now, I'm more focused on experiments which are easier to do and less demanding. I'm editing several videos of experiments in polarization and diffraction of light. So, I'm afraid this experiment will have to wait a little longer.

Title: Re: Origin of magnetic force
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 26/08/2023 04:38:53
My analogy between rotor rotational inertia of an induction motor and a capacitor connected to output of secondary coil in a transformer shows the similarity between them. By simply increasing rotor rotational inertia, we can increase effective capacitance. It can be done in several ways, such as adding plastic or ceramic plate to the rotor shaft, or reconfigure mass distribution of the rotor to be further away from rotational axis.

The diagram below shows an analogy between an induction motor and a transformer with capacitive load on secondary coil. To simplify, resistive loads are made negligible.
(https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=67448.0;attach=34071;image)

It's just one of many analogies between mechanical end electrical systems. I'll try to find other examples to show the other analogies.
There's mechanical-electrical analogy for RLC circuit. Some of us are unaware that there are two types of analogies, which may create confusion.
(https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=86432.0;attach=34059)
In the case of rotating equipment like generator and motor, the mass should be replaced by rotational inertia.
Title: Re: Origin of magnetic force
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 26/08/2023 06:57:12
Lecture 2: Faraday, Thomson, and Maxwell: Lines of Force in the Ether
Earlier physicists also tried to describe analogy between mechanics and electricity.
Title: Re: Origin of magnetic force
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 30/08/2023 06:09:24
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.

(https://lh4.googleusercontent.com/-gw7O5hzZyf4/V3eejXQ7m8I/AAAAAAAAAFU/gcj1T4oSqS0xiHIwfRYqq0lxpNvqWdSyACL0B/w311-h153-no/magnet0.jpg)

Next, the wire is zoomed to show the electrons and metal atoms inside.

(https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-itaAPsMdcJw/V3eekIoFYeI/AAAAAAAAAFU/H_xzpckJOGUyX5Qn3aIu6TFQ_PAshwM6wCL0B/w169-h96-no/magnet5.jpg)

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.

(https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-zyHAhxkPZWE/V3eekbe8MRI/AAAAAAAAAFU/d5d5CEQi9jQIiI7JCoHSE0OkvLsAizqowCL0B/w172-h113-no/magnet6.jpg)

The picture above is equivalent to the picture from previous post.

(https://lh6.googleusercontent.com/-oHltq_n3kMs/V3eej-a3L1I/AAAAAAAAAFU/Fg30lZH3usIPyvWfLPcR0fOnzNaM9R3PgCL0B/w311-h157-no/magnet2.jpg)

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 that
F = B.q.v
Where 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 particle has uniform velocity as well.

The first table below shows the value of electric current, which depends on the difference of velocity between positive and negative particle in the wire.
   v+   -4   -3   -2   -1   0    1    2    3    4
v-                              
-4       0    1    2    3    4    5    6    7    8
-3      -1    0    1    2    3    4    5    6    7
-2      -2   -1    0    1    2    3    4    5    6
-1      -3   -2   -1    0    1    2    3    4    5
 0      -4   -3   -2   -1    0    1    2    3    4
 1      -5   -4   -3   -2   -1    0    1    2    3
 2      -6   -5   -4   -3   -2   -1    0    1    2
 3      -7   -6   -5   -4   -3   -2   -1    0    1
 4      -8   -7   -6   -5   -4   -3   -2   -1    0

The second table below shows the velocity of the wire relative to test particle. It's determined solely by velocity of positive particle.
   v+   -4   -3   -2   -1   0   1   2   3   4
v-                              
-4      -4   -3   -2   -1   0   1   2   3   4
-3      -4   -3   -2   -1   0   1   2   3   4
-2      -4   -3   -2   -1   0   1   2   3   4
-1      -4   -3   -2   -1   0   1   2   3   4
 0      -4   -3   -2   -1   0   1   2   3   4
 1      -4   -3   -2   -1   0   1   2   3   4
 2      -4   -3   -2   -1   0   1   2   3   4
 3      -4   -3   -2   -1   0   1   2   3   4
 4      -4   -3   -2   -1   0   1   2   3   4

The third table shows the force experienced by test particle, which is simply the multiplication of each cell in both tables above.
   v+   -4   -3   -2   -1    0    1    2     3     4
v-                              
-4       0    -3   -4   -3    0    5   12   21   32
-3       4     0   -2   -2    0    4   10   18   28
-2       8     3    0   -1    0    3     8   15   24
-1      12    6    2    0    0    2     6   12   20
0       16    9    4    1    0    1     4     9   16
1       20   12   6    2    0    0     2     6   12
2       24   15   8    3    0   -1     0    3     8
3       28   18   10   4   0   -2    -2    0     4
4       32   21   12   5   0   -3    -4   -3     0
Title: Re: Origin of magnetic force
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 30/08/2023 12:16:20
There are some patterns identified in the third table.

Positive values mean that positively charged test particle will be pushed away from the wire. While negative values mean it will be pulled towards the wire.

Zeros mean that the test particle doesn't experience any force. It happens when the current is 0, or the speed of the wire is 0.

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.

Can these patterns be explained using length contraction and time dilation?
Title: Re: Origin of magnetic force
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 30/08/2023 15:19:06
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 that
F = B.q.v
Where 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.

Following assumptions might be already implied by assumptions mentioned above, but to be more explicit:
Only negatively charged electrons move relative to the wire, while positively charged metal lattice atoms are stationary to the wire.
Lorentz force formula is still valid even when the current carrying wire is the moving thing, instead of the test particle.
Skin effect is negligible.
Diameter of the wire is negligible compared to the distance between wire and the test particle.
 
doing thought experiments are generally much easier, and cheaper than physical experiments.
Title: Re: Origin of magnetic force
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 01/09/2023 15:25:45
Can these patterns be explained using length contraction and time dilation?
For your reference,
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.
Title: Re: Origin of magnetic force
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 04/09/2023 11:58:32
There are many YouTube videos about MHD. But this one stands out for its clarity and some quantitative data.
Title: Re: Origin of magnetic force
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 14/09/2023 03:53:00
Here's another video from Fermilab explaining magnetism using special theory of relativity.

Quote
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.
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.
Title: Re: Origin of magnetic force
Post by: Bored chemist on 14/09/2023 07:59:00
Magnetism is a fundamentally quantum phenomenon.
Maxwell's equations aren't.
Title: Re: Origin of magnetic force
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 14/09/2023 14:48:22
Magnetism is a fundamentally quantum phenomenon.
Maxwell's equations aren't.
Yet we can still find someone said that Maxwell's equations can describe macroscopic electromagnetic phenomena completely.
Title: Re: Origin of magnetic force
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 15/09/2023 04:54:50
Here's another short experiment showing electromagnetic force. From the response shown by the large magnet, can we explain how the current carrying wire exerts force on it?
Title: Re: Origin of magnetic force
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 21/09/2023 11:13:48
https://www.academia.edu/resource/work/43077909
Michael Faraday?s Electrogravity
By AndrewN. Adler
Quote
The search for a relation between electricity and gravity comprised one of Michael
Faraday?s last research undertakings.[1] During his first period of experimentation, Faraday himself deemed his chances of success very slim.[2] 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.?[3] In 1855, Faraday lamented, ?I suppose that nobody will accept the idea [of gravity interconversion with electricity] as possible.?[4] 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.

Quote
Regarding his gravity researches, Faraday declared, ?Let the imagination go, guiding it
by judgment and principles, but holding it in and directing it by experiment.?[9] Yet as noted above, for this scientist some ?principles? rest upon absolute truth.[10] 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 unification
would 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 well
founded, 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.[11] 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.
Efforts to unify electricity and gravity have been done for a long time. But no one can come up with a convincing result yet. So I guess It won't be too embarrassing if I also fail.
Title: Re: Origin of magnetic force
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 21/09/2023 19:56:19
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.
It seems like the Lorentz force can still be generated with alternating current. This is what we'll try to detect in an experiment.
Title: Re: Origin of magnetic force
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 22/09/2023 09:55:29
Quote
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. 

TERMS
Components - a part of a larger whole
Description - a given account in words
Develop - to build or create
Model - a simplified representation of a system
Phenomenon - observable events in the natural world (require explanations)
Prediction - to say that an event will happen in the future
Relationship - interconnection between parts of a system

This 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 shows how to develop a scientific model in a systematic way, which would be useful in designing our experiment.
Title: Re: Origin of magnetic force
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 25/09/2023 15:23:41
I think I can utilize the high voltage generator from my other thread to produce observable electrostatic force from its electric charges.
By adding an impedance matching transformer, the induction heater I used in my other thread might produce strong enough ionic current.
A right combination of them might allow me to reproduce the table of Lorentz force by moving electric charges to a stationary test particle.
Title: Re: Origin of magnetic force
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 06/10/2023 17:06:45
The video explains why light has momentum even without mass.
Title: Re: Origin of magnetic force
Post by: alancalverd on 06/10/2023 18:40:24
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.
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.
Title: Re: Origin of magnetic force
Post by: Eternal Student on 06/10/2023 23:15:26
Hi.

