Post by: hamdani yusuf on 02/07/2016 11:54:21
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.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 02/07/2016 13:27:16
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)
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 02/07/2016 13:32:19
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)
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 02/07/2016 13:35:26
(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.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 02/07/2016 13:37:37
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.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 02/07/2016 13:47:55
(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.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 02/07/2016 13:53:24
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)
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 02/07/2016 14:34:29
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.
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.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.
Post by: kim45 on 10/10/2016 19:35:22
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!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
Post by: Deecart on 25/06/2022 20:28:24
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.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.
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
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 26/06/2022 09:34:26
hamdani yusuf, i dont really understand your claim.Where did I say that?
You say that nobody understand the 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) :I think it's moved to a separate article.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magnetic_field
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relativistic_electromagnetism
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?
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 26/06/2022 13:38:25
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?
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.
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.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.
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.
Post by: acsinuk on 27/06/2022 17:45:03
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)
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.
Post by: paul cotter on 27/06/2022 22:14:02
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 28/06/2022 06:11:12
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)
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.
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.
Post by: acsinuk on 28/06/2022 15:51:31
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.
Post by: Bored chemist on 28/06/2022 16:12:45
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.
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.
Post by: paul cotter on 28/06/2022 21:46:46
Post by: acsinuk on 29/06/2022 16:15:41
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)
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).
Post by: Eternal Student on 29/06/2022 18:45:16
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.
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.
Post by: Eternal Student on 30/06/2022 13:40:36
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.
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.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.
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.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 30/06/2022 15:57:28
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.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.
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.
Post by: Eternal Student on 30/06/2022 19:41:24
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.
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.
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.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.
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?
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?
Post by: Eternal Student on 01/07/2022 10:37:38
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.
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).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.
Post by: Eternal Student on 01/07/2022 17:57:37
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 anywayWhy 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).
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.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 02/07/2022 05:33:26
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?
What happens to the force if the velocities are doubled?
What must be done to make the force attractive instead of repulsive?
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 02/07/2022 05:57:42
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)
Post by: Eternal Student on 02/07/2022 11:58:26
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?
Best Wishes.
Post by: Bored chemist on 02/07/2022 12:05:27
I seem to have CoVidGet well soon.
Post by: Spring Theory on 03/07/2022 00:45:08
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.
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.
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 dipolesA rotation requires an axis. An electrostatic charge doesn't seem to have any.
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.
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 dipolesA 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.
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.
Post by: puppypower on 03/07/2022 20:25:25
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.
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 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.
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.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 04/07/2022 06:57:48
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?
Post by: Bored chemist on 04/07/2022 09:59:13
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.
Post by: Spring Theory on 04/07/2022 15:09:05
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 questions instead of pontificating.
Post by: Bored chemist on 04/07/2022 15:20:57
Try asking some meaningful questionsWhy?
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?
Post by: Spring Theory on 04/07/2022 23:30:28
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. 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.
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.
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)
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 05/07/2022 05:24:57
Ohm's Law: History and Biography
Biography of Coulomb and his Equation
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.Two interesting tales.
Ohm's Law: History and Biography
Biography of Coulomb and his Equation
They both show the importance of experiment and evidence.
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%
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 05/07/2022 12:34:33
0.7297352562787%Where does it come from?
Post by: Spring Theory on 05/07/2022 12:53:12
0.7297352562787%Where does it come from?
The fine structure constant.
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.
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?
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.
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:
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
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?
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)
Post by: Origin on 07/07/2022 13:46:11
One testable prediction will be that a particle that decays into (2) photonsWhat particle decays into 2 photons?
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 08/07/2022 02:29:44
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?
Post by: Spring Theory on 08/07/2022 20:05:39
One testable prediction will be that a particle that decays into (2) photonsWhat particle decays into 2 photons?
Pions
Eta mesons
Positronium
Post by: Origin on 08/07/2022 20:20:47
PionsThanks.
Eta mesons
Positronium
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 09/07/2022 03:30:11
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
Post by: paul cotter on 09/07/2022 13:35:04
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
Post by: puppypower on 09/07/2022 16:26:52
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.
Post by: Bored chemist on 09/07/2022 16:33:43
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.
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 thingsThis 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.
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?
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.What happens to those metal atoms?
However the electrons are not like that, they are free to move around and can spread out.
Does the same thing happen to ions in electrolytic solutions?
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 15/01/2023 13:30:27
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?
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.
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..
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 15/01/2023 17:16:55
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.
Is it the same for different substances?
Is it still the same if the current is nearly zero?
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 15/01/2023 17:33:34
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?
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 18/01/2023 15:56:18
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.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 17/03/2023 22:26:57
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?
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?
Post by: Christylalge on 24/03/2023 08:21:01
"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"
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 26/03/2023 23:11:34
Post by: Spring Theory on 20/04/2023 20:35:57
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 predictions. Leave it to the experimentalists to do the testing. I can't do everything and leave nothing else for others.
Post by: Bored chemist on 20/04/2023 22:51:27
I'm only here to make extraordinary predictionAnyone can make up nonsense.
You don't even seem to realise that you are useless.
Post by: Spring Theory on 21/04/2023 14:23:44
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.
Post by: alancalverd on 22/04/2023 17:18:23
"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.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 23/04/2023 14:39:42
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.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 24/04/2023 12:40:44
Rotating Copper Disc Demo
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 23/08/2023 04:42:27
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.
Post by: paul cotter on 23/08/2023 09:50:12
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)
Post by: paul cotter on 23/08/2023 11:15:23
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 23/08/2023 12:01:28
Post by: paul cotter on 23/08/2023 14:41:50
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?
Post by: Bored chemist on 23/08/2023 16:23:48
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?
Post by: paul cotter on 23/08/2023 17:57:31
Post by: paul cotter on 23/08/2023 18:22:08
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.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 24/08/2023 05:04:50
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.
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.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 26/08/2023 06:57:12
Earlier physicists also tried to describe analogy between mechanics and electricity.
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.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
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 30/08/2023 12:16:20
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?
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.
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.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 04/09/2023 11:58:32
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 14/09/2023 03:53:00
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.
Post by: Bored chemist on 14/09/2023 07:59:00
Maxwell's equations aren't.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 14/09/2023 14:48:22
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.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 15/09/2023 04:54:50
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 21/09/2023 11:13:48
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 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.
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.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.
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.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/
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 25/09/2023 15:23:41
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.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 06/10/2023 17:06:45
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.
Post by: Eternal Student on 06/10/2023 23:15:26
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.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 06/10/2023 23:35:56
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.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 04/11/2023 12:48:10
It's a long video discussing about the history of scientific progress which are not widely known by common people.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 04/11/2023 14:27:44
At 7:10 it said, Ampere suspected that electric current created magnetic field around the conductor.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 21/11/2023 13:43:33
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.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 25/11/2023 11:33:52
This video shows contrary to the claim in previous post.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 25/11/2023 11:46:14
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.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 25/11/2023 12:04:28
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 26/11/2023 13:18:19
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 26/11/2023 13:32:09
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 24/01/2024 16:06:53
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.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 25/01/2024 10:21:34
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.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.
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.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 25/01/2024 11:28:42
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.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 25/01/2024 23:52:48
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.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 26/01/2024 05:05:01
(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.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 26/01/2024 10:04:42
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?
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 26/01/2024 10:08:52
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.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 26/01/2024 10:15:23
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
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 26/01/2024 11:36:18
Gravity is a Force.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 26/01/2024 11:58:31
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!
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 26/01/2024 12:10:25
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
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 26/01/2024 12:27:57
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
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 26/01/2024 12:31:39
Quote
Maybe the most intriguing consequence of Einstein's 1911 variable speed of light approach to general relativity.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 26/01/2024 12:36:27
The Most Fundamental Problem of Gravity is Solved
Quote
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.
I think the idea is great. I wonder why it's not widely taught, or at least introduced in school.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 27/01/2024 01:54:37
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.
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.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.
(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.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 27/01/2024 15:12:55
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.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 27/01/2024 16:45:26
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.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 28/01/2024 00:15:52
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-.
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.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 28/01/2024 09:30:25
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.
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.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-.
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.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 28/01/2024 17:18:27
Post by: paul cotter on 28/01/2024 21:26:05
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?
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.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.
Post by: paul cotter on 29/01/2024 11:06:35
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.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 29/01/2024 12:11:38
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
Post by: paul cotter on 29/01/2024 13:58:01
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.
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?
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?
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 30/01/2024 03:36:21
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.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 01/02/2024 10:02:32
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.
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.
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.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 02/02/2024 14:46:06
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
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 03/02/2024 03:37:43
Quote
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.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 03/02/2024 15:15:18
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 03/02/2024 16:40:07
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.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 03/02/2024 16:41:59
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.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 04/02/2024 02:07:40
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.
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.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 06/02/2024 15:28:29
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?
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 08/02/2024 14:39:48
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.
(https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=67448.0;attach=34254)
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 09/02/2024 13:15:14
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 09/02/2024 13:59:27
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.
Post by: Eternal Student on 09/02/2024 16:35:00
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.
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?
Post by: Eternal Student on 10/02/2024 06:49:18
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.
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?
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 10/02/2024 11:51:55
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.
Post by: alancalverd on 10/02/2024 12:28:14
Please make a prediction and test it.
Post by: Eternal Student on 10/02/2024 14:31:18
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.
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.You're getting the causality reversed. The magnetism is the effects. Gravity and electricity are the causes.
Please make a prediction and test it.
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.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.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 10/02/2024 16:19:41
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.
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.
Post by: Eternal Student on 11/02/2024 01:04:36
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.
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.
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
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).
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 18/02/2024 10:29:29
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
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 18/02/2024 11:09:21
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 18/02/2024 13:45:31
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 19/02/2024 02:37:31
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.
Post by: alancalverd on 19/02/2024 10:11:42
Post by: Eternal Student on 19/02/2024 13:39:20
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.
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.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 20/02/2024 08:59:12
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.
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 ).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.
There's a common rule in this situation. We don't want to be on the wrong side of history.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 20/02/2024 11:25:00
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 21/02/2024 06:31:04
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.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 22/02/2024 21:42:21
Perhaps the discs below the containers can be replaced by isolators. We'll see.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 29/02/2024 18:10:45
See 6:20 to jump to the explanation.
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.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.
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.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 17/03/2024 08:35:29
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?
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 04/06/2024 05:01:51
That is precisely why I used such an example. This being a science forum we are interested in science, not philosophy. Water will affect fire but that does not mean they are related, one being a material and the other a combustion phenomenon. Similarly gravity affects em radiation but they are NOT related.I bring the discussion from my other thread, so we can go deeper on technical issues.
How do you explain positive result in my electrodynamic balance experiments?
Post by: paul cotter on 04/06/2024 10:25:10
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 04/06/2024 22:29:31
I don't look at videos so I have no idea as to what you are doing.How about doing the experiment yourself, and see the results with your own eyes?
Here's the sketch of the experimental setup. I think this is so simple that anyone can replicate it.Is there anything that is not clear yet?
(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.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 04/06/2024 22:39:04
While science does not have all the answersCongratulations. So, you've found research gaps worth exploring.
Post by: paul cotter on 05/06/2024 09:02:08
Post by: Bored chemist on 05/06/2024 09:09:53
Is there anything that is not clear yet?(In the interests of completeness) you haven't said what the electrodes or containers are made from.
Post by: Bored chemist on 05/06/2024 09:13:27
worth exploring.Not with that setup.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 05/06/2024 10:38:32
Not quite sure what to make of that setup. I see two containers of electrolytes, connected in series with an ac supply, with a clamp meter monitoring the current. No mention of the electrode material which needs to be stated in any electrolysis experiment. I also see a voltmeter connected between the stands? I can't figure out the purpose of this setup or where this could lead to a conflict with standard theory. Also why two different electrolytes?I mentioned it in earlier post.
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.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 0There 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 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.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 05/06/2024 10:42:02
Yes, there are gaps in scientific knowledge and in my opinion there always will be. However these gaps are in the extremes and not in an area where you or I could add anything of benefit.Maybe we can learn something from this story.
The Story of the Telegrapher's Equations - from diffusion to a wave.
Quote
Out of nowhere, a 26 year old derived the Telegrapher's Equations for the first time. His name was Oliver Heaviside. In 1876, "On the Extra Current", Heaviside introduced the new ideas of Maxwell's dynamic theory of electromagnetism to unlock to a new mode of propagation which went beyond the conventional diffusion model - a wave.We shouldn't look down on ourselves, nor others.
This is the story of how the Telegrapher's Equations came to be. Starting with Fourier's magnus opus, to William Thomson's (Lord Kelvin) application of the diffusion equation to the 2000 mile transatlantic cable, and finally to Heaviside, who made the final leap, incorporating wave like properties.
Corrections: 00:50 the date on the cable should be 1858, not 1958! blurred out now.
Post by: alancalverd on 05/06/2024 10:47:37
For many purposes you can treat an electrolytic cell as a near-constant-current device, so V depends on the resistance of the connecting wire between them.
Post by: paul cotter on 05/06/2024 12:01:16
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 05/06/2024 14:35:04
Not so, Hamdani. Moving the wire right or left does not provide a VxB and a downward force on the test particle q. The B field does not move when the wire is moved in the direction of the current.Let's make a test case to make it clear and unambiguous. A small metal ball charged with +1 Coulomb is hung up and stationary in the frame of a lab. A long straight wire carrying 1 Ampere is located 1 cm away in front of the ball.
Do you think that moving the wire won't affect the ball?
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 05/06/2024 14:54:01
You seem to have connected the two electrolytic cells together with a piece of wire, then attempt to measure the potential difference between them with a voltmeter. I think Georg Ohm covered this in his 1827 treatise.You seem to be unaware that the electric current is alternating. The frequency is 50 Hz.
For many purposes you can treat an electrolytic cell as a near-constant-current device, so V depends on the resistance of the connecting wire between them.
Post by: paul cotter on 05/06/2024 16:41:55
Post by: Bored chemist on 05/06/2024 16:49:56
The electrons in the can metal will be attracted by the force,Electrons are not attracted by a magnetic field.
Post by: Bored chemist on 05/06/2024 16:56:41
Let's make a test case to make it clear and unambiguous. A small metal ball charged with +1 Coulomb is hung up and stationary in the frame of a lab.No, it isn't.
Let's imagine a "small" metal ball about the size of a football pitch- 100 metres in diameter
The capacitance of an isolated sphere is given by
so its capacitance C=4πε0R
So, with R= 50 C= 5.6 picofarads.
Q = C V so if Q=1 and C= 5.6 X 10^-9, V= 178 MV.
Where do you plan to get your 178 megavolt power supply from?
(and it gets worse if you reduce the size of the ball.)
Post by: Bored chemist on 05/06/2024 16:58:26
For many purposes you can treat an electrolytic cell as a near-constant-current device,I have seen plenty of batteries with a voltage written on them. But I don't think I have seen one which purports to deliver a constant current.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 05/06/2024 21:33:53
They do, if they are moving relative to the source of the magnetic field in some way.The electrons in the can metal will be attracted by the force,Electrons are not attracted by a magnetic field.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 05/06/2024 22:21:50
Moving the wire in the same direction(or the reverse) as the current flow will not affect the charge. All other movements will have some affect.What about moving the charged ball in the same direction(or the reverse) as the current instead?
