Currently magnetism is seen as moving electricity, whose magnitude is determined by electric charge and velocity of the electric charge carriers.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.
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.
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!It seems that answering the OP question involves identifying the "magnetic vector potential" (A).
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
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.https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Champ_magn%C3%A9tique
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.
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)
hamdani yusuf, i dont really understand your claim.Where did I say that?
You say that nobody understand the magnetic force.
In the english version of wikipedia for the same subject(magnetic field), the Einsteinian model is lost (i dont know why) :I think it's moved to a separate article.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magnetic_field
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.Some of electrolytic solutions that will be used are NaCl, H2SO4, HCl, CuSO4, FeCl3.\What happened when you used them?
Where did I say that?
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.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.
(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 also need to explain the magnoflux spin effect of the magnetic field please.Unicorns did it.
Hamdani,Have you built the motor yourself, or do you know someone who has built it? Do you know a working prototype of it?
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)
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.
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.
No reference quotes are needed as anyone can repeat the experiments at any time.And they do exactly what Maxwell would have predicted.
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).
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.
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.
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.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.
However the electrons are not like that, they are free to move around and can spread out.
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.I think I just found a way to solve this problem. But It will take a while to build the experimental setups.
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.
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:
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.
You said "wire" so we'll assume the positive charges are the metal atoms and they are locked in a lattice.Why can't we translate to the frame where the electrons stay still instead? Will it change the expected result?
Translate to another frame where the wire stays sill <=> the positive charges stay still.
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.
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.
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).
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).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?
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 anywayWhy or how could you do this? In what way is the situation symmetric or the same?
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.
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.
Have you tried to calculate the repulsive force when v is 1 mm/s?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?
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?
Here's a typical electrical circuit:
(https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcSZgFG0Q0HDGDI2jIe2l2ESiqvDcgKodGcPfA&usqp=CAU)
Have you tried to calculate the repulsive force when v is 1 mm/s?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.
What happens to the force if the velocities are doubled?
What must be done to make the force attractive instead of repulsive?
I seem to have CoVidGet well soon.
. 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.
A charge can be thought as a rotating pulse in space from a particle's charge dipolesA rotation requires an axis. An electrostatic charge doesn't seem to have any.
. 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.
A charge can be thought as a rotating pulse in space from a particle's charge dipolesA rotation requires an axis. An electrostatic charge doesn't seem to have any.
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.
The electron is an elementary particle, meaning it is one thing that cannot broken down any further.OK.
According to the traditionsNot 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.
That is just word salad.
All charged particles have a magnetic moment due to its "intrinsic" spin.But the charge is not because of the rotation.
An intrinsic spin requires an intrinsic axis and hence a source for an instrisic pulse.
Reading it repeatedly will not help.
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.
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.
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 questionsWhy?
What's the evidence for the pulse? What's the frequency and duty cycle?
What paradox?
All charged particles have a magnetic moment due to its "intrinsic" spin.But the charge is not because of the rotation.
An intrinsic spin requires an intrinsic axis and hence a source for an instrisic pulse.
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.I see you are doubling down on your word salad approach.
Not sure what you mean by duty cycle.(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/02/PWM_duty_cycle_with_label.gif)
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.Two interesting tales.
Ohm's Law: History and Biography
Biography of Coulomb and his Equation
Not sure what you mean by duty cycle.(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/02/PWM_duty_cycle_with_label.gif)
0.7297352562787%Where does it come from?
0.7297352562787%Where does it come from?
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.
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?
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.
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.How does your model explain electrostatic/Coulomb's force between two point particles?
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?
One testable prediction will be that a particle that decays into (2) photonsWhat particle decays into 2 photons?
One testable prediction will be that a particle that decays into (2) photonsWhat particle decays into 2 photons?
PionsThanks.
Eta mesons
Positronium
(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?
Another testable prediction for this model is that positrons are unstable and will decay without interaction from an electron.So, that's testable.
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.You are right; your statement there is incorrect.
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?
No.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
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 thingsThis is nonsense.
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?
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.What happens to those metal atoms?
However the electrons are not like that, they are free to move around and can spread out.
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.
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..
What is the fundamental reason for the emergence/constancy of the drift velocity?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.
Here's another video trying to explain electromagnetic force using length contraction.A problem with the video is it doesn't provide quantitative explanation. How much change in the force if the velocities are changed?
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?
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.