The video explains why light has momentum even without mass.

   That video is of interest, thank you for listing it.   However, it suggests a photon will only impart momentum when it hits a charged particle, or some susbstance which does have some charged particles in it which can be moved by the E field of the e-m radiation.
     It is thought that photons can also scatter off Neutrons, imparting some change of momentum to the neutrons in that process.   However, the details are hard to verify - I am NOT finding many references on a Google search other than more forum posts from other forums.   This seems to be a reliable reference:    https://articles.adsabs.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/nph-iarticle_query?bibcode=1993ApJ...417...12G&db_key=AST&page_ind=0&plate_select=NO&data_type=GIF&type=SCREEN_GIF&classic=YES      which is an article on photon-neutron scattering in the early universe.   I haven't read all of that but skimming through it, the cross-section for interaction is not 0 so it could happen.

    In summary,a photon would impart some impulse (change of momentum) on anything it can scatter off.  It is not clear that it will only scatter off something that contains charged particles.  So the explanation offered in the video may only be partially valid.

There is another minor issue:
    At about time index 16:45  the video asserts  FE . v     can be interpreted as the energy transferred by the photon(s) per second   (its power).   While in fact that seems to be just the power transferred (to the electron) by the Electric field -  so it is not the total power that could be transferred by the photon(s).   Specifically there is Energy contained in the magnetic field as well.    So it seems unacceptable to equate this with the total Energy of the photon.  At a glance there seems to be some constant missing,   the Energy of the photon  E = hf   would seem to be proportional  to what is being considered but may not be precisely equal to it.

    These are minor issues and the video remains of some interest and value.   In particular it does serve to make it more plausible to the general audience that a photon would transfer momentum.

Best Wishes.


Title: Re: Origin of magnetic force
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 06/10/2023 23:35:56
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.
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.
Scientists have different concerns than engineers.
Title: Re: Origin of magnetic force
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 04/11/2023 12:48:10
It seems like Ampere had done many experiments and came up with conclusions which were not compatible with contemporary physics understandings of his time.


It's a long video discussing about the history of scientific progress which are not widely known by common people.
Title: Re: Origin of magnetic force
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 04/11/2023 14:27:44
Here's the more common depiction of Ampere's contribution to the understanding of electromagnetism.

At 7:10 it said, Ampere suspected that electric current created magnetic field around the conductor.
Title: Re: Origin of magnetic force
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 21/11/2023 13:43:33
I'm interested to test the claims in this video.
Exx-020 Homopolar Motor Torque Mystery

Quote
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.
Title: Re: Origin of magnetic force
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 25/11/2023 11:33:52
Homopolar motor Electric conducibility with mercury

This video shows contrary to the claim in previous post.
Title: Re: Origin of magnetic force
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 25/11/2023 11:46:14
Liquid Mercury vortex in a magnetic field

Quote
In this experiment we see that half of a copper globe is anodized with nickel metallic paint and connected to an electric wire in a direct current pole. In the center of the container there is a brass bolt electrically isolated from the container and connected to another pole of the direct current. At the base of the wooden support there is a large magnet which generates a magnetic attraction. Liquid mercury weighing just over 1 kg is poured into the container. When current flows through the two conductors, it generates a strong magnetic field that supports the system. This favorable condition causes mercury to rotate since it is a very conductive metal.
For the success of the experiment it is necessary to have liquid mercury not less than 1 kg.

The experiment does not work with gallium, as it is a less fluid metal.
The voltage source is given by a 2 volts 45 amps transformer driven by a direct current inverter.
The current absorbed for operation is approximately 38 amps.
The speed of rotation of the mercury varies according to the weight and the voltage supplied.
* System doesn't work in alternating current.

Title: Re: Origin of magnetic force
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 25/11/2023 12:04:28
Faraday motor using salt water.
Title: Re: Origin of magnetic force
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 26/11/2023 13:18:19
Plasma seems to experience the same effect.
Title: Re: Origin of magnetic force
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 26/11/2023 13:32:09
Most demonstation videos of homopolar motor only show that electric current across a magnetic field can cause angular motion, but they don't clearly show the conservation of angular momentum. That's what I intend to show in my next experiments.


Title: Re: Origin of magnetic force
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 24/01/2024 16:06:53
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.
Any news?
Thanks for the reminder.

I found it the hard way that to reduce noise to signal ratio and get conclusive results, I need to scale up the experimental equipment, especially increasing the electric current significantly, with all of its consequences. It would need significant amount of resources, including time and funding to build the equipment, which I currently don't have, unfortunately. It turns out that doing thought experiments are generally much easier, and cheaper than physical experiments.

So for now, I'm more focused on experiments which are easier to do and less demanding. I'm editing several videos of experiments in polarization and diffraction of light. So, I'm afraid this experiment will have to wait a little longer.


My preliminary results look promising. I need to modify the experimental setup quite significantly. It'll take a while to produce conclusive results. And yet more time will be needed to record, edit, and upload the video. So please have some patience.
Title: Re: Origin of magnetic force
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 25/01/2024 10:21:34
During the early recording, I was bothered by some silly problems like loose connections, LCD display of the Voltmeter unclear/unreadable due to viewing angle of the camera, and lack of zeroing/balancing switch. It makes the video much longer than it should.
I think I'll reshoot the video after making some improvements in the setup.

Here's the idea. Electric current is said to generate magnetic field, and magnetic field is said to induce force to moving electric charges. But movement is relative. In a current carrying wire, positively charged metal lattice is stationary relative to the bulk of the wire, while the negatively charged electrons flow in it, hence moving.
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.

(https://lh4.googleusercontent.com/-gw7O5hzZyf4/V3eejXQ7m8I/AAAAAAAAAFU/gcj1T4oSqS0xiHIwfRYqq0lxpNvqWdSyACL0B/w311-h153-no/magnet0.jpg)

Next, the wire is zoomed to show the electrons and metal atoms inside.

(https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-itaAPsMdcJw/V3eekIoFYeI/AAAAAAAAAFU/H_xzpckJOGUyX5Qn3aIu6TFQ_PAshwM6wCL0B/w169-h96-no/magnet5.jpg)

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.

(https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-zyHAhxkPZWE/V3eekbe8MRI/AAAAAAAAAFU/d5d5CEQi9jQIiI7JCoHSE0OkvLsAizqowCL0B/w172-h113-no/magnet6.jpg)

The picture above is equivalent to the picture from previous post.

(https://lh6.googleusercontent.com/-oHltq_n3kMs/V3eej-a3L1I/AAAAAAAAAFU/Fg30lZH3usIPyvWfLPcR0fOnzNaM9R3PgCL0B/w311-h157-no/magnet2.jpg)

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 that
F = B.q.v
Where 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 particle has uniform velocity as well.

The first table below shows the value of electric current, which depends on the difference of velocity between positive and negative particle in the wire.
   v+   -4   -3   -2   -1   0    1    2    3    4
v-                              
-4       0    1    2    3    4    5    6    7    8
-3      -1    0    1    2    3    4    5    6    7
-2      -2   -1    0    1    2    3    4    5    6
-1      -3   -2   -1    0    1    2    3    4    5
 0      -4   -3   -2   -1    0    1    2    3    4
 1      -5   -4   -3   -2   -1    0    1    2    3
 2      -6   -5   -4   -3   -2   -1    0    1    2
 3      -7   -6   -5   -4   -3   -2   -1    0    1
 4      -8   -7   -6   -5   -4   -3   -2   -1    0

The second table below shows the velocity of the wire relative to test particle. It's determined solely by velocity of positive particle.
   v+   -4   -3   -2   -1   0   1   2   3   4
v-                              
-4      -4   -3   -2   -1   0   1   2   3   4
-3      -4   -3   -2   -1   0   1   2   3   4
-2      -4   -3   -2   -1   0   1   2   3   4
-1      -4   -3   -2   -1   0   1   2   3   4
 0      -4   -3   -2   -1   0   1   2   3   4
 1      -4   -3   -2   -1   0   1   2   3   4
 2      -4   -3   -2   -1   0   1   2   3   4
 3      -4   -3   -2   -1   0   1   2   3   4
 4      -4   -3   -2   -1   0   1   2   3   4

The third table shows the force experienced by test particle, which is simply the multiplication of each cell in both tables above.
   v+   -4   -3   -2   -1    0    1    2     3     4
v-                              
-4       0    -3   -4   -3    0    5   12   21   32
-3       4     0   -2   -2    0    4   10   18   28
-2       8     3    0   -1    0    3     8   15   24
-1      12    6    2    0    0    2     6   12   20
0       16    9    4    1    0    1     4     9   16
1       20   12   6    2    0    0     2     6   12
2       24   15   8    3    0   -1     0    3     8
3       28   18   10   4   0   -2    -2    0     4
4       32   21   12   5   0   -3    -4   -3     0


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.
It seems like the Lorentz force can still be generated with alternating current. This is what we'll try to detect in an experiment.