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 05/06/2024 22:40:48
A small Van de Graaf generator can produce around 100kV. Without significantly changing the qualitative interaction between the ball and the wire, you can reduce the electric charge to milli or even micro Coulomb.Let's make a test case to make it clear and unambiguous. A small metal ball charged with +1 Coulomb is hung up and stationary in the frame of a lab.No, it isn't.
Let's imagine a "small" metal ball about the size of a football pitch- 100 metres in diameter
The capacitance of an isolated sphere is given by
so its capacitance C=4πε0R
So, with R= 50 C= 5.6 picofarads.
Q = C V so if Q=1 and C= 5.6 X 10^-9, V= 178 MV.
Where do you plan to get your 178 megavolt power supply from?
(and it gets worse if you reduce the size of the ball.)
Post by: alancalverd on 05/06/2024 23:58:28
You seem to be unaware that the electric current is alternating. The frequency is 50 Hz.Ohm's Law still applies. If the wire is a perfect conductor (and you haven't suggested otherwise) the voltage across it will be zero at all times.
Post by: alancalverd on 06/06/2024 00:05:44
HY's diagram shows a driving voltage source outside of the cells, and gives no details of the electrodes which we must therefore assume to be identical, so no "battery" is involved. The current is partly determined by the area of the electrodes.For many purposes you can treat an electrolytic cell as a near-constant-current device,I have seen plenty of batteries with a voltage written on them. But I don't think I have seen one which purports to deliver a constant current.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 06/06/2024 00:42:16
I also see a voltmeter connected between the stands?This is partially inspired by electrostatic induction in electroscope.
But instead of detecting electrostatic force, my experiment was designed to measure the small difference in electrodynamic forces between two ionic currents.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 06/06/2024 00:48:04
I can't figure out the purpose of this setup or where this could lead to a conflict with standard theory. Also why two different electrolytes?The working principles of the setup may not be obvious at a glance. Otherwise, it must have been built centuries ago.
The electrolytes are selected to provide difference in ionic current, where mass to charge ratio are different and cause electrodynamic forces to the metal cans below them.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 06/06/2024 01:01:03
Look again carefully. Where the leads of the Voltmeter are connected to?You seem to be unaware that the electric current is alternating. The frequency is 50 Hz.Ohm's Law still applies. If the wire is a perfect conductor (and you haven't suggested otherwise) the voltage across it will be zero at all times.
Post by: alancalverd on 06/06/2024 10:41:41
Post by: paul cotter on 06/06/2024 11:30:45
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 06/06/2024 11:54:44
Either earth potential or the two cans of electrolyte which are connected together by a piece of wire. V = 0 in either case.Then you model doesn't represent physical reality, because in reality, the voltmeter shows non-zero value. And it changes when the current is flowing through the liquids.
Post by: alancalverd on 06/06/2024 12:02:58
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 06/06/2024 12:36:04
Collinear travel of the wire does not move the B field: if it did one would expect simple rotation of the magnet in the homopolar generator to produce an output- it does not.Principle of relativity requires that it doesn't matter which one is moving, the ball or the wire. What matters is their relative velocity against each other.
Moving the wire in the same direction(or the reverse) as the current flow will not affect the charge. All other movements will have some affect.What about moving the charged ball in the same direction(or the reverse) as the current instead?
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 06/06/2024 12:41:51
I was looking at the drawing in Reply #224 above.So we're referring to the same thing, when I said this.
Either earth potential or the two cans of electrolyte which are connected together by a piece of wire. V = 0 in either case.Then you model doesn't represent physical reality, because in reality, the voltmeter shows non-zero value. And it changes when the current is flowing through the liquids.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 06/06/2024 13:02:54
There are some patterns identified in the third table.Most of us aren't aware of the boldened statement above.
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?
Post by: paul cotter on 06/06/2024 14:24:36
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 06/06/2024 14:54:29
(1) the B field does not move with the wire, lengthways(collinear).Do you think that relativity principle is wrong?
If the ball is the one moving along the length of the current carrying wire, will it experience force?
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 06/06/2024 14:56:39
(2) how can there be more positives than negatives in a neutral piece of matter?You need to learn something about electrostatic precipitation.
Post by: paul cotter on 06/06/2024 18:14:58
Post by: Bored chemist on 06/06/2024 23:48:53
I was using a battery as a well known example of an electrolytic cell which is not a constant current device.HY's diagram shows a driving voltage source outside of the cells, and gives no details of the electrodes which we must therefore assume to be identical, so no "battery" is involved. The current is partly determined by the area of the electrodes.For many purposes you can treat an electrolytic cell as a near-constant-current device,I have seen plenty of batteries with a voltage written on them. But I don't think I have seen one which purports to deliver a constant current.
Would you like to suggest an example which is?
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 07/06/2024 06:35:08
You need to learn some basic physics. PS: I give up, this is utterly pointless, I don't know why I rejoined the argument. I'm out.In scientific discussions, the participants are required to ponder the implications of their assumptions and prior conclusions that they believe to be correct. Then they must check if the implications are compatible with observational results. Otherwise, they will only be talking pass to one another unintelligibly.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 07/06/2024 09:03:08
For those who hasn't gotten where these three tables come from, it's based on following assumptions: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
1. The formula to calculate the Lorentz force, which states that F = B.q.v is correct.
2. Magnetic field B is proportional to electric current in the wire.
3. Electric current in the wire depends on velocity difference between positive and negative particles in the wire. If they move at the same velocity relative to a reference, the current is zero.
4. Electric charge of the test particle is constant during the experiment.
5. The principle of relativity applies here, which implies that the value of velocity in the formula is determined by relative velocity between the test particle and the wire. No absolute reference is required. Their velocity relative to the laboratory is not relevant.
6. The values in the tables are obtained in the reference frame of the test particle.
7. For simplicity, it's assumed that all positive particles have uniform velocity. Negative particle has uniform velocity as well.
If you think that my conclusion is false, which assumptions do you think are the causes of that mistake?
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 07/06/2024 09:53:02
I brought electrostatic precipitation in the discussion as a counterexample to your incorrect conclusion that there can't be more positives than negatives forces in a neutral piece of matter.(2) how can there be more positives than negatives in a neutral piece of matter?You need to learn something about electrostatic precipitation.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 07/06/2024 22:28:26
If you think that my conclusion is false, which assumptions do you think are the causes of that mistake?It may not be explicitly stated before, but I assume that Newton's third law of motion applies here. For any force exerted to the test particle because of motion of the wire, an equal but opposite force is exerted to the wire. It conserves the total momentum of the system.
Post by: alancalverd on 08/06/2024 19:35:58
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 09/06/2024 01:55:03
Sorry, HY, but I'm not prepared to wade through your torrent of nonsense. What point are you trying to make?
My point is, we've gotten used to the concepts of electric and magnetic fields to describe interactions among electrically charged particles while ignoring their masses.
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.
Inerttia is defined asQuotea 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 asQuotethe 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.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 09/06/2024 07:23:49
https://intuitivephysics.me/faraday-derivation-part1
https://physicintuited.wordpress.com/2021/05/07/why-faradays-law-is-weird/
Quote
This is part 1 of two articles on Faraday?s Law. In the first part, I attempt to clear up some confusions about the different forms of Faraday?s Law and provide a simple derivation of Faraday?s Law. In the second part, we explore some quirks and ?exceptions? of Faraday?s Law.
Contents
Part 1
The 3 confusing forms of Faraday?s Law
Derivation of Faraday?s Law and motional EMF
Grand Conclusion and last thoughts
Part 2
Several exceptions to Faraday?s Law and why they are exceptions
Final Puzzle
Faraday?s Law
I?ve read 3 different textbooks on electromagnetism. Each provided a different description of what it defines as Faraday?s Law.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 09/06/2024 09:17:17
Quote
Challenging Faraday's flux law and the Lorentz force
by some simple new measurements on a Faraday disk?
Hermann Haertel
Guest scientist at
ITAP ?Institute for Theoretical Physics and Astrophysics
University Kiel
Summary
The question of whether Faraday's flux law is universal or whether there are excep-
tions has long been controversial. This discussion seemed to have recently come to a
conclusion in favour of the generality of Faraday?s Flux Law.
The present article raises this question again with the aid of some rather simple
measurements carried out on a Faraday disk. The collected results are surprising and
call for an attempt to reconcile them with the supposedly generally applicable Fara-
day?s flux law. An alternative theory to this law is indicated.
Keywords: Electromagnetic Induction, Faraday?s flux law, Lorentz force, Weber?s
fundamental law of Electrodynamics, Faraday?s generator.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 09/06/2024 09:23:48
Quote
On the Velocity in theMy initial question was basically the same as in the article above.
Lorentz force Law
By A.K. T. Assis and RM. Peixoto
Classical electromagnetism is composed of three distinct parts, namely,
(1) Maxwell's equations; (2) Constitutive relations depending on the
medium(1ikeOhm'slawV=RI,D = fE, 1 = (fE,S = )lH , etc.); and (3) the
Lorentz force law. This last one states that a point charge q moving in an ar-
bitrary electromagnetic field is acted on by a force
(I)
-> .......... .....
In this equation E E (r, t ) is the electric field at a point r where the charge ~ ~ ~
q is located at the time t, and B = B (r, t) is the magnetic induction at the same
point and at the same time.
Thc velocity -; that appears in Eg. (1) is the instantaneous velocity of the test
charge q. A fundamental question is: Velocity of q relative to what? Of course
position, velocity, and acceleration arc not intrinsic properties of any system, and
any body can have sillluitaneously different velocities relative to different objects.
What is the velocity of a man who is driving a car on a road at 80 km/h? Relative
to his own car it is zero, relative to the Earth it is 80 kmfh, relative to another car
moving in the opposite direction at 60 km/h it is 140 km/h, relative to the Sun it
is approximately 30 km/s, and so on.
Physically there are many meaningful possibilities: (A) The velocity of the
charge q relative to a fixed ether in space, or relative to an ether at rest in the frame
of the "fixed stars" (like the "aether" of Maxwell and Fresnel1
); (B) Relative to
the laboratory or to the Earth; (C) Relative to an inertial frame of reference; (D)
Relative to an arbitrary observer, not necessarily an inertial one; (E) Relative to
the macroscopic source of the magnetic field B (a magnet or a wire carrying a
current /); (F) Relative to an average motion of the microscopic charges which
generate 8, the electrons; and (G )Relative to the magnetic field. As a matter of
fact, in the dcvelopment of electrodynamics many force laws were proposed with
different quantities being relevant to them. In Weber's electrodynamics, for
instance, which is the oldest of all these models, only the relative velocities and
accelerations between interacting charges were important, so that the force always
had the same value for all observcrs.2
-
9 In Clausius's theory, on the other hand,
the force law called for the velocities of the charges relative to an ether.
Post by: Bored chemist on 09/06/2024 11:15:56
Here's the sketch of the experimental setup. I think this is so simple that anyone can replicate it.If I actually set up this experiment, and show that there is no voltage, will you shut up about 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.
if so, I'd like proper specifications, sizes currents, concentrations etc so you can't say I didn't do it right.
Post by: alancalverd on 09/06/2024 12:02:35
My point is, we've gotten used to the concepts of electric and magnetic fields to describe interactions among electrically charged particles while ignoring their masses.And when mass is important, we include it. How else can I operate a linear accelerator? Or teach classic experiments to determine e/m and the mass of an electron?
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 09/06/2024 14:52:38
My point is, we've gotten used to the concepts of electric and magnetic fields to describe interactions among electrically charged particles while ignoring their masses.And when mass is important, we include it. How else can I operate a linear accelerator? Or teach classic experiments to determine e/m and the mass of an electron?
The mass of the source of magnetic field doesn't show anywhere in Lorentz force formula.
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.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 09/06/2024 16:34:45
You can see from the screen shot, the current is 0.93 Ampere. In the subsequent experiment I made it closer to 1 Ampere.Here's the sketch of the experimental setup. I think this is so simple that anyone can replicate it.If I actually set up this experiment, and show that there is no voltage, will you shut up about 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.
if so, I'd like proper specifications, sizes currents, concentrations etc so you can't say I didn't do it right.
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.
(https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=67448.0;attach=34254)
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 09/06/2024 16:54:19
Post by: alancalverd on 09/06/2024 17:19:50
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.All entirely as expected, though your drawing clearly doesn't represent what you actually did! And full marks for noticing the effect of pouring the liquids.
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.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 10/06/2024 04:18:23
How would you change in the drawing to represent what I did better?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.All entirely as expected, though your drawing clearly doesn't represent what you actually did! And full marks for noticing the effect of pouring the liquids.
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.
Post by: Bored chemist on 10/06/2024 18:34:14
if so, I'd like proper specifications, sizes currents, concentrations etc so you can't say I didn't do it right.
Post by: alancalverd on 10/06/2024 19:03:08
How would you change in the drawing to represent what I did better?Only you know what you did!
But I'm pretty sure it didn't involve measuring the voltage between two insulators that were connected together with a wire, and imagining that the result had anything to do with the content of the buckets.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 11/06/2024 02:47:32
Only you know what you did!But somehow you know that it isn't represented by the drawing. Are you a clairvoyant?
But I'm pretty sure it didn't involve measuring the voltage between two insulators that were connected together with a wire, and imagining that the result had anything to do with the content of the buckets.The voltmeter is on during the whole length of the experiment, including the zeroing event.
Different content of the buckets result in different voltage reading.
Different current through the liquids result in different voltage reading.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 11/06/2024 02:55:25
if so, I'd like proper specifications, sizes currents, concentrations etc so you can't say I didn't do it right.
If you are too lazy to read the description two pages before, I don't really think you are diligent enough to carry out 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.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 11/06/2024 07:39:49
For those who hasn't gotten where these three tables come from, it's based on following assumptions:We seem to have started with the same set of assumptions. But somehow we come to different conclusions. There must be some hidden assumptions that we don't agree with, which caused that difference. Let's try to find out what they are.
1. The formula to calculate the Lorentz force, which states that F = B.q.v is correct.
2. Magnetic field B is proportional to electric current in the wire.
3. Electric current in the wire depends on velocity difference between positive and negative particles in the wire. If they move at the same velocity relative to a reference, the current is zero.
4. Electric charge of the test particle is constant during the experiment.
5. The principle of relativity applies here, which implies that the value of velocity in the formula is determined by relative velocity between the test particle and the wire. No absolute reference is required. Their velocity relative to the laboratory is not relevant.
6. The values in the tables are obtained in the reference frame of the test particle.
7. For simplicity, it's assumed that all positive particles have uniform velocity. Negative particle has uniform velocity as well.
If you think that my conclusion is false, which assumptions do you think are the causes of that mistake?
Post by: alancalverd on 11/06/2024 10:14:33
The voltmeter is on during the whole length of the experiment, including the zeroing event.
Different content of the buckets result in different voltage reading.
Different current through the liquids result in different voltage reading.
So you have disproved Ohm's law. Amazing.