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.Here's another video trying to explain electromagnetic force using length contraction.A problem with the video is it doesn't provide quantitative explanation. How much change in the force if the velocities are changed?
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?
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?
No.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
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 predictionAnyone can make up nonsense.
That's not very nice. Hurts my feelings.I'm only here to make extraordinary predictionAnyone can make up nonsense.
You don't even seem to realise that you are useless.
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.
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?
Any news?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.Some of electrolytic solutions that will be used are NaCl, H2SO4, HCl, CuSO4, FeCl3.\What happened when you used them?
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.
Thanks for the reminder.Any news?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.Some of electrolytic solutions that will be used are NaCl, H2SO4, HCl, CuSO4, FeCl3.\What happened when you used them?
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)
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.
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.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
(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 particles has uniform velocity as well.
doing thought experiments are generally much easier, and cheaper than physical experiments.
Can these patterns be explained using length contraction and time dilation?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.
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.
Magnetism is a fundamentally quantum phenomenon.Yet we can still find someone said that Maxwell's equations can describe macroscopic electromagnetic phenomena completely.
Maxwell's equations aren't.
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.
Regarding his gravity researches, Faraday declared, ?Let the imagination go, guiding itEfforts 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.
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.
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.It seems like the Lorentz force can still be generated with alternating current. This is what we'll try to detect in an experiment.
When the electrons in the wire are kept stationary, the Lorentz force to the test particle is proportional to the square of wire's speed.
In this video Paul Andersen shows you how to develop and use models in a mini-lesson on modeling phenomena. Two examples are included in the video and two additional examples are included in the linked thinking slides.It shows how to develop a scientific model in a systematic way, which would be useful in designing our experiment.
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'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.
The video explains why light has momentum even without mass.
Scientists have different concerns than engineers.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.
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.
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.
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.Thanks for the reminder.Any news?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.Some of electrolytic solutions that will be used are NaCl, H2SO4, HCl, CuSO4, FeCl3.\What happened when you used them?
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.
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.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
(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.
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.It seems like the Lorentz force can still be generated with alternating current. This is what we'll try to detect in an experiment.
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.
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
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?
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
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.
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
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!
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
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
Maybe the most intriguing consequence of Einstein's 1911 variable speed of light approach to general relativity.
If you are familiar with Newton's bucket, you may skip to 6:10.I think it's a typo, he should write Machian instead of Machain.
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.
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.
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.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.
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.
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.
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.Let's go back to the main business.
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-.
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?
Here's the sketch of the experimental setup. I think this is so simple that anyone can replicate it.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.
(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.
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.
1 Coulomb is approximately 10 micro mole.Here's the source.
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
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.
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.
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?
Which one is more bizzare in their statement about magnetism, me, you, or Feynman?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.
To distinguish a nugget from trash faster, you can expose it as transparently as possible, and let more people to examine it.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.
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.
Avshalom Elitzur, Michio Kaku, Tim Maudlin and Jimena Canales thrash out the implications of what current physics says about the nature of time.When we get unexpected results, it means that we have made one or more false assumptions in constructing that expectation.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.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.
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.
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.
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?
Doesn't it mean that they are not the same?Yes, that is the implication.
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.
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?
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.
What caused the voltage in my electrodynamic balance, according to the standard model?I haven't seen the details of your experiment, sorry.
If gravity and magnetism are related, you should be able to predict the behavior of gravity when you alter a magnetic field.You're getting the causality reversed. The magnetism is the effects. Gravity and electricity are the causes.
Please make a prediction and test it.
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.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.
(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.
Both inertia and gravity depend on mass.If gravity and magnetism are related, you should be able to predict the behavior of gravity when you alter a magnetic field.You're getting the causality reversed. The magnetism is the effects. Gravity and electricity are the causes.
Please make a prediction and test it.
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
the force that attracts a body toward the center of the earth, or toward any other physical body having mass.
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
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.
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
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.
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).
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?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.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
(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.
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
Too many errors to list, alas. We pass this way but once.You can mention the biggest one.
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.
It's often said that "magnetic force cannot do work." This video is my challenge to this long-taught physics rule.
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 ).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.
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.
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.
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.I've done recording this experiment. I used aluminum foil as the reference conductor.
Perhaps the discs below the containers can be replaced by isolators. We'll see.
What's the reference for v?And I got a reply from the video author.
I think that was just a given from the book, I will have to go check back on it and see!