In salt solutions, the electric current is produced by ions which have significantly higher mass/charge ratio than electrons. Different ions may have different mass/charge ratio, which can be useful to distinguish the magnetic forces that they produce to test particles. In the experiments with electrolytic solutions, alternating current has clear advantage, which is the lack of bubbling gas or precipitate at the electrodes which can obstruct or alter prolonged experiment.

Since we are dealing with weak signal, I think it would be better to measure the resulting potential difference between two electromagnetic/electrohydrodynamic forces instead of measuring the force directly. It works like a Wheatstone bridge.

Instead of a hose like in the original plan, I used two plastic containers filled with salt solutions. Each container is equipped with two stainless steel plate electrodes, which makes them act like resistors. They are then electrically connected in series to guarantee that same amount of current will flow through them at the same time.

To measure the generated magnetic force to test particle, an empty metal can is inserted below each container. The electrons in the can metal will be attracted by the force, which would produce some positive potential at the bottom of the cans. Different types of solution would produce different strength of magnetic force, which translates to potential difference at the bottom of the cans. A digital Voltmeter with 0.1 mV precision should be able to read it.
Title: Re: Origin of magnetic force
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 25/01/2024 11:28:42
In my preliminary experiment, I used two polypropylene boxes designed for microwave oven. The volume is stated at 750 mL. At the bottom, the size is around 14x9 cm, while at the top, it's around 16x11 cm. The height is 5.5 cm.

For the solutions, first I used the same NaCl solution for both containers to get zero calibration. Then one of the container is replaced with Na2SO4 solution to see the change in resulting potential difference.

I used a toroidal transformer to provide a floating 48 VAC power source to make sure potential balance. The resulting current is around 1 Ampere, which is measured using a digital clamp meter.

To convert Lorentz force on test particles into potential difference, I used two empty cat food cans. They are inserted below the plastic boxes.
 
They were inspired by how leaf electroscopes work which propagate electrostatic force from the head on top of the electroscopes to the metal leaves at the bottom. But instead of observing the position of leaves as the electrostatic force works against gravity, we just simply measure the potential difference between two can bottoms using a voltmeter.

Screws are provided near the bottom of the cans to provide secure connection with the voltmeter leads. It's important to isolate the cans from ceramic floor, as it creates erroneous reading. I simply used the lids of plastic box as the mats.

With NaCl solutions in first container and Na2SO4 in second container, some potential difference up to tens of milliVolts DC is shown on Voltmeter when around 1 Ampere alternating current is flowing through the solutions. The value drops significantly as the current is stopped. Admittedly, the reading was not as stable as I'd like to see. The voltage fluctuated slowly before it settled around some number, but the fluctuation doesn't seem to get to zero.

The ratio between ion charge and mass may not be the only factor to determine the voltage reading. Current leak, EM interference, impurity of the solutions, hydronium and hydroxide ions, cohesion and adhesion among the molecules, electrophoresis, electrokinesis, mass of neutral molecules in the liquid as well as the container may also play some role.

I'm ordering other kind of salts to make comparison, which are MgCl2 and KCl. They are chosen for being non-hazardous substances, and affordable price tags. Having the same negative ions also help reducing the number of variables affecting the results.
Title: Re: Origin of magnetic force
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 25/01/2024 23:52:48
If confirmed by subsequent experiments, my hypothesis would have profound impacts on current theories of physics. Our understanding of magnetic force would be fundamentally changed. Electricity and magnetism would no longer be seen as the different sides of the same coin. Magnetism won't be seen as simply Electricity in motion anymore. Instead, it would be seen as a combination between electricity and gravity.
The electrohydodynamic balance I used here might be regarded as monumental as Foucault pendulum. It's simple in construction, but powerful in providing evidence of the things that has been suspected for a long time.
Title: Re: Origin of magnetic force
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 26/01/2024 05:05:01
Here's the sketch of the experimental setup. I think this is so simple that anyone can replicate it.
(https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=67448.0;attach=34224)

In case it hasn't been obvious, the whole system should be electrically isolated from its environment. Including the ground below the cans.

A represents clamp Ampere meter in AC mode. V represents Voltmeter in DC millivolt mode.
Title: Re: Origin of magnetic force
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 26/01/2024 10:04:42
What's the best way to understand gravity?
Quote
The Standard Model of particle physics is the theory describing three of the four known fundamental forces (electromagnetic, weak and strong interactions ? excluding gravity) in the universe and classifying all known elementary particles.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standard_Model

Gravity and the universe | Sabine Hossenfelder, Erik Verlinde, Priyamvada Natarajan [FULL DEBATE]

Quote
Sabine Hossenfelder, Erik Verlinde and Priyamvada Natarajan discuss inconsistencies in our current theory of gravity. Is the fault with Einstein's theory of general relativity, or with our understanding of quantum mechanics?

00:00 Introduction
01:58 The problem with our theory of gravity: the quantum field theory and Einstein's theory of general relativity are mathematically incompatible
05:28 First pitch - Our theory of gravity lacks proper understanding of what quantisation is
05:51 Second pitch - We have to rethink gravity from a microscopic perspective
08:29 Third pitch - Data will show us the way
11:31 Theme 1: Where does the fault in our theory of gravity lie?
21:56 Theme 2: Do we need an entirely different account of gravity?
39:12 Theme 3: Should we accept that a single holistic account of the universe is impossible?

We all know the story of Newton framing his theory of gravity as a result of watching an apple fall from a tree. But 350 years on we still don't understand this seemingly simple force. Current theories cannot apply both at the small scale of atomic particles and at the giant scale of galaxies, on the scale of quantum mechanics and on the scale of general relativity. Without a solution the mystery of gravity threatens to undermine any overall account of the universe.

Do we need an entirely different account of gravity, or perhaps remove gravity from our explanations altogether? Or should we just accept that a single holistic account of the universe is not possible and see our theories as limited to a given frame and reference?
Title: Re: Origin of magnetic force
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 26/01/2024 10:08:52
Veritasium's video below say that gravity is not a force, contrary to what most people were taught in school.

Why Gravity is NOT a Force
Quote
The General Theory of Relativity tells us gravity is not a force, gravitational fields don't exist. Objects tend to move on straight paths through curved spacetime. Thanks to Cas?ta by Lutron for sponsoring this video. Find out more at: https://www.lutron.com/veritasium

Huge thanks to Prof. Geraint Lewis for hours of consulting on this video so I could get these ideas straight in my own brain. Check out his YouTube channel: https://ve42.co/gfl or his books: https://ve42.co/GFLbooks
Quote
Here's a question I've seen a lot in comments: OK, I'm accelerating up but then shouldn't someone on the other side of the globe fall off? No, here's why:
Either watch again from 8:28 or read what I've written below...

Spacetime is curved - it curves the opposite direction on the other side of the Earth.

Neither us on this side of the Earth nor they on the other side are changing our spacial coordinates - we're not moving up, they're not moving down - Earth isn't flying into one of us.

BUT we both ARE accelerating. In curved spacetime you have to accelerate just to remain stationary.

The traditional definition of acceleration is something changing its velocity.

In general relativity you have to embrace a new definition of acceleration: it means deviating from a geodesic - not going on a straight line path through spacetime. Near the Earth a geodesic is a parabola so unless you're moving in a parabolic arc (like on a zero-g plane) you are accelerating.

This definition is the same as the old one  so if you're accelerating in deep space then your velocity is changing.

*BUT*... if you are near a large mass you are in curved spacetime, now acceleration  your velocity is changing. You can stay stationary relative to Earth's surface and still be accelerating. This is because your acceleration should be measured not relative to the Earth's surface but relative to free-falling objects - they are inertial observers.

Imagine this - I'm in deep space and I make horizontal rows and rows of stationary golf balls. Then I hop in my rocket and accelerate up through them. Just think about what that looks like. Now my rocket is back on Earth just sitting there. I freeze time for a sec and make horizontal rows and rows of golf balls up into the atmosphere. Now unfreeze time. What do you see? If you just look at the golf balls and the rocket ship it looks the same as the situation in space where the golf balls were stationary and the rocket was accelerating. Einstein's point was the golf balls have the better claim as the "stationary" thing since their experience is just like the golf balls in deep space - no forces experienced. The rocket on Earth is just like the rocket in space. It feels a force and hence an acceleration.

Title: Re: Origin of magnetic force
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 26/01/2024 10:15:23
Gravity is not a force. But what does that mean?
Quote
Just exactly what does it mean that gravity is not a force? In this video I will revisit the question and explain why you are currently accelerating upwards, and how Einstein's equivalence principle works.

00:00 Intro
00:42 Acceleration is absolute
02:17 How gravity works in general relativity
04:21 Einstein's Equivalence principle
11:39 From Einstein back to Newton
13:48 Learn Science with Brilliant
Title: Re: Origin of magnetic force
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 26/01/2024 11:36:18
While the video below is a countering argument.

Gravity is a Force.
Title: Re: Origin of magnetic force
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 26/01/2024 11:58:31
Here's another competing idea.