Or maybe your diagram was wrong. Probable.
Don't be discouraged. A former colleague, loaded with every degree and accolade known to science, was astonished to discover that the fabulous apparatus he had invented produced no results at all. I was dispatched to "sort out those buggers in the workshop" and found that they had built exactly what he had drawn, including a carefully welded short circuit exactly where he apparently wanted it. We replaced the weld with a Perspex insulator and restored the laws of physics before anyone noticed they were missing.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 11/06/2024 11:40:54
So you have disproved Ohm's law. Amazing.Not really. It's more likely that your understanding of the law is incomplete.
Quote
Ohm's law is an empirical relation which accurately describes the conductivity of the vast majority of electrically conductive materials over many orders of magnitude of current. However some materials do not obey Ohm's law; these are called non-ohmic.The resistance of the voltmeter is quite high, with input impedance is 10~100 M Ohm, according to the data sheet. It can measure voltage without drawing much current.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ohm%27s_law
This video might open your mind.
Or this one.
In these situations, Ohm's law isn't very helpful, since the resistance is not constant, or measuring it reliably isn't practical.I also see a voltmeter connected between the stands?This is partially inspired by electrostatic induction in electroscope.
But instead of detecting electrostatic force, my experiment was designed to measure the small difference in electrodynamic forces between two ionic currents.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 11/06/2024 12:42:11
Electrodynamic Balance 1: PreparationThe size of white square made of corrugated plastic board is around 25 cm wide. So you should be able to estimate the size of the other components.QuoteNow 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.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 11/06/2024 12:52:31
Or maybe your diagram was wrong. Probable.There are two components I didn't include in the drawing, which are re-zeroing switch and the step down transformer. It's for simplicity, because in principle, the experiment can run without them. Their purpose is for practicality.
Post by: Bored chemist on 11/06/2024 12:58:39
Show me where you mentioned the concentrations or stop being a dick and tell me what they are.if so, I'd like proper specifications, sizes currents, concentrations etc so you can't say I didn't do it right.If you are too lazy to read the description two pages before, I don't really think you are diligent enough to carry out 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.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 11/06/2024 13:16:46
What if the magnets are replaced by moving ions?
Quote
The moving magnet and conductor problem is a famous thought experiment, originating in the 19th century, concerning the intersection of classical electromagnetism and special relativity. In it, the current in a conductor moving with constant velocity, v, with respect to a magnet is calculated in the frame of reference of the magnet and in the frame of reference of the conductor. The observable quantity in the experiment, the current, is the same in either case, in accordance with the basic principle of relativity, which states: "Only relative motion is observable; there is no absolute standard of rest".[1][better source needed] However, according to Maxwell's equations, the charges in the conductor experience a magnetic force in the frame of the magnet and an electric force in the frame of the conductor. The same phenomenon would seem to have two different descriptions depending on the frame of reference of the observer.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moving_magnet_and_conductor_problem
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 11/06/2024 13:26:27
Show me where you mentioned the concentrations or stop being a dick and tell me what they are.In most practical applications, conductivity of the solution is a good indicator of its concentration, especially when there's only one type of dissolved chemical substance. I thought you already knew that. I'm sorry if I was mistaken.
Post by: Bored chemist on 11/06/2024 18:47:15
In most practical applications, conductivity of the solution is a good indicator of its concentrationNo. It is not. It is strongly temperature dependent.
Obviously, if the conductivity was a useful proxy I wouldn't have needed to ask.
I thought you already knew that. I'm sorry if I was mistaken.
Answer the damned question.
What concentration of these salts did you use?
Do you not actually know?
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 12/06/2024 09:36:15
Overthinking is a common problem among us which prevents from doing new things.In most practical applications, conductivity of the solution is a good indicator of its concentrationNo. It is not. It is strongly temperature dependent.
Obviously, if the conductivity was a useful proxy I wouldn't have needed to ask.
I thought you already knew that. I'm sorry if I was mistaken.
Answer the damned question.
What concentration of these salts did you use?
Do you not actually know?
If you watched my preparation video to minute 2:30, you can read yourself that the temperature is around 27 deg C.
I didn't measure the concentration in percentage because I prioritize the consistency in the electrical current through the different types of solutions. It should be obvious that for this purpose, conductivity is the correct parameter to be measured.
Is there anything else you need to know before starting your experiment?
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 12/06/2024 11:53:29
So far, I haven't found any objection to the theoretical background that I described in the video. It should naturally lead to the conclusions that led me to design the electrodynamic balance experiment. Perhaps someone with different perspective can find out what I have missed.My point is, we've gotten used to the concepts of electric and magnetic fields to describe interactions among electrically charged particles while ignoring their masses.And when mass is important, we include it. How else can I operate a linear accelerator? Or teach classic experiments to determine e/m and the mass of an electron?
The mass of the source of magnetic field doesn't show anywhere in Lorentz force formula.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.
My experiment can be seen as an extension from The moving magnet and conductor problem. It concerned with the situation where there are more than one magnet relatively moving from one another. How should their influence on the conductor (or a test particle) be combined?At least initially, the goal of this experiment was to demonstrate that different ionic current can produce different electrodynamic forces which can be measured by a sensitive Voltmeter. Other differences in parameters are controlled and minimized, leaving the mass to charge ratio of the current carrying ions as the most obvious and intentional difference.
What if the magnets are replaced by moving ions?
Post by: Bored chemist on 12/06/2024 16:08:36
Is there anything else you need to know before starting your experiment?Are the cans on which you balance things important?
Are they tinplate (which is ferromagnetic) or aluminium (which is diamagnetic)?
Re "I didn't measure the concentration in percentage because I prioritize the consistency in the electrical current through the different types of solutions. It should be obvious that for this purpose, conductivity is the correct parameter to be measured."
Were you not expecting anyone to try to repeat it?
How many people have a means to measure mass and how many have the means to measure conductivity?
If I were to use solutions of copper chloride and copper sulphate would you expect to find an effect? What about the acetate?
Would it affect the magnitude of the hypothesised voltage?
The reason I ask is that, if I used copper electrodes and suitable copper salts, the reactions would all be reversible so you wouldn't need to worry about polarisation effects.
How does the predicted effect vary with the scale of the equipment?
Overthinking is a common problem among us which prevents from doing new things.Thinking is a thing that prevents us doing pointless things.
We call it planning.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 12/06/2024 22:58:20
Are the cans on which you balance things important?I tried both, and the results are the same.
Are they tinplate (which is ferromagnetic) or aluminium (which is diamagnetic)?
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 12/06/2024 23:04:24
Re "I didn't measure the concentration in percentage because I prioritize the consistency in the electrical current through the different types of solutions. It should be obvious that for this purpose, conductivity is the correct parameter to be measured."You can measure conductivity using DIY tools. I think school kids are familiar with this kind of things. I don't want to spoon feed everyone like toddlers. I respect their intelligence.
Were you not expecting anyone to try to repeat it?
How many people have a means to measure mass and how many have the means to measure conductivity?
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 12/06/2024 23:27:10
If I were to use solutions of copper chloride and copper sulphate would you expect to find an effect? What about the acetate?Yes. I expect that ionic mass is one factor affecting the electrodynamic forces in the conductors nearby.
Would it affect the magnitude of the hypothesised voltage?
The reason I ask is that, if I used copper electrodes and suitable copper salts, the reactions would all be reversible so you wouldn't need to worry about polarisation effects.
But for larger molecules, other effects like molecular rotation may generate displacement current which affects the measurements.
That's why I stick with monoatomic ions. I used sodium sulphate and sodium chloride in the preliminary study simply because they were already available for me without purchasing.
Post by: Bored chemist on 12/06/2024 23:31:49
You can measure conductivity using DIY tools.Not if you want the right answer.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 12/06/2024 23:34:44
How does the predicted effect vary with the scale of the equipment?Increasing the current generally increases the measured voltage.
Increasing the size of the equipment increases the number of affecting ions, but also the average distance between them and the conductor below. But in principle, it can be calculated by integration.
Post by: Bored chemist on 12/06/2024 23:35:46
That's why I stick with monoatomic ions. I used sodium sulphate and sodium chlorideCan you tell me more about this monatomic sulphate ion?
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 12/06/2024 23:37:54
Then buy or borrow a conductivity meter. It's not an expensive tool.You can measure conductivity using DIY tools.Not if you want the right answer.
Post by: Bored chemist on 12/06/2024 23:41:45
Are the bits marked in green vital?
Could you just use a couple of metal plates?
[ Invalid Attachment ]
Post by: Bored chemist on 12/06/2024 23:45:16
I have one (and a decent one isn't cheap).Then buy or borrow a conductivity meter. It's not an expensive tool.You can measure conductivity using DIY tools.Not if you want the right answer.
You talk about "
I don't want to spoon feed everyone like toddlers.
Have you even seen a real scientific paper- the sort where they tell you what supplier they used for the chemicals?
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 12/06/2024 23:50:46
It seems like you deliberately misunderstand my statements by cutting them half through.That's why I stick with monoatomic ions. I used sodium sulphate and sodium chlorideCan you tell me more about this monatomic sulphate ion?
I used sodium sulphate and sodium chloride in the preliminary study simply because they were already available for me without purchasing.You've been trying too hard to get it wrong.
Post by: Bored chemist on 13/06/2024 12:40:41
I don't know why you claimed that you did so.
Stop pretending and actually specify he experiment properly.
Post by: alancalverd on 13/06/2024 19:26:59
Quote from: alancalverd on 11/06/2024 10:14:33V=IR
So you have disproved Ohm's law. Amazing.
Not really. It's more likely that your understanding of the law is incomplete.
What's to understand? If the solution containers are conductive, R = 0 so V = 0. If the supporting cans are insulated from the containers (R = ∞) , whatever voltage you measured between them has nothing to do with the current flowing in the isolated apparatus above them.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 14/06/2024 11:38:08
I know why you didn't stick with monatomic ions.I used monoatomic ions for the real experiments.
I don't know why you claimed that you did so.
Stop pretending and actually specify he experiment properly.
I used polyatomic ions for the preliminary proof of concept experiment, because I didn't have two different types of monoatomic ions sources.
How hard is it to understand?
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 14/06/2024 11:43:50
Have you seen an inductive toroidal conductivity sensor?Quote from: alancalverd on 11/06/2024 10:14:33V=IR
So you have disproved Ohm's law. Amazing.
Not really. It's more likely that your understanding of the law is incomplete.
What's to understand? If the solution containers are conductive, R = 0 so V = 0. If the supporting cans are insulated from the containers (R = ∞) , whatever voltage you measured between them has nothing to do with the current flowing in the isolated apparatus above them.
The voltage changes according to whether or not the current flows through the salt solutions, while other factors are kept constant.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 14/06/2024 11:50:57
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 thatThese 3 tables are the basis I used for designing the experiment as described in my video for theoretical background.
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
Which one do you disagree with?
Post by: Bored chemist on 14/06/2024 14:47:09
How hard is it to understand?It is hard to understand why you think we can read your mind and thus refuse to actually tell us stuff.
Post by: Bored chemist on 14/06/2024 14:50:18
Have you seen an inductive toroidal conductivity sensor?Yes, but I haven't sen one with a DC output...
Have you?
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 15/06/2024 15:05:54
What do you want to know?How hard is it to understand?It is hard to understand why you think we can read your mind and thus refuse to actually tell us stuff.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 15/06/2024 15:16:43
You seem to misunderstand things and keep getting statements out of context. It reminds me of earlier generation of chatbots.Have you seen an inductive toroidal conductivity sensor?Yes, but I haven't sen one with a DC output...
Have you?
Here's the context.
Have you seen an inductive toroidal conductivity sensor?Quote from: alancalverd on 11/06/2024 10:14:33V=IR
So you have disproved Ohm's law. Amazing.
Not really. It's more likely that your understanding of the law is incomplete.
What's to understand? If the solution containers are conductive, R = 0 so V = 0. If the supporting cans are insulated from the containers (R = ∞) , whatever voltage you measured between them has nothing to do with the current flowing in the isolated apparatus above them.
The voltage changes according to whether or not the current flows through the salt solutions, while other factors are kept constant.
These 3 tables are the basis I used for designing the experiment as described in my video for theoretical background.
Which one do you disagree with?
Post by: Bored chemist on 15/06/2024 16:50:21
What do you want to know?How hard is it to understand?It is hard to understand why you think we can read your mind and thus refuse to actually tell us stuff.
Are the bits marked in green vital?
Could you just use a couple of metal plates?
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 15/06/2024 17:50:11
Also, when I see the beakers balanced on top of the tins it looks dangerously top-heavy to me.I'm sorry for missing this post.
Are the bits marked in green vital?
Could you just use a couple of metal plates?modified.jpg (67.82 kB . 778x698 - viewed 466 times)
Those metal cans act like the rod of electroscope. That's where the charge separation is induced.
By using the cans, I can eliminate the need for additional support. That aside, you can use any kind of conductor. It's size will determine the voltage measured, in terms of magnitude, as well as stability of the value.
Let's consider the extreme situation. If the conductor is too short, then not much separation of electric charges will be produced.
If it's too thin, then the measured value will be easily affected by environmental conditions, including the load from the voltmeter.
If it's too big, then the voltage generated will be too small.
There will be some optimal size according to the size of the containers, as well as the load of the voltmeter. I don't have any easy method to determine all of these. I just did what I could do with what I could get, and follow with plan, do, check, adjust cycle of continuous improvement.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 15/06/2024 18:03:56
You'll see how the voltage changes when the current source is connected and disconnected. Also when the quantity of liquid in either container is increased, when both contain sodium chloride.
The next slides shows the results when the liquid in the left container is replaced with potassium chloride.
And then the liquid in the right container is replaced with magnesium chloride.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 17/06/2024 08:49:52
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 17/06/2024 15:20:18
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 17/06/2024 23:17:36
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/ec/Electroscope_showing_induction.png)
Instead of electrostatic induction, it uses electrodynamic induction produced by ionic current. In both cases, the induced conductors are isolated from the induction sources.
The force produced by the electrodynamic induction is usually too weak to visibly move the thin metal leaves. That's why we need a more sensitive way to measure it.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 19/06/2024 22:16:16
That's why we need a more sensitive way to measure it.How MOSFET Work.
Quote
-Corrections
10:53 Boron Atom should have only 5 electrons in total. The 8 shown in shell layer 2 should be ignored.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 20/06/2024 15:04:36
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.My post above was a few pages back already, so it's understandable that people who just joined this thread recently have missed it.
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.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 23/06/2024 13:22:04
Quote
This physics video tutorial explains how to calculate the magnetic field of a moving charge such as a proton. It explains how to determine the direction of the magnetic field of a moving proton using the right hand rule and the i j k technique. You need to find the cross product of the velocity and position vectors.Note that to measure the magnetic field, a moving charged particle is required. The force exerted to that particle determines the magnetic field, through Lorentz force formula. The question is, what's the velocity it refers to?
How those particles affect the relative magnetic permeability of the space around them?
Post by: alancalverd on 23/06/2024 22:31:38
Note that to measure the magnetic field, a moving charged particle is required.No. A stationary charge has no magnetic field. The language must reflect the truth: you can't "measure the magnetic field" of a charged particle because it doesn't have one!