Why General Relativity (and Newton's Laws) tell us The Sky is Falling Up
Quote
Understanding the Equivalence Principle is pretty straightforward -- so long as you're willing to throw out some basic intuitions about your everyday motion. Indeed, there is an astonishing truth about why objects actually "fall" at the surface of the earth that most people are completely oblivious to. Join us as we take to rocket ships, rooftops, cow pens, and other exotic settings in an attempt to expose it. Plus: plenty of monkey business along the way!

Contents:
00:00 - Introduction
01:02 - Intuition, a Fickle Mistress
02:20 - The Operative Definition
03:58 - Motion in a Rocket Ship
07:27 - Motion at the Surface of the Earth
09:48 - The Equivalence Principle
12:37 - The "Switch"
15:11 - Motion Falling off of a Building
17:54 - Tidal Forces
20:48 - The Sky is Falling Up!
Title: Re: Origin of magnetic force
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 26/01/2024 12:10:25
The Bucket Experiment is one of the most important tools to understand gravity.


Newton vs. Mach: The Bucket Experiment

Quote
What is the ultimate nature of motion? Two influential physicists famously debated this question, invoking a bucket-and-water thought experiment to do so -- but they arrived at starkly different conclusions. Can we determine which one of them was right? Join us on a journey that spans centuries of metaphysical thought, books worth of controversial literature, and twenty-minutes of bad attempts at animating water spinning in a bucket.
Contents:

00:00 - Intro
01:05 - Newton's Absolutes
04:15 - The Bucket Experiment
07:31 - Round 1: Mach
11:14 - Round 2: Newton
13:06 - Round 3: Sudden Death
Title: Re: Origin of magnetic force
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 26/01/2024 12:27:57
A thought about Mach principle.
How I rediscovered Mach's Principle
Quote
There is a unique way in which Mach's principle, stated in 1883, can be related to a variable speed of light form of general Relativity (Einstein 1911)
and Dirac's Large Number Hypothesis (1938). More in https://www.amazon.com/dp/B01FKTI4A8
Title: Re: Origin of magnetic force
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 26/01/2024 12:31:39
How to Explain G - Mach's Principle and Variable Speed of Light
Quote
Maybe the most intriguing consequence of Einstein's 1911 variable speed of light approach to general relativity.
Title: Re: Origin of magnetic force
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 26/01/2024 12:36:27
Basically, the other videos I've posted above are preamble for this one.

The Most Fundamental Problem of Gravity is Solved
Quote
If you are familiar with Newton's bucket, you may skip to 6:10.
Until recently, I had not realized the flash of genius of Dennis Sciama who linked inertia and gravity in a Machain way already in 1953.
I think it's a typo, he should write Machian instead of Machain.

I think the idea is great. I wonder why it's not widely taught, or at least introduced in school.
Title: Re: Origin of magnetic force
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 27/01/2024 01:54:37
This video just came out in my subscription list. It's a happy coincidence.
Magnets at the LIMITS of Scientific Knowledge
Quote
In this video, we explore the fascinating world of magnets and uncover a new type of magnet that we didn't even know existed. Join us as we delve into the latest discoveries and the science behind this mysterious magnet. From the ancient Greeks' fascination with lodestones to the recent breakthroughs in quantum mechanics, magnets have always captivated our curiosity. Discover how our understanding of magnetism has evolved over time and how it plays a crucial role in modern technology. We'll dive into the intriguing concept of electron exchange interactions and their role in creating magnetism. Explore the fascinating world of triangular agreements between electrons and the complexities they bring. Uncover the secrets behind moire patterns and how they can be used to create entirely new materials with unique properties. As we venture deeper into the realm of two-dimensional materials, we discover the endless possibilities and exciting developments that lie ahead. Witness the revolution in material science and the exploration of exotic 2D materials.
Title: Re: Origin of magnetic force
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 27/01/2024 13:54:44
If confirmed by subsequent experiments, my hypothesis would have profound impacts on current theories of physics. Our understanding of magnetic force would be fundamentally changed. Electricity and magnetism would no longer be seen as the different sides of the same coin. Magnetism won't be seen as simply Electricity in motion anymore. Instead, it would be seen as a combination between electricity and gravity.
The electrohydodynamic balance I used here might be regarded as monumental as Foucault pendulum. It's simple in construction, but powerful in providing evidence of the things that has been suspected for a long time.
When I first learned as a kid that there is no magnetic monopole, I suspected that magnetism might be a composite phenomenon, unlike gravity and electricity. My suspicion got stronger when comparing the field of a magnet and electric dipole. But I didn't have a clue how to prove or disprove it.
(https://i.stack.imgur.com/2hciO.jpg)

Then I encountered a physics textbook in public library that explains how electromagnet around a current carrying wire works according to Edward Purcell's idea based on length contraction in special theory relativity. But I couldn't settle how to explain the asymmetric behavior between positively charged metal atoms and negatively charged electrons.

The idea of using ionic current in electrically conductive solutions came across my mind when I was working in a project in a remote area around 2008. I had plenty of rest/idle time there I can use for brainstorming. I intended to use salt solutions inside a water hose in place of copper wire like what is commonly found in demonstrations of electromagnetism. When I got home, I tried to realize the idea, only to find that the current is much too small to produce measurable effects.
Title: Re: Origin of magnetic force
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 27/01/2024 15:12:55
Fast forward, last year I designed the experiment replacing the hose with a container which has larger cross sectional area. It should produce higher electric current without having to use high voltage, which could introduce additional electrostatic force and affect the measurement.

At the time, I intended to use something similar to electroscope leaves to detect the Lorentz force produced by ionic current. The leaves would be connected to high voltage, which then act like charged particle as in the original thought experiment described in Purcell's book. I wasn't sure how high the voltage would be to show measurable effects.
It's only recently that I have the idea to use potential difference to measure the Lorentz force, which would eliminate the need to use high voltage.
Title: Re: Origin of magnetic force
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 27/01/2024 16:45:26
Today I planned to conduct the experiment, as the ordered salts have arrived. But I ended up spending a lot of time solving connection problems with the experimental setup. Loose connections could ruin the results, as I found out in my preliminary experiment. Fortunately, the problems seem to have been solved, so I can focus on the core subject of the experimentexperiment next time.

A switch was installed to short-circuit the cans to eliminate potential difference between them. It would let me reset the measured voltage to zero during the experiment using a single hand only, while my other hand is free to hold and direct the camera.

If you have any idea what kind of measurements I should take, please post it here.

For a start, I'll zero calibrate the equipment using the same solutions in both containers. It would reveal imbalance produced by other components, such as cables, cans, and ambient electric field.
Next, take some amount of the liquid from first container, and then pour it to the second container. It would create imbalance in conductivity of the fluids in each container. But since they are connected in series, they should have the same current, although smaller than before.
Title: Re: Origin of magnetic force
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 28/01/2024 00:15:52
The core experiment would measure potential difference between the cans produced by Lorentz forces from the moving ions in different solutions to the electrons in the cans below them.

Here's the list of  ions will used in the experiment, with mass/charge ratio.
Na+  23/1
K+    39/1
Mg2+   24.3/2
Cl-        35.45/(-1)

I chose monoatomic ions to reduce the effects of molecular dipole.
Some water molecules also dissociate to form H+, H3O+, and OH-.
Title: Re: Origin of magnetic force
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 28/01/2024 07:28:09
The idea of using ionic current in electrically conductive solutions came across my mind when I was working in a project in a remote area around 2008.

You may wonder what took me so long to realize how to solve the problem. Perhaps I was distracted by other scientific endeavors to reveal the missing pieces from my understanding of the universe. They were experiments in diffraction of light and behavior of microwave propagation. I wanted to demystify seemingly simple phenomena like double slit experiment, suspicious explanations of single slit experiment, also various other unsatisfactory explanations I found in text books like polarization and evanescent wave.

I thought that people would be interested in new experimental results contradicting currently accepted explanations, and encourage them to discuss alternative explanations. But I was wrong. It seems like people are more interested in information with a story behind them, instead of simply hard cold facts.

Schrodinger deviced a cat story to express his objection to Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics. I have my own story to describe the situation with magnetism, and its relationship with electricity and gravity.

Title: Re: Origin of magnetic force
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 28/01/2024 09:30:25
Here is my story of cosmic cats as a metaphor for relationships among electricity, magnetism, and gravitation.

In a neighborhood, people have been aware of 3 stray cats since a long time. They are called Electra, Magnus, and Gravitas. At first, people thought that they were distinct individual cats, unrelated to each other. But someday, some people started to realize that Electra and Magnus are closely related,
because they are often seen in the same time and place. Some of them even concluded that they are actually the same cat individual, just seen from different angles. Gravitas seemed to be unrelated to the other cats, despite people's efforts to find relationships among them.

A new discovery then reveals that Magnus is the son of Electra and Gravitas. It explains why he's often seen with her, but can also be found alone sometimes. It also explains why they have similar features.
Title: Re: Origin of magnetic force
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 28/01/2024 15:06:33
The core experiment would measure potential difference between the cans produced by Lorentz forces from the moving ions in different solutions to the electrons in the cans below them.

Here's the list of  ions will used in the experiment, with mass/charge ratio.
Na+  23/1
K+    39/1
Mg2+   24.3/2
Cl-        35.45/(-1)

I chose monoatomic ions to reduce the effects of molecular dipole.
Some water molecules also dissociate to form H+, H3O+, and OH-.
Let's go back to the main business.
When one Ampere electric current is applied, there's flow of electric charge as much as 1 Coulomb per second. In case of NaCl solution, 0.5 C/s in one direction from Na+ ions, and 0.5 C/s in the opposite direction from Cl- ions.
1 Coulomb is approximately 10 micro mole. Thus, the numbers above convert to 5 micro moles/second motion of each Na+ and Cl- ions going through a cross-section area of the solution, perpendicular to the current.
They correspond to 111 micrograms/second of Na+ and 177.25 micrograms/second of Cl-
The difference is -66.25 micrograms/second.
In case of KCl solution, the mass flow would be 195 micrograms/second of K+ and 177.25 micrograms/second of Cl-
The difference is +17.25 micrograms/second.
In case of MgCl2 solution, the mass flow would be 12.15 micrograms/second of Mg2+ and 177.25 micrograms/second of Cl-
The difference is -165.1 micrograms/second.
Title: Re: Origin of magnetic force
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 28/01/2024 17:18:27
The voltage shown in the Voltmeter of the experiment must be generated from these mass flow difference of the ions, considering that other factors are equally applied to both containers. But some factors may effectively reduce the voltage, such as adhesion, cohesion, molecular dipole, etc.
Title: Re: Origin of magnetic force
Post by: paul cotter on 28/01/2024 21:26:05
Those figures are not correct: 1 amp will transport ~23/96000 grams of sodium=240 μgram and for chlorine 35/96000= 365 μgrams.
Title: Re: Origin of magnetic force
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 29/01/2024 00:18:29
Those figures are not correct: 1 amp will transport ~23/96000 grams of sodium=240 μgram and for chlorine 35/96000= 365 μgrams.
Where do you get that conversion value from?
Title: Re: Origin of magnetic force
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 29/01/2024 03:06:49
Here's the sketch of the experimental setup. I think this is so simple that anyone can replicate it.
(https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=67448.0;attach=34224)

In case it hasn't been obvious, the whole system should be electrically isolated from its environment. Including the ground below the cans.

A represents clamp Ampere meter in AC mode. V represents Voltmeter in DC millivolt mode.
By looking at how simple this device is, it's quite surprising that past scientists failed to demonstrate the relationship between magnetism, electricity, and gravity. But if we compare to how simple the Foucault pendulum is, and how it escaped from the imagination of geniuses like Galileo and Newton, this situation might be more understandable. Everyone has their own blind spots. It took me more than 25 years to make it happen.
Title: Re: Origin of magnetic force
Post by: paul cotter on 29/01/2024 11:06:35
Look up Michael Faraday's work on electrolysis. What happens in the case of sodium chloride electrolysis is more complicated than just ion transport: most of the action happens in the vicinity of the electrodes followed by slow diffusion of fresh ions into this region. There is also the complication of reaction products: sodium metal reacts with water to produce sodium hydroxide and hydrogen gas-the hydroxide ion being negatively charged will migrate towards the anode together with the chloride ion. At the anode the released chlorine will react with water to produce hydrochloric acid and hypochlorous acid.   
Title: Re: Origin of magnetic force
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 29/01/2024 12:07:34
Look up Michael Faraday's work on electrolysis. What happens in the case of sodium chloride electrolysis is more complicated than just ion transport: most of the action happens in the vicinity of the electrodes followed by slow diffusion of fresh ions into this region. There is also the complication of reaction products: sodium metal reacts with water to produce sodium hydroxide and hydrogen gas-the hydroxide ion being negatively charged will migrate towards the anode together with the chloride ion. At the anode the released chlorine will react with water to produce hydrochloric acid and hypochlorous acid.   
I used alternating current. The frequency is 50 Hz. There's no noticable chemical reaction during my preliminary experiment, which lasted for around 30 minutes, although not run continuously.
Title: Re: Origin of magnetic force
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 29/01/2024 12:11:38
When we realize that magnetism is a combination of electricity and gravity, the term electromagnetic wave becomes redundant. It should be called magnetic wave, or electrogravitational wave instead.
Title: Re: Origin of magnetic force
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 29/01/2024 13:09:26
1 Coulomb is approximately 10 micro mole.
Here's the source.
Quote
In terms of the Avogadro constant (NA), one coulomb is equal to approximately 1.036*10−5 mol * NA elementary charges.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coulomb
Title: Re: Origin of magnetic force
Post by: paul cotter on 29/01/2024 13:58:01
I don't dispute the figures in your post #174. The normal equivalence used in electrochemistry is that the passage of 96000amps will transport 1 mole of a singly charged anion or cation: if you work it back that is roughly the same as that quoted in #174. If you are using ac then electrode corrosion and subsequent contamination will be an issue unless you have platinum electrodes. On the subject of magnetism I strongly dispute your claim of a gravitational component but I refuse to get into a long winded argument about this. Magnetism is very well understood: the magnetic field is the electric field as seen from a different frame of reference, likewise the electric field is the magnetic field as seen fro a different frame of reference.
Title: Re: Origin of magnetic force
Post by: Origin on 29/01/2024 15:16:37
When we realize that magnetism is a combination of electricity and gravity,
With a bizarre statement like that, we now realize (as if it wasn't already clear) that you have no idea what magnetism is.  I fear that when hamdani has added 100 more pages to this thread he will be no closer to understanding magnetism. 
Title: Re: Origin of magnetic force
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 30/01/2024 03:31:59
On the subject of magnetism I strongly dispute your claim of a gravitational component but I refuse to get into a long winded argument about this.
My hypothesis that magnetism is related to gravity relies on the equivalence principle between gravity and inertia. My experimental setup was designed to specifically eliminate any difference between two fluid containers except the inertia of current carrying ions in them. Hence in my simple mind, this difference is the cause of observed potential difference between the bottom of the metal cans below those containers.
Do you have any problem with that equivalence principle?
Do you have any alternative explanation that can cause the potential difference?
Title: Re: Origin of magnetic force
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 30/01/2024 03:34:13
Magnetism is very well understood: the magnetic field is the electric field as seen from a different frame of reference, likewise the electric field is the magnetic field as seen fro a different frame of reference.
The bottom of the metal cans are both stationary in the lab reference frame. What kind of field do you think has caused what I observed, which is a potential difference?
Title: Re: Origin of magnetic force
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 30/01/2024 03:36:21
When we realize that magnetism is a combination of electricity and gravity,
With a bizarre statement like that, we now realize (as if it wasn't already clear) that you have no idea what magnetism is.  I fear that when hamdani has added 100 more pages to this thread he will be no closer to understanding magnetism. 
Which one is more bizzare in their statement about magnetism, me, you, or Feynman?
Title: Re: Origin of magnetic force
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 01/02/2024 10:02:32
Here's a wise quote from Alan.
But you can have a policy about people who persistently ignore the laws of physics or persistently break the rules.
Like Bruno, Galileo, Newton, Einstein, Maxwell.....not to mention Semmelweiss, Pasteur, Jenner, and everyone else who flagrantly ignored the laws of chemistry and the practice of medicine.
Science is different from mining.
It can take decades to recognise a nugget, and only then do you realise that everything you once considered valuable is actually dross.
Problem is that an awful lot of new dross is presented here as potential nuggets. But it keeps the miners alert and amused.
To distinguish a nugget from trash faster, you can expose it as transparently as possible, and let more people to examine it.
I think I've revealed my idea about magnetism in an easy to understand reasoning, with a simple method to experimentally verify or falsify it, so that anyone with a decent amount of willingness and resources can replicate it. Let's see if we've hit a jackpot, or it's just a mirage emerged from a high hope.
Title: Re: Origin of magnetic force
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 02/02/2024 05:11:14
The voltage shown in the Voltmeter of the experiment must be generated from these mass flow difference of the ions, considering that other factors are equally applied to both containers. But some factors may effectively reduce the voltage, such as adhesion, cohesion, molecular dipole, etc.
The next step in to explain the experimental results theoretically, is constructing equation to calculate electrodynamic force exerted to a test particle by a moving charged particle. The result might be similar to Biot-Savart's law, but instead of continuous integration with integral symbol, the new equation should use discrete summation with Sigma symbol.

The new equation should also incorporate some well known principles in physics, such as preservation of momentum and angular momentum.
Title: Re: Origin of magnetic force
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 02/02/2024 14:46:06
The electrodynamic force should be proportional to the particle's velocity, mass, and electric charge. Velocity times mass of an object is called momentum. Thus the force would be proportional to charge times the momentum.
For a start, let's just use the simplest cases where the test particle is stationary. The current carrying ions would exert a force to the test particle.