Protons and electrons have a magnetic dipole associated with their "spin" but they aren't actually rotating in the classical sense, and the magnetic field around a current-carrying conductor isn't anything to do with the sum of carrier spins, which is zero.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 26/06/2024 09:25:53
and the magnetic field around a current-carrying conductor isn't anything to do with the sum of carrier spins, which is zero.Where does the magnetic field around a current-carrying conductor come from?
What would happen if the conductor is replaced by a conductive salt solution inside a hose?
Post by: paul cotter on 26/06/2024 11:53:27
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 26/06/2024 22:33:32
∇xH=JHow can you use this formula to answer my questions?
Where does the magnetic field around a current-carrying conductor come from?
What would happen if the conductor is replaced by a conductive salt solution inside a hose?
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 01/07/2024 05:19:41
So you have disproved Ohm's law. Amazing.
Let's have a common understanding first.
Impedance Explained.
Quote
In this video I compare similarities from the physical world that you can see and touch, to help share how I think about Impedance.Interestingly, the dimension of those measurements all involve mass.
You will learn about ?Opposing? forces called ?Reactance? and how these, together with ?Resistance? combine to form what we call ?Impedance?.
Whilst I do go through some formulas, these are not the key intended purpose of the video. For many people, the formulas are not really important.
What is more important, is to be able to visualise in your mind exactly what is going on with AC circuits and to imagine that in a way that makes sense to you.
I hope the analogies I share, which I have picked up from others over the years, really help your thinking as much as it has me.
Topics Covered
-------------------------
- Resistance
- Impedance and opposition to current flow
- Capacitors
- Capacitive Reactance
- Inductors
- Inductive Reactance
- Impedance Triangle
Symbols
--------------
R = Resistance, measured in Ohms
Z = Impedance, measured in Ohms
X = Reactance, measured in Ohms
C = Capacitance, measured in Farads
L = Inductance, measured in Henrys
Xc = Capacitive Reactance, measured in Ohms
XL = Inductive Reactance, measured in Ohms
Post by: paul cotter on 01/07/2024 16:37:18
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 02/07/2024 03:21:27
∇xH=J, the circulation of the magnetic field equals the current density. Or alternately the closed line integral of the magnetic field around a circumference enclosing the conductor equals the current. If you can't calculate from these basics you are out of your depth.This formula doesn't seem to distinguish between electron current and ionic current.
What's the current density of a proton moving at velocity v in a lab frame of reference?
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 02/07/2024 03:44:55
Quote
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maxwell%27s_equationsMaxwell's equations still need two empirical constants, electric permittivity and magnetic permeability of vacuum. In a medium, those constants must be replaced by the permittivity and permeability of the medium.
In partial differential equation form and SI units, Maxwell's microscopic equations can be written as
(https://wikimedia.org/api/rest_v1/media/math/render/svg/6c1740d383a275f64105f457e209ff5c66eeeb21)
Maxwell's equations don't explain how the presence of material particles affect those constants.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Permittivity
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Permeability_(electromagnetism)
I guess applying Maxwell's equations on microscopic level fails due to this discrepancy.
Post by: alancalverd on 02/07/2024 06:50:25
What's the current density of a proton moving at velocity v in a lab frame of reference?same as that of an electron moving at the same speed in the opposite direction. i = dq/dt, and qe = - qp
I guess applying Maxwell's equations on microscopic level fails due to this discrepancy.No. The values of ε and μ are just normalising constants that relate electric and magnetic phenomena to common (nowadays SI) units.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 03/07/2024 16:44:02
same as that of an electron moving at the same speed in the opposite direction. i = dq/dt, and qe = - qpConsider following situations.
A. In a long straight wire, its protons move to the right with speed v.
B. The electrons move to the left with speed v.
C. protons move to the right with speed v/2 while the electrons move to the left with speed v/2.
Are these cases equivalent?
Do you consider theory of relativity, which says that magnetic field in one reference frame becomes electric field in other reference frame?
Post by: paul cotter on 03/07/2024 18:02:13
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 03/07/2024 22:44:02
No. The values of ε and μ are just normalising constants that relate electric and magnetic phenomena to common (nowadays SI) units.Consider the following case. An aluminum sheet 100x100x1 mm is laying on the floor inside a vacuum chamber. Another identical plate is positioned parallel to the first 1 meter above it. The electric and magnetic field of a point right at mid point between those plates can be calculated using ε0 and μ0. But if the distance between them is reduced to just 1 nm, you need to use different ε and μ for most practical purposes.
Another example is in the space inside a metamaterial. For a range of frequency, its ε and μ are significantly different from air. Ordinary dielectric media like water and glass can be modeled as metamaterial with extremely small structures.
Another example is inside a waveguide of microwave radar.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 03/07/2024 22:51:39
Of course we take relativity into account. There is only one field, the electromagnetic field which depending on one's reference frame may appear to be an electric field, a magnetic field or both. If you understood this there was no need for 17 pages of discussion on the "origin of the magnetic field".Do you think these 3 cases produce identical magnetic field?
Consider following situations.
A. In a long straight wire, its protons move to the right with speed v.
B. The electrons move to the left with speed v.
C. protons move to the right with speed v/2 while the electrons move to the left with speed v/2.
Post by: paul cotter on 04/07/2024 09:23:46
Post by: alancalverd on 04/07/2024 11:31:05
But if the distance between them is reduced to just 1 nm, you need to use different ε and μ for most practical purposes.No, the same values apply but other phenomena become more (field emission) or less (fringe fields) significant when the distance changes, so the effective value of capacitance, say, deviates from the ideal infinite parallel plate calculation. The trick is to add a "guard plate" so the lines of the measured field remain parallel.
Post by: Bored chemist on 04/07/2024 12:13:46
But if the distance between them is reduced to just 1 nm, you need to use different ε and μ for most practical purposes.Why?
Post by: paul cotter on 04/07/2024 13:15:31
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 04/07/2024 22:36:58
How can we have protons moving in a wire?, that does not make sense unless the wire is a tube full of ionised hydrogen in which the analysis would be extremely complicated. Again I say the answer to the "origin of the magnetic field" has been answered by relativity.Make the electrons in the wire move to the left at v relative to the wire, then move the current carrying wire to the right at v. This makes the electrons stationary in the lab frame, while the protons move to the right at velocity v.
Perhaps 17 pages weren't enough to describe the problem so clearly that everyone can understand. But at least you have now realized that three cases above are not identical.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 04/07/2024 23:03:52
Maxwell's equations don't cover those other phenomena in details. That's why they need empirical fudge factors like permittivity and permeability to address those other phenomena in a broad brushstroke.But if the distance between them is reduced to just 1 nm, you need to use different ε and μ for most practical purposes.No, the same values apply but other phenomena become more (field emission) or less (fringe fields) significant when the distance changes, so the effective value of capacitance, say, deviates from the ideal infinite parallel plate calculation. The trick is to add a "guard plate" so the lines of the measured field remain parallel.
Post by: paul cotter on 05/07/2024 05:13:09
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 05/07/2024 09:14:04
Maxwell's equation deal with simple symmetric topologies, if you explore any other conditions you have add minor alterations. This does not in any way impugn these equations. Permittivity and permeability are most definitely NOT fudge factors, they are fundamental properties of space. You are going round in circles like a dog chasing it's tail, and not learning anything.What's the permittivity and permeability of space between two water molecules in the center of an ice block at 1 atm and 0 centigrade?
How does iron core affect magnetic field around a current carrying solenoid?
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 06/07/2024 08:56:56
Maxwell's equation deal with simple symmetric topologies,More complex topology is supposed to be solvable using the principle of superposition. Even when analytical solution is not possible, at least numerical methods can help with adequately accurate approximations.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 06/07/2024 09:05:21
Perhaps 17 pages weren't enough to describe the problem so clearly that everyone can understand. But at least you have now realized that three cases above are not identical.The question that follows naturally from the realization above is, what makes them different? And that's exactly what I tried to find out when starting this thread.
My experiment with electrodynamic balance pointed at their mass to charge ratio as a potential answer. But more research is necessary to eliminate (or identify!) other factors.
Post by: paul cotter on 06/07/2024 11:20:12
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 06/07/2024 11:38:10
You seem to be the only one who has problems understanding "the origin of the magnetic field". Yet at times you say things that suggest you do actually understand and you just want to argue these points for argument's sake.Understanding is the second level of thinking, after remembering. Understanding a concept requires the ability to explain it by making relationship with other things we are more familiar with.
Quote
I. Knowledge. Remembering information.
II. Comprehension. Explaining the meaning of information.
III. Application. Using abstractions in concrete situations.
IV. Analysis. Breaking down a whole into component parts.
V. Synthesis. Putting parts together to form a new and integrated whole.
VI. Evaluation.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 06/07/2024 11:45:17
Another example where the permittivity and permeability of space are affected by materials nearby is evanescent waves. I demonstrated it in microwave frequency using both ordinary material and metamaterial.Maxwell's equation deal with simple symmetric topologies, if you explore any other conditions you have add minor alterations. This does not in any way impugn these equations. Permittivity and permeability are most definitely NOT fudge factors, they are fundamental properties of space. You are going round in circles like a dog chasing it's tail, and not learning anything.What's the permittivity and permeability of space between two water molecules in the center of an ice block at 1 atm and 0 centigrade?
How does iron core affect magnetic field around a current carrying solenoid?
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 25/07/2024 23:09:56
Because at small enough gap, the electrons from one conductor plate can easily jump to the other plate. The gap stops behaving like a dielectric material, and starts behaving like a conductor.But if the distance between them is reduced to just 1 nm, you need to use different ε and μ for most practical purposes.Why?
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 25/07/2024 23:19:19
You seem to be the only one who has problems understanding "the origin of the magnetic field". Yet at times you say things that suggest you do actually understand and you just want to argue these points for argument's sake.
Quote
If you can't explain it simply, you don't understand it well enough.I thought my explanation in the op as well as my video of theoretical background in this topic were simple enough. It seems like they can still be simplified further.
Imagine a long straight wire carrying one Ampere electric current to the right. 1 meter above it, there's a device measuring electric and magnetic field at the same time. When they are stationary to each other, the device shows some magnetic field but zero electric field. When the device is moving parallel with the wire, the electric field has some value, and the magnetic field changes.
This is the basic scenario for explaining magnetism through special theory of relativity as described by Edward Purcell.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 26/07/2024 02:32:57
Imagine a long straight wire carrying one Ampere electric current to the right. 1 meter above it, there's a device measuring electric and magnetic field at the same time. When they are stationary to each other, the device shows some magnetic field but zero electric field. When the device is moving parallel with the wire, the electric field has some value, and the magnetic field changes.
This is the basic scenario for explaining magnetism through special theory of relativity as described by Edward Purcell.
The magnetic and electric field are vectors. They have directions beside the magnitude. What their direction will be when the motion of the measuring device is constrained to be parallel to the wire?
Is it possible to convert all of the magnetic field into electric field? How fast would the measuring device has to move, relative to the wire? In which direction?
Can it make the direction of the electric field or magnetic field to reverse?
Anyone who truly understand the real mechanism of electromagnetism should be able to answer those questions above.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 02/08/2024 07:26:47
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.At last. The main experiment of electrodynamic balance. It's still quite crude and need refining, but it still contains some valuable information.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 24/11/2024 10:20:28
Einstein De Haas Effect
Quote
Demonstrate the spin angular momentum of electrons.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 05/12/2024 02:14:09
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 06/12/2024 08:42:57
What else do I need to provide to convince scientific society that this is a new phenomenon?
I think my latest experimental design is simple enough and safe enough to be reproduced by any high school physics labs, or even mere curious hobbyist. They should be able to verify my findings, or find other new things I haven't covered here.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 08/12/2024 13:45:18
Quote
Yes, the electric current generated by moving ions produces the same type of magnetic field as moving electrons, as long as the magnitude and direction of the current are the same. The magnetic field depends on the motion of charge, not the specific nature of the charged particle (whether it's an electron, ion, or any other charged particle).
Key Points:
1. Magnetic Field and Current:
A moving charge, whether positive or negative, generates a magnetic field according to Amp?re's Law and the Biot-Savart Law.
The magnetic field's direction is determined by the right-hand rule and depends on the direction of the current, not the type of charge.
2. Nature of the Current:
Current () is defined as the rate of flow of charge ().
A positive ion moving in one direction produces the same current as a negative electron moving in the opposite direction.
3. Magnetic Field Direction:
For a positively charged ion moving in a given direction, the magnetic field's direction is determined by the right-hand rule for that direction.
For a negatively charged electron moving in the opposite direction, the same magnetic field is produced because the current direction (defined by conventional current as the flow of positive charge) is the same.
4. Example:
A stream of positively charged ions moving to the right creates a magnetic field with the same characteristics as a stream of negatively charged electrons moving to the left, provided the current (amount of charge per unit time) is equal in both cases.
Thus, the generated magnetic field is independent of whether the current is carried by electrons, protons, or ions; it depends only on the magnitude and direction of the current.
While Gemini answers to the same question.
Quote
Yes, electric current generated by moving ions produces the same magnetic field as moving electrons. This is because the magnetic field generated by a moving charge depends solely on the charge of the particle and its velocity, not on the type of particle itself.
Both electrons and ions are charged particles, and when they move, they create a magnetic field around them. The strength and direction of the magnetic field depend on the magnitude and direction of the current, which is the rate of flow of charge.
Therefore, whether the current is carried by electrons in a metal wire or by ions in an electrolyte solution, the resulting magnetic field will be the same, given the same current.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 08/12/2024 13:48:01
ChatGPT answers.
Quote
The electromagnetic force produced by an electric current is the same whether it is generated by moving ions or moving electrons, provided the current (amount of charge flow per unit time) and the conditions are identical. Here's a breakdown of the reasoning:
Electromagnetic Force (Lorentz Force)
1. Magnetic Component:
A current () in a conductor or a moving charged particle generates a magnetic field.
If another charged particle moves through this magnetic field, it experiences a force given by the Lorentz force law:
\mathbf{F} = q(\mathbf{v} \times \mathbf{B})
The magnetic field () depends on the current () and not on whether the current is carried by electrons, protons, or ions. Hence, the resulting magnetic force is the same for a given current.
2. Electric Component:
A current can also generate an electric field if there is a charge imbalance or in cases involving time-varying currents (via Maxwell's equations). The resulting electric force is:
\mathbf{F} = q\mathbf{E}
Again, this force depends on the field strength () and the charge (), not the type of charge carrier producing the current.
Key Considerations
Current Magnitude:
For the same current magnitude (, where is charge, is charge density, is cross-sectional area, and is drift velocity), the electromagnetic effects will be identical regardless of whether the current is carried by electrons or ions.
Charge and Velocity:
Positive ions are usually much heavier than electrons. For a given current, ions will have a much smaller drift velocity than electrons due to their larger mass. However, this difference in velocity does not affect the electromagnetic force because the total current determines the field, not the individual velocities.
Charge Sign:
The sign of the charge does not affect the magnitude of the electromagnetic force, only its direction. For example, a positive ion moving to the right produces the same force as a negative electron moving to the left.
Conclusion
The electromagnetic force generated by an electric current is the same for moving ions as for moving electrons, as long as the current and conditions (such as field configuration) are the same. The nature of the charge carriers (ions vs. electrons) does not change the fundamental electromagnetic interaction.
While Gemini answers.
Quote
The electromagnetic force produced by an electric current is the same whether it is generated by moving ions or moving electrons, provided the current (amount of charge flow per unit time) and the conditions are identical. Here's a breakdown of the reasoning:
Electromagnetic Force (Lorentz Force)
1. Magnetic Component:
A current () in a conductor or a moving charged particle generates a magnetic field.
If another charged particle moves through this magnetic field, it experiences a force given by the Lorentz force law:
\mathbf{F} = q(\mathbf{v} \times \mathbf{B})
The magnetic field () depends on the current () and not on whether the current is carried by electrons, protons, or ions. Hence, the resulting magnetic force is the same for a given current.
2. Electric Component:
A current can also generate an electric field if there is a charge imbalance or in cases involving time-varying currents (via Maxwell's equations). The resulting electric force is:
\mathbf{F} = q\mathbf{E}
Again, this force depends on the field strength () and the charge (), not the type of charge carrier producing the current.
Key Considerations
Current Magnitude:
For the same current magnitude (, where is charge, is charge density, is cross-sectional area, and is drift velocity), the electromagnetic effects will be identical regardless of whether the current is carried by electrons or ions.
Charge and Velocity:
Positive ions are usually much heavier than electrons. For a given current, ions will have a much smaller drift velocity than electrons due to their larger mass. However, this difference in velocity does not affect the electromagnetic force because the total current determines the field, not the individual velocities.
Charge Sign:
The sign of the charge does not affect the magnitude of the electromagnetic force, only its direction. For example, a positive ion moving to the right produces the same force as a negative electron moving to the left.
Conclusion
The electromagnetic force generated by an electric current is the same for moving ions as for moving electrons, as long as the current and conditions (such as field configuration) are the same. The nature of the charge carriers (ions vs. electrons) does not change the fundamental electromagnetic interaction.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 08/12/2024 13:53:32
Quote
ChatGPT
No, there is no credible experimental evidence or research indicating that ionic currents produce electromotive force (EMF) while electronic currents do not. Both ionic and electronic currents follow the same fundamental principles of electromagnetism as described by Maxwell's equations. Here's why:
Electromotive Force (EMF) and Current
EMF is defined as the energy supplied per unit charge to move charges around a circuit. It is typically generated by:
Electrochemical reactions (e.g., in batteries).
Time-varying magnetic fields (Faraday's Law of Induction).
Thermal gradients (Seebeck effect).
Pressure or deformation gradients (piezoelectric effect).
EMF is independent of the type of charge carrier. Both electrons and ions can contribute to the current in a conductor, and the generation of EMF depends on the physical mechanism (chemical reaction, magnetic induction, etc.) and not the carrier type.
Experimental Evidence
1. Faraday's Law of Induction:
Experiments involving time-varying magnetic fields demonstrate that EMF is produced regardless of whether the current is ionic (e.g., in electrolytes) or electronic (e.g., in metal wires).
2. Electrolyte and Plasma Studies:
In electrolytes and plasmas, where ions carry current, the measured EMF behaves identically to that in metallic conductors, following the same laws of electromagnetism.
3. Batteries and Fuel Cells:
In batteries, ions carry current internally, while electrons carry current externally through a circuit. The EMF generated is consistent with theoretical predictions and independent of whether ions or electrons are the carriers.
Theoretical Basis
1. Maxwell's Equations:
Electromagnetic phenomena depend on the motion of charge, irrespective of the type of charge carrier.
The current density () determines the magnetic and electric fields and is calculated as:
\mathbf{J} = nq\mathbf{v}
2. Charge Carrier Independence:
The Lorentz force and Biot-Savart law depend on the flow of charge, not the specific nature of the carriers. Whether the carriers are ions or electrons, the resulting magnetic and electric effects are the same.
Conclusion
The claim that ionic currents generate EMF while electronic currents do not is inconsistent with established physical laws and experimental data. Both ionic and electronic currents produce EMF and electromagnetic effects in accordance with the same fundamental principles of electromagnetism. If you have encountered a source making this claim, it may involve a misunderstanding or a misrepresentation of experimental results. Feel free to share details for further clarification!
Quote
Gemini
There is no experimental evidence suggesting that ionic current produces electromotive force (EMF) differently from electronic current. Both types of current, when flowing through a conductor, can generate EMF under specific conditions, such as in batteries or generators.
In batteries, for example, chemical reactions involving the movement of ions create a potential difference, which is a form of EMF. Similarly, in generators, the movement of electrons in a conductor through a magnetic field induces an EMF.
The key factor determining the generation of EMF is the movement of charges, regardless of whether they are electrons or ions. The Lorentz force law, which governs the behavior of charged particles in electromagnetic fields, applies equally to both types of charge carriers.
Therefore, it is not accurate to say that ionic current produces EMF differently from electronic current. Both types of current can generate EMF under appropriate conditions, and the underlying principles are the same.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 08/12/2024 14:04:03
Post by: alancalverd on 08/12/2024 21:13:14
What thickness of Al foil were you using? Was it pure Al? The resistance measurement seems remarkably high.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 09/12/2024 02:14:18
Just for once the chatbots seem to be right.It's just an ordinary aluminum foil you can buy in grocery stores. I think the surface is quickly coated by aluminum oxide from reaction with oxygen in the air.
What thickness of Al foil were you using? Was it pure Al? The resistance measurement seems remarkably high.
The resistance (1-2 Ohm) can be attributed to the connection between the copper wire and the stainless steel plates, also the interface between stainless steel plates and aluminum foil. But it's negligible compared to the resistance of the liquid in the other container, which is connected in series.
Post by: alancalverd on 09/12/2024 09:51:26
What is not clear is why the cans acquire a charge differential in the first instance.
As usual, I am hugely impressed by your experimental ingenuity and dexterity, but not by your critical review of the results.
1. Did you repeat all three scenarios? Were the differences statistically significant?
2. What happens if you use two sheets of dielectric and only move the top sheet?
3. What happens if you use two separate sheets of dielectric, one for each can?
Practical electrostatics is much more difficult and prone to all sorts of errors than electrodynamics!
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 10/12/2024 04:16:26
1. Did you repeat all three scenarios? Were the differences statistically significant?I usually made the measurements prior to recording it. Some measurements need to be aborted and repeated due to simple mishaps like loose connections, or the meter display turning off because of being idle for too long. I didn't make many repetitions because they take considerably long time to stabilize. Running 1 Ampere through the liquid for prolonged duration increases its temperature. Usually the current slowly decreases as the experiment goes on longer. But repetition with the same liquid solution (separated by re-zeroing switch) don't vary that much.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 10/12/2024 04:20:39
2. What happens if you use two sheets of dielectric and only move the top sheet?I'm not sure what you mean by this. Do you refer to the corrugated plastic plate?
Where do you want the plate to move to?
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 10/12/2024 04:22:31
3. What happens if you use two separate sheets of dielectric, one for each can?I don't think it will change the results. The volume of corrugated plastic plate is mainly consist of air.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 10/12/2024 08:41:23
This is the basic setup of the experiment. It tries to compare the difference in electrodynamic forces exerted by electronic current through the metal sheet in the left container and ionic current through the conductive liquid in the right container. This difference is measured as voltage reading between the metal stands below the containers.
(https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=67448.0;attach=34522)
This plot shows the raw measurement readings.
(https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=67448.0;attach=34524)
This plot shows the measurement readings adjusted by the empty calibration and actual alternating currents flow through the solutions.
(https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=67448.0;attach=34526)
By measuring the voltages at 0, 1, and back to 0 Ampere, we can be sure that the change in voltage are mostly caused by the current itself, instead of some other unknown factors.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 10/12/2024 09:10:20
Practical electrostatics is much more difficult and prone to all sorts of errors than electrodynamics!That's why I installed the re-zeroing switch. Any electrostatic charge imbalance between two sides of the balance should be eliminated when they are connected.
Post by: alancalverd on 10/12/2024 09:40:04
I'm not sure what you mean by this. Do you refer to the corrugated plastic plate?At 5:13 you lift the plastic plate, thus potentially redistributing charge between the cans (your body capacitance is very large compared with the cans). If you used two sheets of plastic the charge disturbance would be less.
Where do you want the plate to move to?
And the baffling question is why an alternating current should induce a unidirectional movement of static charge.
Post by: paul cotter on 10/12/2024 12:06:45
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 10/12/2024 13:15:54
And the baffling question is why an alternating current should induce a unidirectional movement of static charge.The theoretical background I posted previously should be enough to answer your question.
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
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.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 10/12/2024 13:20:12
On insulated conductive materials stray voltages of similar magnitude often arise and determining their origin could be difficult but it is almost certainly some environmental artefact.How can they be reliably controlled by the alternating electric current?
Post by: paul cotter on 10/12/2024 15:09:45
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 10/12/2024 21:38:42
As airborne charge can easily build up on isolated conductive material, a vacuum chamber would be needed with Teflon stands. Water will be a problem with a vacuum and the two containers will need to be sealed. There may be other possible sources of "contamination" but that's all I can think of at the moment.If that's the case, shouldn't the voltage be independent from the alternating electric current?
Post by: alancalverd on 11/12/2024 00:42:37
a vacuum chamber would be needed with Teflon stands.Beware - Teflon has a high resistivity but is tribolelectric and piezoelectric! Virgin soft polyelthylene (not Ziegler high density polyalkane) is, in my experience, the best insulator for electrostatics experiments.
Post by: paul cotter on 11/12/2024 11:24:30
Post by: alancalverd on 11/12/2024 12:27:24
"Ferroelectret Polypropylene Foam-Based Piezoelectric Energy Harvester for Different Seismic Mass Conditions" Actuators, May 2023.
Polypropylene sheet is dimensionally more stable than polyethylene, so good for capacitors, but I wouldn't trust the bulk material not to interfere with femtocoulombs.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 12/12/2024 12:02:57
The theoretical background I posted previously should be enough to answer your question.As you can see, the theoretical background of my design for electrodynamic balance is just a logical consequences of Lorentz force, Biot-Savart law, and distribution of electric charges in a current carrying wire. It's quite remarkable that this simple inference has been overlooked by physics community for more than a century.
Post by: alancalverd on 12/12/2024 15:29:48
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.A very simple experiment that will disabuse you of this conclusion would be to measure the magnetic field produced by a given current around wires of materials with different Hall coefficients. I think you will find that the nature of the charge carrier is irrelevant.
Post by: paul cotter on 12/12/2024 17:56:07
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 12/12/2024 21:17:47
If the mass of the charge carrier was a parameter in calculating the force due to a magnetic field it would have shown up long ago in countless experiments.That's why I think it's remarkable. How can it be hidden for so long?
Post by: paul cotter on 13/12/2024 12:14:00
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 13/12/2024 13:59:08
It is way more likely that you dealing with artefacts from environmental effects rather than science has missed something as fundamental as this.My experiment is simple enough to be replicated by anyone else. Let's see how many of you can get the same results as mine.
Do you find any problem with my theoretical background?
Post by: paul cotter on 13/12/2024 14:26:41
Post by: alancalverd on 13/12/2024 14:44:29
Post by: paul cotter on 13/12/2024 15:29:03
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 14/12/2024 03:19:08
A small voltage like that could be coming from any number of extraneous influences. At that level the signal to noise ratio is low.The signal to noise ratio is high enough, if you compare between the voltage reading with and without the alternating current. Also the comparison between sodium chloride and potassium chloride with alternating current.
We can even use signal much weaker than that in practical applications.
Quote
For a 10-degree Celsius temperature difference, a Type K thermocouple will generate approximately 0.41 millivolts (mV).
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 14/12/2024 03:34:37
When dealing with low millivolt readings one has to be very careful to eliminate all extraneous influences and doing this is by no means simple. Even two different metals with a degree of surface oxidation can produce voltages in those ranges. As I said previously a vacuum chamber, sealed fluid containers, optimum insulated stands(Alan's polyethylene) and now I add another condition, a double layer Faraday screen are the minimum to do this with good signal to noise ratio. There could well be extra requirements to get a true result, I don't know as I am not an experimental physicist.My video clearly shows that the only applied difference that makes the voltage reading almost doubled in potassium chloride solution is the 1 Ampere alternating current.
(https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=67448.0;attach=34524;image)
Temperature measurements using thermocouple generated voltage can be done reliably with a very simple setup.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 14/12/2024 03:42:19
It is still not clear to me why an alternating current will induce a unipolar static charge on a nearby conductor.You can compare with unipolar voltage generated by a thermocouple by increasing the temperature difference between its ends. IMO, the underlying mechanisms are similar.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 14/12/2024 03:58:35
I think that my theoretical background for this experiment is pretty solid and straight forward.It is way more likely that you dealing with artefacts from environmental effects rather than science has missed something as fundamental as this.My experiment is simple enough to be replicated by anyone else. Let's see how many of you can get the same results as mine.
Do you find any problem with my theoretical background?
Post by: paul cotter on 14/12/2024 09:25:34
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 14/12/2024 10:33:35
What convinced you that the nature of the charge carrier is irrelevant?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.A very simple experiment that will disabuse you of this conclusion would be to measure the magnetic field produced by a given current around wires of materials with different Hall coefficients. I think you will find that the nature of the charge carrier is irrelevant.
What's wrong with three tables I posted here? (Reply #366)
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 14/12/2024 10:39:09
Hamdani, i have no intention of joining another long winded discussion that goes nowhere.This discussion will go nowhere if we stop questioning and experimenting in order to identify false assumptions and invalid reasonings, also to clear up uncertainties. We don't make progress if we are already satisfied with existing explanations and stop looking for some better alternatives.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 14/12/2024 10:53:53
When you are dealing with low millivolt readings it is essential to make sure you are not dealing with some artefact of the local environment. I have already stated what I think would be the minimum requirements to avoid spurious readings and as I am not an experimental physicist I may have missed other necessary conditions. The history of science reveals a multitude of misleading of experiments where not all factors were taken into account. If I was to set up such an experiment I would have used Teflon stands until Alan pointed out that such a procedure would be prone to error- one small example of where thing could go wrong and in experimental science it is imperative to eliminate all possible contamination.The purpose of the experiments I posted here is to prove the concept described in the theoretical background, which predicted that there's non-zero effect from the type of the current carrying charges on the generated electromotive force to a test charged particle. The design as an electrodynamic balance is to amplify the signal while reducing the noise, similar to Wheatstone bridge.
If you think that my theoretical background leads to wrong conclusion, which proposition is the most suspicious?
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 15/12/2024 07:33:48
Some of us might think that the experimental results I've shown are unexpected. The next step for them is to identify which assumptions used to predict the results are the false one.
Some others might think that the experimental results I've shown are expected. The next step for them is to identify what other predictions can be made using the same set of assumptions, and where they start to break down.