My suspicion to the fundamentality of magnetic field came up when I first learned about magnetic field and how it interact with charged particles. First, B field around a current carrying wire is described by the Biot?Savart law, which involve a cross product between vector line element of the wire and a unit vector in the direction of the distance between the location of the line element and the location where the magnetic field is calculated.
But then the calculation of the magnetic force to a test particle involve a cross product between the B field and the instantaneous velocity of the test particle using Lorentz force law. The final resulting force from those two cross products would then be a push or pull.
My suspicion got stronger when I learned about https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faraday_paradox.
and A field https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magnetic_vector_potential
Title: Re: Origin of magnetic force
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 03/02/2024 03:37:43
Reality's challenge to physics | Michio Kaku, Avshalom Elitzur, Tim Maudlin and Jimena Canales

Quote
Avshalom Elitzur, Michio Kaku, Tim Maudlin and Jimena Canales thrash out the implications of what current physics says about the nature of time.

Does time really flow in the way we think it does?

In our everyday experience, time is an inescapable backdrop against which events unfold, allowing us to sequence events and measure durations. Yet in the hundred years since Einstein's theory of general relativity, physics has had a radically different account. Time does not flow, there is no before and after. We are not born and we do not die. The entirety of spacetime is given at the outset of the universe. There is no cause and effect. Is this radical discrepancy with our everyday experience a threat to physics or a threat to our understanding of what it is to be alive?

Should we take seriously claims of physicists that everyday experience is an illusion? Or is it their model of the universe that is mistaken? Or are these two profoundly different accounts of time the product of frames of understanding that will always remain incompatible?

#michiokaku  #time  #physics

Quantum theorist Avshalom Elitzur, theoretical physicist Michio Kaku, philosopher of physics Tim Maudlin, and historian of science Jimena Canales delve into the fascinating conundrum of time. G?neş Taylor hosts.
When we get unexpected results, it means that we have made one or more false assumptions in constructing that expectation.
Title: Re: Origin of magnetic force
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 03/02/2024 15:15:18
Now I'm done recording the experiment using 3 types of chloride salts, ie NaCl, KCl, and MgCl2. It will take some time to edit, add narrative and illustration, and then upload it to my YouTube channel. So please be patient, since I'm having a tight schedule in my work place. So little time so much to do.
Title: Re: Origin of magnetic force
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 03/02/2024 16:40:07
Relativity and Magnetism - Did Veritasium Get it Right
Quote
If you watch carefully, you may find what looks like a mistake in the Veritasium video about electricity, magnetism, and special relativity. Here I explain that apparent mistake.
This video is a response to a Veritasium video explaining magnetism as relativistic effects of moving electric charge. He says that Veritasium video is incomplete for not mentioning about electric holes.
Title: Re: Origin of magnetic force
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 03/02/2024 16:41:59
Here's the referred video.
How Special Relativity Makes Magnets Work
Quote
Magnetism seems like a pretty magical phenomenon. Rocks that attract or repel each other at a distance - that's really cool - and electric current in a wire interacts in the same way. What's even more amazing is how it works. We normally think of special relativity as having little bearing on our lives because everything happens at such low speeds that relativistic effects are negligible. But when you consider the large number of charges in a wire and the strength of the electric interaction, you can see that electromagnets function thanks to the special relativistic effect of length contraction. In a frame of reference moving with the charges, there is an electric field that creates a force on the charges. But in the lab frame, there is no electric field so it must be a magnetic field creating the force. Hence we see that a magnetic field is what an electric field becomes when an electrically charged object starts moving.

Title: Re: Origin of magnetic force
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 04/02/2024 02:07:40
In my culture, there's a famous proverb saying that elephant on eyelid is invisible. It may describe our long unsuccessful search to find the relationship between gravity and electromagnetism.
What we need is a little step back to see things not too closely. Our conviction that magnetism is nothing more than electricity in motion has prevented us from seeing its connection with other kinds of physical interactions, like mass of the current carrying particles.
Title: Re: Origin of magnetic force
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 04/02/2024 09:12:37
Now I'm done recording the experiment using 3 types of chloride salts, ie NaCl, KCl, and MgCl2. It will take some time to edit, add narrative and illustration, and then upload it to my YouTube channel. So please be patient, since I'm having a tight schedule in my work place. So little time so much to do.
Her are some observations during the experiment.
Even with the same solutions in both containers, and no electric current flowing through them, some voltage was shown. It disappeared when the cans were connected, but reappeared after they were disconnected.
Difference in volume of the liquids affects the voltage readings, even with no current.
Electrostatic charge build up on the liquids affects the voltage readings. It can occur when the liquid is poured into the container, or other handling related to triboelectricity.

To minimize variance, the solutions used in the experiment were set to have conductivity around 19 mS/cm, because the portable conductivity meter I used can't show any value above 20 mS/cm.
Title: Re: Origin of magnetic force
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 06/02/2024 15:28:29
Why moving charges produce magnetic field?

He asks an interesting question at around 14:45.
Does magnetic field not exist at all? Is it only electric field and Coulomb's law?
Title: Re: Origin of magnetic force
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 08/02/2024 14:39:48
Now I'm done recording the experiment using 3 types of chloride salts, ie NaCl, KCl, and MgCl2. It will take some time to edit, add narrative and illustration, and then upload it to my YouTube channel. So please be patient, since I'm having a tight schedule in my work place. So little time so much to do.
Her are some observations during the experiment.
Even with the same solutions in both containers, and no electric current flowing through them, some voltage was shown. It disappeared when the cans were connected, but reappeared after they were disconnected.
Difference in volume of the liquids affects the voltage readings, even with no current.
Electrostatic charge build up on the liquids affects the voltage readings. It can occur when the liquid is poured into the container, or other handling related to triboelectricity.

To minimize variance, the solutions used in the experiment were set to have conductivity around 19 mS/cm, because the portable conductivity meter I used can't show any value above 20 mS/cm.

You might be sceptical about the experiment, and want to conduct it yourself to be sure. So, here's a sneak peek from a screenshot of the video recording. I hope it can help you replicate the experiment.
(https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=67448.0;attach=34254)
Title: Re: Origin of magnetic force
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 09/02/2024 13:15:14
A physicist youtuber thinks that electricity and magnetism are the same thing.


Title: Re: Origin of magnetic force
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 09/02/2024 13:59:27
I searched for electrogravity on Youtube, and this video shows up in the results.
Simple Science Experiment to Understand Electro-Gravity
Quote
What is Gravity? 
This video will show the reasons why Gravity can be understood as a side-effect of normal electromagnetic forces.   

In this ongoing video series, I will show several science experiments to demonstrate the special forces from the divergent electric field.  I will also show how the Laplace Force from the Lorentz Equation is an important key to understanding gravity as an electromagnetic effect and is the "engine" behind the electric universe effects.

Title: Re: Origin of magnetic force
Post by: Eternal Student on 09/02/2024 16:35:00
Hi.

A physicist youtuber thinks that electricity and magnetism are the same thing.
    I haven't watched the video but it sounds sensible.   On the microsocopic level, such as in the standard model of particle physics, the E and B fields are considered to be manifestations of the same sort of interactions by the same gauge boson.   On a macroscopic level, B fields do become E fields (and vice versa) when you change frames of reference so that moving charges become still.

    It can get a bit tricky if you consider the intrinsic spin of fundamental particles.    We don't don't imagine spin as if the particle is literally spinning around,  it just seems to be an intrinsic property that a fundamental particle can have.    There is some relationship between spin and a magnetic field, which can be observed by examining various experiments involving Stern-Gerlach apparatus.  Since spin isn't just a motion of the particle changing reference frames won't keep it still.   For fundamental particles there is nothing smaller you can chop it into - so it's not even sensible to consider the B field to be due to motion of several components around each other and hope to keep one component still at a time.  Hence, it would seem that there are some B fields that cannot be reduced to an E field in any frame.   

Best Wishes.
Title: Re: Origin of magnetic force
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 10/02/2024 05:56:09
Hence, it would seem that there are some B fields that cannot be reduced to an E field in any frame.   
Doesn't it mean that they are not the same?
Title: Re: Origin of magnetic force
Post by: Eternal Student on 10/02/2024 06:49:18
Hi.

Doesn't it mean that they are not the same?
   Yes, that is the implication.

Hopefully you haven't missed this bit:
On the microsocopic level, such as in the standard model of particle physics, the E and B fields are considered to be manifestations of the same sort of interactions by the same gauge boson.
    Under the standard model of particle physics,  there isn't a B and E field.    There is a photon field and separate fields for all the other particles.   On this scale or using this model,  it would still be correct to say that the interactions are due to one common field.

Best Wishes.
Title: Re: Origin of magnetic force
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 10/02/2024 11:46:01
Under the standard model of particle physics,  there isn't a B and E field.    There is a photon field and separate fields for all the other particles.   On this scale or using this model,  it would still be correct to say that the interactions are due to one common field.
What caused the voltage in my electrodynamic balance, according to the standard model?
Title: Re: Origin of magnetic force
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 10/02/2024 11:51:55
Afaik, standard model excludes gravity. That's why we came to current situation in physics.

string theory lied to us and now science communication is hard
Quote
String theory lied to us and now science communication is hard.