Post by: alancalverd on 15/12/2024 11:03:40
Your secondary assumption is that an alternating magnetic field can induce a unidirectional charge transfer between nearby conductors - in other words, that transformers are selfrectifying.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 15/12/2024 12:37:54
Your primary assumption is that you have measured what you think you have measured.I need to make assumption that my Voltmeter is reliable. I justified this assumption by measuring other electrical sources first, like batteries and USB charger. So far, I found no indication that it's false.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 15/12/2024 12:40:07
Your secondary assumption is that an alternating magnetic field can induce a unidirectional charge transfer between nearby conductors - in other words, that transformers are selfrectifying.Do you disagree with my third table of electrodynamic force?
What do you think is the correct values there?
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
Post by: alancalverd on 15/12/2024 13:45:53
I need to make assumption that my Voltmeter is reliable. I justified this assumption by measuring other electrical sources first, like batteries and USB charger. So far, I found no indication that it's false.Because they have a much lower source impedance and the readings are therefore not affected by the accumulation of static charge from unidentified sources or activities. Fact is that the voltage reference of a DVM is (or should be!) much more stable than the output of a battery or USB charger.
Post by: alancalverd on 15/12/2024 13:54:58
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 15/12/2024 14:26:32
The magnetic force on a charge is zero if the charge is stationary.But non-zero if the wire moves relative to the charge. Note that my tables referred to electric current in a straight metal wire.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 16/12/2024 08:56:41
The Hidden Story Behind Maxwell?s Equations
Quote
It took Maxwell over 10 years and multiple papers to shape those equations in these final forms. The main difficulty was that Faraday?s field concept, on which his equations were based, was extremely hard to grasp. Maxwell had to rely on complicated mechanical models of molecular vortices in ether to come up with them. In this video, we will go through his heroic journey.
Timestamps:
0:00 - 0:42 Intro
0:43 - 3:47 Status of Electromagnetism at his time
3:48 - 5:06 Divergences and Flux
5:07 - 6:33 How did Maxwell derive the first two equations?
6:35 - 7:05 Limitations of hydrodynamics approach
7:06 - 7:49 Molecular's vortices theory
7:50 - 10:22 How did Maxwell derive the last two equations?
10:23 - 10:47 Speed of light
10:48 - 12:05 Maxwell's later abstract approach
12:06 - 13:49 Why was his theory discarded by colleagues?
13:50 - 14:48 Legacy of his equations
Quote
As many of you have correctly pointed out(many thanks for that), several embarassing typos have crept into the video. Here are some of the corrections:
a. At 5:00, the clockwise curl should be negative, while the counterclockwise curl positive.
b. At 10:00, "magnetic" should be "electric".
c. At 10:21, displacement current (D) should be replaced with current density (J).
d. In the displayed Maxwell equations, the propotional sign should have been replaced with the full equation.
e. At 6:27, Laplace should be replaced by Lagrange.
We would also like to add some remarks:
a. Many animations, especially about divergences and flux, are borrowed from 3blue1brown channel. We have credited them in description but we should have also done in the video. We apologize for that, and make sure to correct it in coming videos.
b. We do have a section regarding Oliver Heaviside's contribution at 14:08. Unfortunately, we are still not convinced that Maxwell equations should be renamed "Maxwell-Heaviside" equations. But, we will do more research, and maybe even change our mind:)
Post by: alancalverd on 16/12/2024 12:28:03
But non-zero if the wire moves relative to the charge.Which doesn't happen in your experiment.
Your theoretical approach is incorrect. The current in the wire does not depend on the difference between drift velocities.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 16/12/2024 13:50:50
How do you think the alternating current flows in the salt solutions?But non-zero if the wire moves relative to the charge.Which doesn't happen in your experiment.
Your theoretical approach is incorrect. The current in the wire does not depend on the difference between drift velocities.
Post by: alancalverd on 16/12/2024 22:28:03
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 17/12/2024 10:47:37
By the movement of ions. In the case of alternating current, ions of both polarities move, on average, equally in both directions so any associated magnetic field alternates in sign at any point, with a net average of zero.In the case if metal wire, if the positively charged particles (crystal lattice) and negatively charged particles (free electrons) move at the same speed but opposite direction, the force exerted to the stationary charged test particle is not zero. What makes you think it would be different for ions?
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 17/12/2024 21:54:33
A few seconds later, the motions of the wire as well as the electrons in it have their directions reversed. Will the force to the test particle change?
Post by: alancalverd on 18/12/2024 09:20:20
In the case if metal wire, if the positively charged particles (crystal lattice) and negatively charged particles (free electrons) move at the same speed but opposite direction,Obviously, they don't. The nuclei oscillate a bit (thermal energy) and the conduction electrons drift. We do see cases of electrostriction but AFAIK wires don't distort along their axis when carrying a current.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 18/12/2024 21:27:43
Do you think it doesn't make a difference if the wire moves or not?In the case if metal wire, if the positively charged particles (crystal lattice) and negatively charged particles (free electrons) move at the same speed but opposite direction,Obviously, they don't. The nuclei oscillate a bit (thermal energy) and the conduction electrons drift. We do see cases of electrostriction but AFAIK wires don't distort along their axis when carrying a current.
Post by: alancalverd on 18/12/2024 23:20:44
The propagation speed of current in a wire is about 107 m/s, and the drift speed of the electrons is around 10-5 m/s in a potential gradient of 1 V/m.
Post by: Eternal Student on 19/12/2024 03:16:05
Let me simplify the question. A long straight metal wire moves to the right at speed 1 m/s relative to the lab. Electrons in the wire move to the left 1 m/s relative to the lab. A positively charged test particle is stationary relative to the lab, 1 cm below the moving wire. Will it experience a force by the wire? Which way?
Yes, it should do. It will be a force pushing the charged test particle directly away from the wire.
Why? Translate to the more typical frame of reference. So we'll have the wire stationary, so we can assume the positively charged atoms of it are stationary. Adjust the velocities of everything else appropriately.
The free electrons of the metal now move with velocity 2 m/s to the left ( my left direction is < --- ). Actually slightly less if we use the the velocity addition of special relativity but 2 m/s will be OK.
By conventional electromagnetism stuff, we have a magnetic field around the wire. Conventional current is going to the right ( ---> that way ), right hand rule shows the B field circles around the wire.
The test charge, in this frame, is now moving at 1 m/s ( <-- that way), or more importantly in the oppositie direction to the current. A moving charge does feel force in a magnetic field, we use the other right hand rule for F = q v x B. We see the test charge is accelerated downwards, i.e. directly away from the wire (if I twisted my hands around in all the right directions).
In the atypical frame where your situation applies ( the wire moves ---> that way), the same force and overall effect should appear. However, it doesn't have to appear as a magnetic force and in this case it will be partly a force due to an electric field.
We could draw the diagrams and do the maths - to show that due to relativisitic effects, the average distance between charges has altered and the wire is no longer of overall neutral charge as far your test particle is concerned.
The smart person would then ask a follow up question: Aren't the electrons and positively charged ions affected equally? Aren't the distances between +ve charges and between -ve charges equally contracted and the charge does remain overall neutral? Indeed, in your original situation where the test paticle was at rest, it does seem that both the positively charged ions and the electrons are moving with equal speed, albeit in opposing directions.
That's a good question. The answer tends to be that the free electrons are not like the positively charged atoms in the metal wire. The free electrons are, as in their name, "free", while the metal atoms are much more locked in place in the crytsal lattice of the overall structure.
An approximation is made here. Here's the step-by-step reasoning:
1. It does seem that when a current is passed along a wire, the free electrons do start drifting.
2. So there would be a corresponding length contraction for the distance between them, which would make the density of negative charges exceed the density of positive charges in the lab frame.
3. However, the electrons are free to move. This is the important approximation step. By electrostatics, they will re-distribute themselves and the wire remains overall neutral in the lab frame, to a good approximation. Note that the metal atoms could NOT do this, they are not like the free electrons. We know that a static test charge placed next to this wire which has a current in it, doesn't seem to experience any force, that's the experimental evidence that we've got. So it seems that the wire has remained overall neutral in charge, even when a current is made to pass through it.
One consequence of this is that the wire cannot be of overall neutral charge in other frames of reference. In other frames, there must be length contraction as usual. So, the easiest one to consider is where we move to a frame where the electrons are stationary and the metal atoms were the things moving with (the negative or direction reversal of) the electron drift velocity. In this frame, the electrons are not moving, while they were in the first frame, so the average distance between electrons is now bigger, -ve charge density is therefore lower. Meanwhile, the metal atoms are now moving whereas they were stationary, so the average distance between them has decreased, hence positive charge density has increased. So overall, the positive charge density now exceeds the -ve charge density and the wire has a net positive charge.
So the irritating and relentless person may then ask - but the electrons are still "free" in this new frame, why don't they just re-distribute themselves again? Why isn't a current carrying wire of overall neutral charge in any arbitrary frame I wish to use?
One half of that we can answer well: Since the electrons do drift when there's a current in the wire, it is just not possible for the wire to be of overall neutral charge in every frame. Do the maths carefully, there is only one frame where that can apply. The second half... well I don't have a satisfactory answer for it....
For some reason the frame of reference where the wire is overall neutrally charged is the usual one, the one where the wire (the positive metal atoms in it rather than the free electrons) is stationary. You can try and dig up a few reasons, for example a current just does not flow unless there's a cell (a battery) or something that is maintaining a potential difference across the wire. You can attempt to argue that as part of that setting up procedure, just the right number of electrons are initially pulled out of the wire at the +ve terminal of this battery, so the slight over-density of -ve charges that should appear in the wire when the electrons do start drifting along does not emerge. However, we can't make too much speculation. Let's just leave it as "for some reason" the frame where the current carrying wire is overall neutrally charged is the one where the wire is stationary.
Best Wishes.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 19/12/2024 06:34:17
For simplicity, let's take only average velocities for positively charged particles, and average velocities for negatively charged particles.In the case if metal wire, if the positively charged particles (crystal lattice) and negatively charged particles (free electrons) move at the same speed but opposite direction,Obviously, they don't. The nuclei oscillate a bit (thermal energy) and the conduction electrons drift. We do see cases of electrostriction but AFAIK wires don't distort along their axis when carrying a current.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 19/12/2024 07:11:02
In the atypical frame where your situation applies ( the wire moves ---> that way), the same force and overall effect should appear. However, it doesn't have to appear as a magnetic force and in this case it will be partly a force due to an electric field.In the reference frame where the test particle is stationary, v is 0. Thus special theory of relativity interpretes that the force is purely electric.
Post by: alancalverd on 19/12/2024 11:17:07
For simplicity, let's take only average velocities for positively charged particles, and average velocities for negatively charged particles.With an alternating current, the average drift velocity is zero for both. And you will note from reply #405 above that the drift velocity is irrelevant to the induced magnetic field.
Post by: paul cotter on 19/12/2024 12:05:58
Post by: Eternal Student on 20/12/2024 02:03:39
Sorry to hear you're poorly @paul cotter .
As we know a static B field will have no effect on a static charge.Yes. Stationary test charge implies no force.
Quote
Yet if we change frames of reference as you have done we get a force - what am I missing?Well, the "static" test charge won't be static (stationary) in both frames. It's the motion of the test charge that undergoes an important change when you switch frames. The B field doesn't need to change, the test particle now has motion.
Just to be clear, @hamdani yusuf was discussing a situation with this sort of diagram:
------------------------------------------------------------ this is the wire
* this is the test charge
The test charge is something outside the wire, we can move the wire while leaving the test charge static in the lab frame. Of course, the moment you switch frames, so that the wire is stationary, then you see the test charge will be moving.
Well that's a short answer anyway.
----------
I've read what you've written a couple of times now. It seems that you think it would be important to know if a B field is moving or not. However, it is NOT important to know.
You said:
Looked at from the frame of the moving wire the test charge and the B field will move in unison.It's not meaningful to talk about the B field as if it can have motion and therefore move in unison with the test particle. All that matters is that the test charge has motion in this frame.
The Magnetic force law (Lorentz force law where E=0 ) is often mis-interpreted in some fashion similar to the following:
There's a force when a charge moves through a magnetic field OR when the magnetic field moves past the charge.
But that's just pop-sci and sloppy speech. The Lorentz force law (or just Magnetic force law) actually says nothing at all about a magnetic field moving past a static charge because it's not even clear if a magnetic field is some sort of "stuff" that can move through space. All we need is that the magnetic field, B, is something that has a value (this one has magnitude and direction) at every point in space and at every time.
Much as you seem to suggest, quite often we just couldn't tell if the B field was moving or staying still. For convenience we'll align our straight wire with the x-axis, then the current carrying wire has a B field that depends only on y and z co-ordinates of a point in space. At any time, the B field at x=a is no different to the B field at x=b. We can't tell if the B field at x=b,t=now has just come from position x=a, a second ago, or if the B field just wasn't moving.
Fortunately, the Lorentz force law does not ask about how the test charge was moving relative to the B field. It just asks how the test charge is moving (the implication being this is relative to the frame you have chosen).
Read perhaps just the first section of the Wikipedia article about the Lorentz force law to yourself: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lorentz_force
This time pay carefull attention to the LACK of something: The lack of any need to know about the movement of the B field.
The Lorentz force law states that a particle of charge q moving with a velocity v in an electric field E and a magnetic field B experiences a force (in SI units) of F = q ( E + v x B ) .
The velocity, v, that appears in these formulae is never stated as being the velocity of the test charge relative to the B field. It is just the velocity of the test charge (in whatever frame you have chosen to use). Specifically, we start by picking a frame of reference, then the test particle has a velocity v in that frame.... that's the only v we're interested in.... we don't care if the B field is something that might also be moving, it doesn't matter, we don't ever need its velocity.
Best Wishes.
Post by: paul cotter on 20/12/2024 08:09:16
Post by: paul cotter on 20/12/2024 17:40:56
Post by: Eternal Student on 21/12/2024 06:09:12
I think I can see what you ( @paul cotter ) are saying and yes, you do seem to have the right idea.
I can only assume a relativistic effect of the movement of + and- charges in the conductor produces an electric field with force on the chargeYes.
In post #406 I said the following:
....the same force and overall effect should appear. However, it doesn't have to appear as a magnetic force and in this case it will be partly a force due to an electric field....In this situation described by @hamdani yusuf , the velocity of the test particle became 0 exactly and so we have the most extreme case. Using the Lorentz force law and putting v=0 we would have that F = q(E + v x B) = qE = a force entirely due to an Electric field.
This was mentioned in reply #408 by Hamdani:
In the reference frame where the test particle is stationary, v is 0. Thus special theory of relativity interpretes that the force is purely electric.
In this frame of reference, the distance between the -ve charges (the free electrons) and between the +ve charges (the metal atoms in the lattice) has been affected (by length contraction under SR) such that the wire had an overall +ve charge of exactly the right magnitude to repel the positive test charge as required. Although a B field would still be there circling the wire, it plays no part in exerting a force on the particle (in this frame).
---------
Minor notes: You said the following (with red text added by me):
and as the (test) charge is moving in this frame it also produces a magnetic field....
Yes that's actually completely true BUT you are over-thinking this.
We were just considering it as a test charge. They do not create or alter the field(s) around them, they just experience the field(s) created by other things https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Test_particle .
In the real world, any moving charge would create a magnetic field in the space around it and this would combine with the magnetic field from the wire - but we're talking about 1 small charge (maybe just a proton) compared to billions (~1024 atoms per cm3) of free electrons and metal ions in the wire. The alteration in the magnetic (or electric) field caused by our little postive charge is utterly insignificant and we can consider it as an idealised test charge.
Best Wishes.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 21/12/2024 08:43:19
The Lorentz force is not simply determined by the average velocity.For simplicity, let's take only average velocities for positively charged particles, and average velocities for negatively charged particles.With an alternating current, the average drift velocity is zero for both. And you will note from reply #405 above that the drift velocity is irrelevant to the induced magnetic field.
F= B. q. v
You need to multiply the velocity with the charges before averaging them.
Post by: alancalverd on 21/12/2024 09:08:57
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 21/12/2024 10:08:55
So you might expect some ionic stratification within a liquid electrolyte in a magnetic field if you apply a direct current through the liquid. But if you reverse the current, you will reverse the stratification, so the net effect in your AC experiment is zero.What do you mean by stratification?
The third table shows the force experienced by test particle, which is simply the multiplication of each cell in both tables above.For simplicity, let's just consider the anti-diagonal in the table above, which referred to the symmetrical case where positive charges are moving in the opposite direction but equal in magnitude as the negative charges. The numbers there are all positive, as long as v is not zero.
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
Post by: alancalverd on 21/12/2024 23:34:39
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 22/12/2024 02:12:26
Now reverse the voltage gradient and add the two matrices. If you don't get a null matrix, you have made a mistake!Why should I do that? Do you know about Lorentz force?
The tables said nothing about voltage gradient.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 22/12/2024 06:04:33
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.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 22/12/2024 06:13:51
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 thatThe numbers on the top rows in each table represent velocity of positively charged particles, while the numbers on the left most column in each table represent velocity of negatively charged particles
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
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 22/12/2024 06:21:08
What do I have to do to patent my invention?
Quote
To patent your invention, you need to follow these general steps. The process may vary depending on your country, but these are the typical stages:The process still needs some refinements. So I guess I'm going to apply for provisional patent first.
1. Determine Patentability
Ensure your invention is novel, non-obvious, and useful.
Conduct a prior art search to check if similar inventions exist. You can search online patent databases like:
Google Patents
WIPO?s PATENTSCOPE
Your country?s patent office database (e.g., USPTO, EPO, IPO).
---
2. Prepare a Detailed Description
Create a comprehensive description of your invention, including:
Title
Purpose
How it works
Technical drawings or diagrams
Include claims that define the scope of your invention.
---
3. File a Patent Application
Decide whether to file:
A provisional patent application (PPA) (for temporary protection, gives you a year to file a full patent).
A non-provisional patent application (full patent).
Submit your application to the patent office in your country:
USPTO (United States)
EPO (European Union)
IPO (India)
WIPO (for international patents via the PCT system).
---
4. Work with a Patent Attorney (Optional)
Patent law can be complex, so consulting a patent attorney can help ensure your application is strong and meets all legal requirements.
---
5. Examination Process
The patent office will review your application and may ask for clarifications or modifications.
Be prepared for correspondence and potential rejections. You may need to amend claims or provide additional information.
---
6. Pay Fees
Pay the required filing, examination, and maintenance fees. Fee structures vary by country and the type of patent.
---
7. Receive Patent Approval
Once approved, your patent is granted, and you have exclusive rights to your invention for a specified time (usually 20 years from the filing date).
---
Additional Tips:
Protect your invention with non-disclosure agreements (NDAs) if discussing it with others before filing.
Consider the costs, as the process can be expensive (filing fees, attorney fees, etc.).
Use international patent systems (e.g., PCT) if you want protection in multiple countries.
Would you like help with any specific step or advice on patent offices?
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 22/12/2024 06:52:44
What is Electrochemical Impedance Spectroscopy (EIS) and How Does it Work?
Quote
Hey Folks! In this video we will be going over what is Electrochemical Impedance Spectroscopy (EIS) as well as how it works. This is an introduction to Electrochemical Impedance Spectroscopy and is designed for people who are familiar with electrochemistry but are new to AC voltammetry techniques such as EIS.
Timestamps
00:00 - Intro
01:29 - What is Electrochemical Impedance Spectroscopy?
03:36 - Fourier Transform and what Impedance is
05:17 - The Bode Plot
05:46 - The Nyquist Plot
07:08 - Analogy for understanding EIS
08:24 - Why use EIS?
10:07 - How EIS data is used (modeling an electrochemical system)
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 22/12/2024 09:15:57
The first graph shows the voltage measurement against the weight/charge ratio of the salts.
(https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php? action=dlattach;topic=67448.0;attach=34528)
The second graph shows the voltage measurement against the weight/charge ratio of the salts, when the charge of MgCl2 is "corrected" to make the graph linear.
(https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=67448.0;attach=34530)
The second graph shows the voltage measurement against the weight/charge ratio of the salts, when the molecular weight of MgCl2 is "corrected" to make the graph linear.
(https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=67448.0;attach=34532)
Post by: alancalverd on 22/12/2024 09:25:47
What do I have to do to patent my invention?Your national patent office should have a simple online form for filing a provisional patent. If not, use the UKPO. The important thing is to establish priority of invention in the broadest possible terms, and a provisional filed in any country does that. Then decide whether you are going to make any money from it. Talk to a prospective manufacturer under an NDA (use an online form or get a solicitor to draft one for you). If it looks profitable, get a patent attorney to draft and submit it, if it is your first patent - not cheap, but you will learn a lot from the PA.
Your national patent office website is the best source of information, not a chatbot.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 22/12/2024 12:13:00
Then decide whether you are going to make any money from it.No. At least not directly. What's more important for me is to make more people be aware of this overlooked relationships between electricity, magnetism, and chemistry, which can possibly reveal the missing link with gravity. The more people working on this problem, the more likely it will be solved sooner rather than later.
Post by: paul cotter on 25/12/2024 12:51:57
Post by: alancalverd on 31/12/2024 11:29:40
The more people working on this problem, the more likely it will be solved sooner rather than later.Please remind me - what is the problem?
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 01/01/2025 20:42:57
See the title.The more people working on this problem, the more likely it will be solved sooner rather than later.Please remind me - what is the problem?
And the OP.
Nowadays most people explain daily electromagnetic phenomena using Maxwell’s theory, which was a summary and development of the thoughts of 19th century scientists like Gauss, Faraday, and Ampere. When it was realized that Maxwell’s theory is not compatible with Newton’s mechanics, Einstein chose to modify Newton’s mechanics to comply with Maxwell’s equations, hence established the SR theory. As time goes by, thermodynamics led Max Planck to start quantum theory which was later developed to explain microscopic world. But on macroscopic scale, its result is similar to Maxwell’s theory.
I guess that the incompatibility can be resolved by modifying or even replacing Maxwell’s theory, instead of Newton’s mechanics. One thing that I concern the most is about the origin of magnetic force. Maxwell’s theory implies that magnetism comes from moving electric charge. Magnetic field was introduced to explain how magnetic force works. The field was based on magnetic lines of force which were introduced by Faraday.
Basically, Maxwell’s theory explains magnetic force in two steps. First, moving electric charges produce magnetic fields around their trajectory, according to right hand rule. Then the field will do a magnetic force to any electric charge which moves relative to it. Therefore, this theory seems to have difficulties when explaining point to point interaction, especially regarding asymmetry between action and reaction. This kind of interaction is the very thing that should be explained by any fundamental physics theories like Newton’s gravity and Coulomb’s static electricity, since point is the simplest geometric element, and any other geometric forms are built from it.
As an alternative, Edward Purcell tried to explain electromagnetic force relativistically, here
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relativistic_electromagnetism#The_origin_of_magnetic_forces.
There was shown that electric current in the wire is produced by the stream of positively charged particles, while common knowledge says that it is produced by the flow of electron which is negatively charged. If we see closer, it will be seen that positive and negative charges in the wire act asymmetrically.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 02/01/2025 05:21:25
In most analyses of electromagnetism, the mass of the moving electric charges that produces the magnetic field is ignored, and assumed to be zero. This assumption is good enough for metal solenoids typically used in electromagnetic experiments, as the mass of electron is much smaller than the mass of the metal lattice.
Quote
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moving_magnet_and_conductor_problem#Background
Electromagnetic fields are not directly observable. The existence of classical electromagnetic fields can be inferred from the motion of charged particles, whose trajectories are observable. Electromagnetic fields do explain the observed motions of classical charged particles.
A strong requirement in physics is that all observers of the motion of a particle agree on the trajectory of the particle. For instance, if one observer notes that a particle collides with the center of a bullseye, then all observers must reach the same conclusion. This requirement places constraints on the nature of electromagnetic fields and on their transformation from one reference frame to another. It also places constraints on the manner in which fields affect the acceleration and, hence, the trajectories of charged particles.
Perhaps the simplest example, and one that Einstein referenced in his 1905 paper introducing special relativity, is the problem of a conductor moving in the field of a magnet. In the frame of the magnet, a conductor experiences a magnetic force. In the frame of a conductor moving relative to the magnet, the conductor experiences a force due to an electric field. The magnetic field in the magnet frame and the electric field in the conductor frame must generate consistent results in the conductor. At the time of Einstein in 1905, the field equations as represented by Maxwell's equations were properly consistent. Newton's law of motion, however, had to be modified to provide consistent particle trajectories.[7]
Post by: alancalverd on 02/01/2025 09:23:20
There was shown that electric current in the wire is produced by the stream of positively charged particles,"Conventional " current, in classical electromagnetism, flows from positive to negative. This gets the signs correct in Fleming, Ampere, Corkscrew and other Rules.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 02/01/2025 12:23:26
It seems like the Wikipedia article has been edited from when I referred to it in the OP.There was shown that electric current in the wire is produced by the stream of positively charged particles,"Conventional " current, in classical electromagnetism, flows from positive to negative. This gets the signs correct in Fleming, Ampere, Corkscrew and other Rules.
Post by: alancalverd on 02/01/2025 13:14:35
In most analyses of electromagnetism, the mass of the moving electric charges that produces the magnetic field is ignored, and assumed to be zero.It's also pretty irrelevant as the drift velocity of the charge carriers is very low
Quote
The speed of the electrons in a typical copper wire is actually about 10 billion times slower than the speed of the signal- say 0.2 mm/second. Much the same in an electrolyte - you can sometimes see the depletion layer slowly growing if one of the ions is colored.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 03/01/2025 03:58:55
It's also pretty irrelevant as the drift velocity of the charge carriers is very lowDoes drift velocity have any effect on Lorentz' force?
What if the drift velocity is increased significantly, like using superconductor with small cross sectional area?
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 03/01/2025 04:14:51
Quote
The speed of the electrons in a typical copper wire is actually about 10 billion times slower than the speed of the signal
- say 0.2 mm/second. Much the same in an electrolyte - you can sometimes see the depletion layer slowly growing if one of the ions is colored.
There's an interesting video investigating speed of electricity in a wire.
Why does WATER change the speed of electricity?
Quote
The electrons are back! This is the first of three videos discussing electricity - what is it, how does it work, how do we use it? This first installment talks about the speed of electricity and electrical signals in wires. Next up is Ohm's law, and what resistance really does in circuits, and third, I'll be taking another look at the experiment featured on Veritasium last year, building on the first two videos to explore the mechanism that couples the two long wires with a little more scrutiny. Enjoy!
Corrections and FAQ answers:
1) "When are the others coming out?" I planned to release all three of these videos on adjacent weeks, but the other two aren't done yet, and I wanted to release this one sooner to give the algorithm a kick in support of my last video from just a few days ago about FIRST Robotics - go check it out!
2) Pre-emptive clarification about the overly-philosophical ending: Sine waves are not the only orthogonal basis set that can be used to construct any function, so you could argue that any similar construction is arbitrary and math-only, and would STILL be indistinguishable from reality. That said, sine waves are really pretty (and can actually be used to solve equations that demonstrate propagation).
3) Microwaves! I've had a bunch of people ask about the "resonant frequency" of the water molecules (or any dielectric). This is exactly how your microwave works, and at this frequency (2.4 GHz I believe), the energy transfer from the field to the water molecule is most efficient.
4) What's the difference between this and coax, and velocity factor? In coax, the entire field is contained between the core and sheath, so the cable designer has COMPLETE control over the speed of propagation in the cable by choosing the dielectric insulation that the field has to pass through. This experiment I've set up is REALLY terrible at making sure the field has to interact with the water. There's probably a lot of "field leakage" I'm not dealing with. coax is amazing in it's ability to be controlled and uniform.
5) The frequency of flipping a switch: in the absolute most hand-wavey way possible if we assume that the ~40 nanosecond rise time for the signal (switch flip) is actually 1/4 of a sine wave (as in cut out of a wave, i said hand-wavey), then the relevant frequency would be ~6 MHz. In reality this is probably within an order-of-magnitude, but many additional frequencies are needed to reconstruct the exact shape of that rise, and I don't have a great intuition for which ones carry the most energy.
6) I did perform a "zero length" measurement to confirm that the scope channels were synchronized and the "send" and "receive" signals rise at the same time. I don't remember the offsets I measured right now, but they were much smaller than other errors in the system, like measuring the length of the wire!
7) I didn't realize at first that the pipe was at a bit of a slant, so the end the camera was looking at was only part full when the wire at the other end was already submerged. I don't even want to think about the weird physics problem of having water ADJACENT to a wire and trying to predict anything, so I only talked about the "empty" and "full" configurations.
8) ???
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 03/01/2025 04:16:14
Why does WATER change the speed of electricity?This is basically the same principle used in Guided Wave Radar Level sensor.
GWR Working Principles Video
Post by: alancalverd on 03/01/2025 11:14:58
Does drift velocity have any effect on Lorentz' force?Since the Lorentz force depends on the charge moving, it is reasonable to assume that the faster it moves, the greater the force. F = q(E + v x B).
What if the drift velocity is increased significantly, like using superconductor with small cross sectional area?
Post by: paul cotter on 03/01/2025 12:26:12
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 04/01/2025 08:34:39
The problem is that v is relative. What is it relative to?Does drift velocity have any effect on Lorentz' force?Since the Lorentz force depends on the charge moving, it is reasonable to assume that the faster it moves, the greater the force. F = q(E + v x B).
What if the drift velocity is increased significantly, like using superconductor with small cross sectional area?
For the individual charge carrier, yes. But if the total current remains the same in different conductor scenarios the B field will be unchanged.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 04/01/2025 08:46:04
This has some similarities with rainbow. It looks real because it can be seen with naked eye. But seen from different angle, the same rain drop looks to have different colors.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 04/01/2025 08:52:46
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.I've shown the problem with magnetic field in the first page of this thread.
(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.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 04/01/2025 09:54:05
Here's the referred video.I read the comments and found some interesting discussion.
How Special Relativity Makes Magnets WorkQuoteMagnetism 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.