This is just my opinion man. String theory is not bad. String theory is fine and interesting. String theory was communicated.....you could say poorly or could say deceptively.
Title: Re: Origin of magnetic force
Post by: alancalverd on 10/02/2024 12:28:14
If gravity and magnetism are related, you should be able to predict the behavior of gravity when you alter a magnetic field.

Please make a prediction and test it.
Title: Re: Origin of magnetic force
Post by: Eternal Student on 10/02/2024 14:31:18
Hi.

What caused the voltage in my electrodynamic balance, according to the standard model?
   I haven't seen the details of your experiment, sorry.
   At a guess you had some arrangement of reagents and electrodes so that the set-up became slightly voltaic  (I think another term often used is "galvanic" rather than "voltaic").
    When you ask "according to the standard model"  that is probably asking for pages of work - because there were particles of almost every type in your set up.   Ultimately it should be due to the initial conditions of all the particle fields and their evolution under the standard model.   I wouldn't be able to build a complete model of your system and I think most people would just focus on an aspect of it.

Best Wishes.
Title: Re: Origin of magnetic force
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 10/02/2024 14:36:43
If gravity and magnetism are related, you should be able to predict the behavior of gravity when you alter a magnetic field.

Please make a prediction and test it.
You're getting the causality reversed. The magnetism is the effects. Gravity and electricity are the causes.
Title: Re: Origin of magnetic force
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 10/02/2024 15:38:32
At a guess you had some arrangement of reagents and electrodes so that the set-up became slightly voltaic  (I think another term often used is "galvanic" rather than "voltaic").
I used alternating current power source. A transformator is used to isolate DC drift. The ionic current induced DC voltage measured at the bottom of the metal cans. No indication of electrolysis was observed. I think my diagram has shown all necessary information to understand the experimental setup.

.
Here's the sketch of the experimental setup. I think this is so simple that anyone can replicate it.
(https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=67448.0;attach=34224)

In case it hasn't been obvious, the whole system should be electrically isolated from its environment. Including the ground below the cans.

A represents clamp Ampere meter in AC mode. V represents Voltmeter in DC millivolt mode.
By looking at how simple this device is, it's quite surprising that past scientists failed to demonstrate the relationship between magnetism, electricity, and gravity. But if we compare to how simple the Foucault pendulum is, and how it escaped from the imagination of geniuses like Galileo and Newton, this situation might be more understandable. Everyone has their own blind spots. It took me more than 25 years to make it happen.
Title: Re: Origin of magnetic force
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 10/02/2024 16:19:41
If gravity and magnetism are related, you should be able to predict the behavior of gravity when you alter a magnetic field.

Please make a prediction and test it.
You're getting the causality reversed. The magnetism is the effects. Gravity and electricity are the causes.
Both inertia and gravity depend on mass.
Inerttia is defined as
Quote
a property of matter by which it continues in its existing state of rest or uniform motion in a straight line, unless that state is changed by an external force

While gravity is defined as
Quote
the force that attracts a body toward the center of the earth, or toward any other physical body having mass.

In other words, effect of mass of a body to its own motion is called inertia. While effect of mass of a body to the motion of other bodies at a distance is called gravity. Inertial and gravitational mass have been demonstrated to have the same value to a high precision.

In my case, the mass of the ions determined the force exerted to the electrons in the metal cans. Which means it's more related to gravity.
Title: Re: Origin of magnetic force
Post by: Eternal Student on 11/02/2024 01:04:36
Hi.

   I'm a bit lost now, sorry.    I've gone back through several pages looking for the statement of the hypothesis but didn't really find it.  Is there a post number for that?

    I am now only guessing about what your experiment was and the hypothesis is.    I'm wondering if the different ionic solutions tended to conduct at different depths in your water trays.

In still water, salt (ordinary NaCl salt) tends to become more concentrated at greater depth.     [a reference, not necessarily the best:   https://van.physics.illinois.edu/ask/listing/24631 ]
   So the current through your water trough has to be imagined as being larger nearer to the bottom of the tray.

Sodium Sulphate and your other ionic compounds are probably similar but the exact depth vs. concentration relationship may be different.

Anyway, assuming the experiment is set up as I think it was,   the force on the metal cans would be greater if the moving charges in the solutions were closer to them.    Coloumb force  ~   1/ r2,   magentic field from a moving charge ~ 1/r.

I suppose that could be considered a contribution from gravity in a way:   Maybe heavier ions will tend to concentrate lower down in the solution.   Although, from a cursory inspection of the literature, an assesment of the density of the aqueous molecular forms is more important than just the mass of the ion:    A heavy ion may bind more water molecules around itself and take up a large volume, thereby retaining a low density despite the heavy ion.
   So, it seems that if a chemical compound makes water generally less dense when you add it to pure water,  then this substance will tend to become more concentrated at the top of the solution.   Vice versa if the compound tends to make water more dense (as for the case of Sodium Chloride).

How could you remove this effect?  I don't know,  maybe stir the solutions all the time - but you may not want to use a magnetic stirrer because that will obviously throw out magnetic fields.

Best Wishes.
Title: Re: Origin of magnetic force
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 11/02/2024 14:42:13
In my preliminary experiment, I used two polypropylene boxes designed for microwave oven. The volume is stated at 750 mL. At the bottom, the size is around 14x9 cm, while at the top, it's around 16x11 cm. The height is 5.5 cm.
I don't think there is significant  difference in concentration across this shallow depth.
[a reference, not necessarily the best:   https://van.physics.illinois.edu/ask/listing/24631 ]
Hi I would like to know what would happen in a deep (think kilometres here), still column of salty water at constant temperature. Specifically, I'd like to know if the salt molecules would tend to sink to the bottom making the salinity at depth greater than at the surface, and if so, what the expression describing this is.
- Martin Williams (age 71)
Wirral

Moreover, the solutions were prepared in a separate container. The salts were added to the water and mixed until desired conductivity were met, which were between 19 and 20 mS/cm. Only then they were poured into the containers of electrodynamic balance. If there were still undissolved salts at the bottom of the mixing container, they won't be transferred to the balance.
Title: Re: Origin of magnetic force
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 13/02/2024 03:08:09
  I'm a bit lost now, sorry.    I've gone back through several pages looking for the statement of the hypothesis but didn't really find it.  Is there a post number for that?
You can read the first 7 posts in this thread.
https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=67448.0

I also added some background later on.
My suspicion to the fundamentality of magnetic field came up when I first learned about magnetic field and how it interact with charged particles. First, B field around a current carrying wire is described by the Biot?Savart law, which involve a cross product between vector line element of the wire and a unit vector in the direction of the distance between the location of the line element and the location where the magnetic field is calculated.
But then the calculation of the magnetic force to a test particle involve a cross product between the B field and the instantaneous velocity of the test particle using Lorentz force law. The final resulting force from those two cross products would then be a push or pull.
My suspicion got stronger when I learned about https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faraday_paradox.
and A field https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magnetic_vector_potential
Title: Re: Origin of magnetic force
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 15/02/2024 09:55:22
The voltage shown in the Voltmeter of the experiment must be generated from these mass flow difference of the ions, considering that other factors are equally applied to both containers. But some factors may effectively reduce the voltage, such as adhesion, cohesion, molecular dipole, etc.
The next step in to explain the experimental results theoretically, is constructing equation to calculate electrodynamic force exerted to a test particle by a moving charged particle. The result might be similar to Biot-Savart's law, but instead of continuous integration with integral symbol, the new equation should use discrete summation with Sigma symbol.

The new equation should also incorporate some well known principles in physics, such as preservation of momentum and angular momentum.

https://www.reed.edu/physics/faculty/griffiths/EMMomentum.pdf
Quote
Introduction

According to classical electrodynamics, electric and magnetic fields (E and B) store linear momentum, which must
be included if the total momentum of a system is to be conserved. Specifically, the electromagnetic momentum per unit volume is
g = ε (E x B)
as first proposed by Poynting (Refs. 30?32). Field momentum is most dramatically demonstrated in the laboratory by the pressure of light on an absorbing or reflecting surface.

But the notion that fields carry momentum leads to several intriguing problems, some of which are not entirely resolved after more than a century of debate.

For over a century a debate has raged: which expression is right? Or are they perhaps both right, and simply describe different things? How can the question be settled, theoretically and experimentally? Although many distinguished authors claim to have resolved the issue, the dispute continues to this day.

In particular, the electromagnetic momentum of a stationary point charge q, in a magnetic field represented by the vector potential A, is
p = qA
This suggests that A can be interpreted as ?potential momentum? per unit charge, just as V is potential energy per unit charge.

The association between momentum and vector potential goes back to Maxwell, who called A ?electromagnetic momentum? (Ref. 41; p. 481) and later ?electrokinetic momentum? (Ref. 10; Art. 590), and Thomson (Ref. 21). But the idea did not catch on; any physical interpretation of A was disparaged by Heaviside and Hertz (Refs. 34 and 36), who regarded A as a purely mathematical device. So generations of teachers were left with no good answer to their students? persistent question: ?What does the vector potential represent, physically?? Few were satisfied by the safe but unilluminating response, ?It is that function whose curl is B? (Ref. 39). From time to time the connection to momentum was rediscovered [by Calkin (Ref. 35), for example], but it was not widely recognized until Konopinski?s pivotal paper (Ref. 40). Konopinski was apparently unaware of the historical background, which was supplied by Gingras (Ref. 37).
Title: Re: Origin of magnetic force
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 18/02/2024 10:29:29
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.

(https://lh4.googleusercontent.com/-gw7O5hzZyf4/V3eejXQ7m8I/AAAAAAAAAFU/gcj1T4oSqS0xiHIwfRYqq0lxpNvqWdSyACL0B/w311-h153-no/magnet0.jpg)

Next, the wire is zoomed to show the electrons and metal atoms inside.

(https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-itaAPsMdcJw/V3eekIoFYeI/AAAAAAAAAFU/H_xzpckJOGUyX5Qn3aIu6TFQ_PAshwM6wCL0B/w169-h96-no/magnet5.jpg)

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.

(https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-zyHAhxkPZWE/V3eekbe8MRI/AAAAAAAAAFU/d5d5CEQi9jQIiI7JCoHSE0OkvLsAizqowCL0B/w172-h113-no/magnet6.jpg)

The picture above is equivalent to the picture from previous post.

(https://lh6.googleusercontent.com/-oHltq_n3kMs/V3eej-a3L1I/AAAAAAAAAFU/Fg30lZH3usIPyvWfLPcR0fOnzNaM9R3PgCL0B/w311-h157-no/magnet2.jpg)

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 that
F = B.q.v
Where 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 particle has uniform velocity as well.

The first table below shows the value of electric current, which depends on the difference of velocity between positive and negative particle in the wire.
   v+   -4   -3   -2   -1   0    1    2    3    4
v-                              
-4       0    1    2    3    4    5    6    7    8
-3      -1    0    1    2    3    4    5    6    7
-2      -2   -1    0    1    2    3    4    5    6
-1      -3   -2   -1    0    1    2    3    4    5
 0      -4   -3   -2   -1    0    1    2    3    4
 1      -5   -4   -3   -2   -1    0    1    2    3
 2      -6   -5   -4   -3   -2   -1    0    1    2
 3      -7   -6   -5   -4   -3   -2   -1    0    1
 4      -8   -7   -6   -5   -4   -3   -2   -1    0

The second table below shows the velocity of the wire relative to test particle. It's determined solely by velocity of positive particle.
   v+   -4   -3   -2   -1   0   1   2   3   4
v-                              
-4      -4   -3   -2   -1   0   1   2   3   4
-3      -4   -3   -2   -1   0   1   2   3   4
-2      -4   -3   -2   -1   0   1   2   3   4
-1      -4   -3   -2   -1   0   1   2   3   4
 0      -4   -3   -2   -1   0   1   2   3   4
 1      -4   -3   -2   -1   0   1   2   3   4
 2      -4   -3   -2   -1   0   1   2   3   4
 3      -4   -3   -2   -1   0   1   2   3   4
 4      -4   -3   -2   -1   0   1   2   3   4

The third table shows the force experienced by test particle, which is simply the multiplication of each cell in both tables above.
   v+   -4   -3   -2   -1    0    1    2     3     4
v-                              
-4       0    -3   -4   -3    0    5   12   21   32
-3       4     0   -2   -2    0    4   10   18   28
-2       8     3    0   -1    0    3     8   15   24
-1      12    6    2    0    0    2     6   12   20
0       16    9    4    1    0    1     4     9   16
1       20   12   6    2    0    0     2     6   12
2       24   15   8    3    0   -1     0    3     8
3       28   18   10   4   0   -2    -2    0     4
4       32   21   12   5   0   -3    -4   -3     0

The argumentation for my experiment with electrodynamic balance critically depends on the validity of the tables above. Is there any objection with them, or something I need to clarify?
Title: Re: Origin of magnetic force
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 18/02/2024 11:09:21
I'm making the video of theoretical background leading to the experiment of electrodynamic balance. I usually used ttsmp3.com to create the voiceover. Recently, it offers AI voice option, which sounds more natural than its regular voice. Unfortunately, the limit for free usage is much lower than regular voice. And currently I can't afford to get the premium AI access. So I guess I'll just use the regular voice instead. Although it sounds robotic, it's free, so I don't have to wait much longer just for the expiration of free usage limitation.

Title: Re: Origin of magnetic force
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 18/02/2024 13:45:31
I finally finished editing the video of theoretical background for my electrodynamic balance experiment. Somehow I managed to use AI voice over at the beginning and the end of the video, but I need to use regular voice at the rest of the video. I hope to upload it tomorrow when I get a reliable internet connection.
Title: Re: Origin of magnetic force
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 19/02/2024 02:37:31
Here it is.

This video provide theoretical background for designing an electrodynamic balance, intended to study the origin of magnetic force, and its relationship with electricity and gravity.
Title: Re: Origin of magnetic force
Post by: alancalverd on 19/02/2024 10:11:42
Too many errors to list, alas. We pass this way but once.
Title: Re: Origin of magnetic force
Post by: Eternal Student on 19/02/2024 13:39:20
Hi.

      This is a grey area.   I'm a bit concerned that posting links to your own You Tube channel is actually a violation of the Acceptable Usage Policy   ( https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=8535.msg99452#msg99452  ).

Section 5 of the AUP
The site is not for the promotion of business interests, or other personal ventures.  The only exception to this is where the advertisement is supplied by the owners of the forum to further their own business interests.


You Tube pay the creator per view (once views exceed a certain number).   I do not know how to proceed and will wait for advice from staff or moderator.   You've obviously spent some time and effort to make quite a decent looking video, well done.   There are some things concerning the content that would be worth discussing but I don't know if I should be encouraging anything that may go against the spirit of the AUP.

Best Wishes.
Title: Re: Origin of magnetic force
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 20/02/2024 03:25:19
Too many errors to list, alas. We pass this way but once.
You can mention the biggest one.
Title: Re: Origin of magnetic force
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 20/02/2024 08:59:12
"magnetic forces do no work"
Quote
This video is an answer to a question that was lost in my brain for over ten years. Magnetic fields do work?unless you are working inside a classical electrodynamics theory that isn?t aware of the concept of intrinsic quantum mechanical spin. Which is a very odd choice! But that?s just my opinion, man.

The video she refers to:
Quote
It's often said that "magnetic force cannot do work." This video is my challenge to this long-taught physics rule.
Title: Re: Origin of magnetic force
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 20/02/2024 11:10:27
This is a grey area.   I'm a bit concerned that posting links to your own You Tube channel is actually a violation of the Acceptable Usage Policy   ( https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=8535.msg99452#msg99452  ).

Section 5 of the AUP
The site is not for the promotion of business interests, or other personal ventures.  The only exception to this is where the advertisement is supplied by the owners of the forum to further their own business interests.
Looking for scientific explanations and pointing out widespread scientific misconceptions can be personal ventures. It would depend on the judgment of forum moderators to allow or ban such ventures. Their judgment will determine the future of the forum.

There's a common rule in this situation. We don't want to be on the wrong side of history.
Title: Re: Origin of magnetic force
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 20/02/2024 11:25:00
Meanwhile, I've done making the voice over of the video showing the preparation for electrodynamic balance experiment, up to zero calibration. This time I used another free online text to speech generator. I still have to synchronize the video and audio, before uploading it to my YouTube channel.
Title: Re: Origin of magnetic force
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 21/02/2024 06:31:04
Electrodynamic Balance 1: Preparation
Quote
Now we will show the preparation for electrodynamic balance experiment. This video is intended to help anyone who wants to replicate the experiment to make sure its repeatability. I found that merging this with the experiment itself will produce a huge video which is harder for me to handle.
Title: Re: Origin of magnetic force
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 22/02/2024 21:42:21
While finishing the video of the first experiment, I'm planning to make the next one. I think it's worth to see if one side of the balance contains a normal conductor which has electrons as its current carrier.
Perhaps the discs below the containers can be replaced by isolators. We'll see.
Title: Re: Origin of magnetic force
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 29/02/2024 18:10:45
Can The Faraday Paradox Be Solved?
See 6:20 to jump to the explanation.
Title: Re: Origin of magnetic force
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 03/03/2024 10:24:51
While finishing the video of the first experiment, I'm planning to make the next one. I think it's worth to see if one side of the balance contains a normal conductor which has electrons as its current carrier.
Perhaps the discs below the containers can be replaced by isolators. We'll see.
I've done recording this experiment. I used aluminum foil as the reference conductor.
There's clearly non-zero effect of the ionic current. Unfortunately, its relationship with the measured voltage isn't as simple as I expected. It looks like more research is needed to reveal the whole story.
Title: Re: Origin of magnetic force
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 17/03/2024 08:35:29
Problem 5.17 - DIv & Curl of Magnetostatic Fields, Amp?re?s Law: Introduction to Electrodynamics

In this video, a similar problem found in physics textbook is explained. I asked in the comments section,
Quote
What's the reference for v?
And I got a reply from the video author.
Quote
I think that was just a given from the book, I will have to go check back on it and see!

Does anyone have an answer to my question?