Quote
If the cat isn't moving, wouldn't the electrons be length-contracted, and therefore the cat should feel a negative charge?
Quote
For those who ask themselves, why the electrons dont come closer together in the lab frame: I think its because only the electrons become contracted not the space in between. Hence, the density of charge doesn't change. When the cat moves, everything it sees is contracted, since everything (also the space between the postitiv charges) moves and the density of positive charges increases. Just my approach though
Quote
So why does the space between the electrons in the lab frame not contract, but the space between the protons in the moving cat's frame do? What's the difference?
Quote
In the lab frame the space does not move relative to the stationary observer. But relative to the moving Cat the space moves and ist therefore contracted
Quote
This line of reasoning isn't correct, even though it makes sense theoretically.
The reality of the situation is this: in the lab frame of reference, the protons in the wire are stationary while the electrons flow with a certain speed and with a certain charge density. Both of these variables (electron speed and electron density, or "how far apart the electrons are spaced") can be adjusted by the experimenter.
For the sake of this thought experiment, we say that the experimenter has calibrated the setup so that, from their frame of reference (I.E the lab frame), the wire appears electrically neutral. This is after the experimenter has accounted for the relativistic effects acting on the moving electrons (I.E length contraction causing the space between them to appear smaller and thus their density to be higher).
Put another way: imagine the experimenter starts off with the electrons not moving at all. Their speed is zero, and the experimenter adjusts the electron density to match the proton density, so that the wire is electrically neutral. Now the experimenter increases the electrons' speed; this causes length contraction, which causes the charge density of the electrons to increase from the perspective of the lab frame. Now the wire isn't electrically neutral because the density of electrons is higher than the proton density. So the experimenter decreases the electron density, so that now with the relativistic length contraction effect occurring, the densities of protons and electrons appear equal from the lab frame, and the wire appears neutral. The lab frame will still see a force acting on the charge however, since the charge appears to be moving and hence will be repelled by the wire (as the video explains, moving charges passing through a magnetic field like the one around the wire will experience a force).
But when we start moving with the positive charge, at the same speed as the electrons, they now appear stationary. Their length contraction is undone, so they appear to be spaced further apart. *At the same time*, the protons now ARE moving (from our new frame of reference), so they will experience length contraction, so their density will appear to be higher from our new frame.
The result? In our new moving frame of reference, electron density appears lower than before and proton density appears higher than before, and together, this means the wire appears positively charged from our new perspective. Hence, the moving charge experiences repulsion, as is shown in the video. This means the two frames of reference are in agreement, and the problem is solved.
If we wanted to, we could imagine that the experimenter changes the electron density so that now, in the moving frame of reference, the wire DOES appear electrically neutral. Hence, in the moving frame, the moving charge wouldn't experience any force. What would the stationary lab frame see? The wire would appear to be negatively charged (because we've increased electron density so that it'll appear neutral in the moving frame), so it should attract the moving positive charge. BUT since the lab frame also sees the positive charge as moving, it will seem to experience a repulsive force as a result.
Overall, the lab frame will see those two forces acting on the moving charge cancel out, so it moves alongside the wire without being accelerated. And as we said, the moving charge frame will arrive at the same result - the charge won't experience any force, so again, it'll keep moving alongside the wire without acceleration. The two frames of reference are in agreement again.
I hope this helps anyone that was confused by this.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 04/01/2025 09:55:28
Quote
This whole video seems to imply that magnetic fields don't really exist, that they are but electric fields viewed from different reference frames, and that electric fields are somehow more fundamental.
But if you look at the equations for the magnetic field, like Biot?Savart law, or Ampere's law for simplicity, you'll see that they all depend on the current which induces them. So now, I think, it is only sensible to ask whether current depends on the frame of reference or not.
It may seem like it at first?when we move with the electrons in the wire, they appear stationary, so no current. But current is just charge over time, and in this case, it's the protons which are moving; moving in the opposite direction and holding opposite charge, so the current stays the same. Thus, there is a magnetic field in this frame of reference as well, of equal intensity as in the first. It doesn't exert any force on the cat because it's not moving (in this reference frame).
The electric field differs though. It's non-zero because of the length contraction of the protons. And it's also the reason behind the repulsive force acting on the cat.
This, of course, doesn't explain why stationary charges don't experience force from the magnetic field since it's present in both reference frames; however, I believe this is the correct interpretation, and it's also the reason why I think the video is wrong.
Quote
This discussion has led me to ask the question of what the velocity in the Lorentz force law actually is, and it turns out there's an article that tackles that specifically. It's called "On the Velocity in the Lorentz force Law" by A.K. T. Assis and RM. Peixoto, and it provides equations, derived from the Lorentz transformation, explaining how magnetic and electric fields change in different inertial reference frames. There's also the Wikipedia page "Classical electromagnetism and special relativity" with the same equations.https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/On-the-velocity-in-the-Lorentz-force-law-Assis-Peixoto/79a347acf9f264f04cffd3cecd0e3b36a8f027de
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 04/01/2025 10:06:14
Quote
6 years of Electrical Engineering curriculum which included extensive study in EM and I was never taught this...... I'm somewhat disappointed in my university. I actually think I asked this specifically: "I understand all the effects of a magnetic field, but what IS it fundamentally?" and after some discussion of permeability and Maxwell's equations I lamented that no one in that class, professor included, actually knew. We could all describe a magnetic field by its effects and influences and even the qualities and characteristics of materials that can support a magnetic field and the methods of inducing one, but not what it actually is. Thank you so much for this video. I can now (at least more fully) answer that question "What IS a magnetic field".
Quote
, I came across this in an intro EM textbook at Uni and it blew me away. It was like a "holy crap, of course" moment. But Maxwell's Eqns were like a beautiful derivation based on laws found from experiment, whereas the Relativity argument was more like a logical derivation from first principles.
This was a long time ago but I kept the book because it was so amazing. It is "Electromagnetic Fields and Waves" by Lorrain and Corson. It not only has a solid treatment of EM but it has plenty of examples with detailed explanations. Googling, it appears there is a pdf of the 3rd edition available on the internet.
The text gives an in-depth (intermediate level) intro to electrostatics and then before getting into magnetism it covers special relativity. :) I'm sure there are more up to date texts available but I don't know them.
Quote
As everyone else has pointed out, this is pretty much a physics thing as opposed to an EE thing... Now let me just say that if you don't have a good instructor for 3rd year physics E&M this will also be missed. I was pretty much in the same situation as you, I understand everything it does without knowing what it IS. I am a physics PhD student and didn't know this due to a teacher's neglect... The real lesson from this anecdote here is that if you want to know something don't rely on a program curriculum... do your own search based on your curiosity, after all that's how the real world is, you need initiative. Knowledge is rarely handed to you on a platter. Stay curious my friends~
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 04/01/2025 10:12:08
Quote
I?ve been teaching high school physics for 32 years, I and I?m still learning such cool things thanks to amazing videos like this one.
Quote
I know you meant it well, but tbh that's a bit sad (nothing against you!!). How aren't physics teachers required to know this, what kind of joke is uni degree for a highschool (that means right until university right?) teacher to not know this.. So confusing how bad "our" education is before uni and then you go to uni and everything is over 9000 and all profs are angry because you didn't learn it in highschool.. wtf:D
Quote
I do not know if it is good in the case of a pedagogical worker to admit this fatal ignorance. The relativistic consequence of the strength in your frame of reference is really the content of the universities you graduated from.
Quote
Don't start teaching this now please without reading:
"Is magnetic field due to an electric current a relativistic effect?" by Oleg D Jefimenko.
It shows it is impossible to interpret both the electric and the magnetic field as relativistic effects.
https://liceocuneo.it/oddenino/wp-content/uploads/sites/2/O.-D.-Jefimenko-Is-magnetic-field-due-to-an-electric-Eur.-J.-Phys.-17-180%E2%80%93182-1996.pdf
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 04/01/2025 10:19:51
current a relativistic effect?
Oleg D Jefimenko
Physics Department, West Virginia University, PO Box 6315, Morgantown, WV 26506, USA
Quote
Abstract. Several authors have asserted that the magneticPerhaps this explains why the explanation in the Veritasium video isn't widely taught in high schools and electrical engineering.
field due to an electric current is a relativistic effect. This
assertion is based on the fact that if one assumes that the
interaction between electric charges is entirely due to the
electric field, then the relativistic force transformation
equations make it imperative that a second field?the
magnetic field?is present when the charges are moving.
However, as is shown in this paper, if one assumes that the
interaction between moving electric charges is entirely due to
the magnetic field, then the same relativistic force
transformation equations make it imperative that a second
field?this time the electric field?is also present. Therefore,
since it is impossible to interpret both the electric and the
magnetic field as relativistic effects, one must conclude that
neither field is a relativistic effect. The true meaning of the
calculations demonstrating the alleged relativistic nature of
the magnetic field and of the calculations presented in this
paper is, therefore, that the idea of a single force field, be it
magnetic or electric, is incompatible with the relativity theory.
Post by: alancalverd on 04/01/2025 10:50:58
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 04/01/2025 11:06:24
Everything is relativistic. Physics just gets simpler if all the relative velocities are small compared with c.Drift velocity of electrons in copper wires, are small. Yet the force between two parallel current carrying wires can be significant.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 04/01/2025 11:55:12
According to relativistic explanation, electrons in first wire see positive charges in second wire length contracted, hence have higher charge density, and attract them. The wires are neutral in lab frame, thus both positive and negative charges have the same density.
Attractive forces on a wire depend on discrepancy of charge density in the other wire, which depend on length contraction by relative velocity of the charged particles. In this case, L=L0√(1-v^2/c^2)
Post by: Eternal Student on 04/01/2025 13:29:55
Drift velocity of electrons in copper wires, are small. Yet the force between two parallel current carrying wires can be significant.The force on each charge carrier is small BUT there are quite a lot of these you need to add together (approximately 1029 free electrons per cubic metre of copper wire).
According to relativistic explanation, positive charges on first wire see moving electrons in second wire length contracted,......This line of reasoning and many of the comments you copied-and-pasted from a YT video just a little earlier are all based on the notion that length contraction should apply to the free electrons just as it applies to the metal ions. So that in a lab frame where the metal ions were stationary, the electrons are then drifting, so they would have higher density due to length contraction and thus the wire should be of net negative charge. This was discussed in an earlier post (post # 406):
.....it is just not possible for the (current carrying) wire to be of overall neutral charge in every frame..... For some reason the frame of reference where the wire is overall neutrally charged is the usual one, the one where the wire (the positive metal atoms in it rather than the free electrons) is stationary....
NOTE: text in blue italics added to the original quote for clarity
I haven't read the original paper / discussion you cited by Jefimenko, who died in 2009. At a guess, this work is quite old and from a time when we were still sorting out the details of electromagnetism and relativity.
This sentence you quoted seems most relevant:
Quote
The true meaning of the calculations demonstrating the alleged relativistic nature of the magnetic field and of the calculations presented in this paper is, therefore, that the idea of a single force field, be it magnetic or electric, is incompatible with the relativity theory.
Indeed it is helpful to consider that there probably is only a combined electro-magnetic interaction and we cannot sensibly declare that a thing like an electric field (or a magnetic field) exists in isolation. For example, Maxwells equations where a separate E and B field appear, starts to look more like a "hack" or convenient way of performing calculations involving 2 fields described as ordinary 3-vector fields. 3-vectors are basically the ordinary vectors we might associate with Newtonian mechanics and 3D space. However, these 2 separate fields may very well be just fictitious artifiacts, useful for calculations but not representing anything that really exists.
It may be that the underlying nature of the interaction requires description using 4-vectors such as the Electromagnetic four-potential (Reference: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electromagnetic_four-potential ). Specifcally, it seems that the more important and presumably more physically real field that may exist is a single 4-vector valued field (rather than 2 seperate 3-vector valued fields).
About a year ago, the Aharanov-Bohm effect was discussed in this forum. Here it seems that something can be affected by an electromagnetic field even where the Electric and Magnetic field are both 0 valued. (Reference: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aharonov%E2%80%93Bohm_effect . There's also an old forum post which had some diagrams and animation that still seem to be working https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=86694.msg722832#msg722832 ). Anyway, this provides some evidence to support the idea that what physically exists and can exert physical effects may very well be a 4-vector valued field such as the Elctromagnetic four-potential rather than just 2 separate 3-vector valued fields like the E and B fields.
Best Wishes.
LATE EDITING: I re-read the old forum post and it may cause some confusion when people read a sentence that said ..... but back in the day it was important to imagine that magnetism (and possibly every other force) may demand that two fields existed throughout all of space.. That may seem to oppose the notion of needing to consider only ONE combined electro-magnetic object.
The old forum thread emphasised that considering only a magnetic field (a B field) is not enough, we also need to consider a magnetic vector potential field. That's why it was convenient to say we needed to consider 2 things (B field and a potential field). There would be these two things to consider. Note that both of these things (a B field and a magnetic vector potential field) are just ordinary 3-vector fields. We get the next layer of complexity by considering 4-vector fields.
In this post (this thread), you just need to be aware that we can recover ALL the information about EVERYTHING (the E field, the scalar electric potential field, the B field and the magnetic vector potential field) from just a single suitably defined 4-vector valued field we call the electromagnetic four-potential. So if we're looking for the most fundamental description of electro-magnetism then we may need to be considering this object. Specifically, the electromagnetic four-potential seems to be a sufficiently integrated object to describe all the electro-magnetic effects that I am aware of. Meanwhile a lesser set of objects such as:
(i) the B field on it's own.
or (ii) The B field plus a suitable potential for that B field,
would NOT be sufficient.
I hope that makes some sense. Let's go back to your ( @hamdani yusuf ) original question and paraphrase all of the above comments.
What is the Origin of magnetic force?
I don't know but maybe the entire notion of a magnetic field existing as some sort of thing on its own is just a bit fictitious.
(i) We seem to need to have a E field with it. We cannot adequately explain all effects with just a magnetic field.
(ii) We seem to need to consider potentials in addition to the forces.
(iii) Overall we need to have an object like the electro-magnetic four-potential field in existance. All of physics is just a model but considering the electromagnetic four-potential field as something that exists may be a good step closer to the truth rather than considering that we could attempt to identify and define a magnetic (or electric) field as something that could exist separately.
Post by: alancalverd on 04/01/2025 21:27:00
Drift velocity of electrons in copper wires, are small. Yet the force between two parallel current carrying wires can be significant.Because the magnetic field, and hence the force, depends on the current in the wire. Although the drift velocity is tiny, the number of electrons is enormous.
A current of 1 amp equals 1 coulomb, i.e 6.2 x 1018 electrons, per second.
According to relativistic explanation, electrons in first wire see positive charges in second wire length contracted, hence have higher charge density, and attract them.But since the drift velocity is of the order of 0.1 mm/s you can safely ignore any relativistic effect.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 06/01/2025 11:28:07
This constraint is based on the fact that electrically charged test particle doesn't seem to experience force when it's stationary to the current carrying wire, which implies that the wire is observed by the test particle as effectively electrically neutral, if we intend to perceive the electrodynamic effects on the test particle as purely electrostatic one.According to relativistic explanation, positive charges on first wire see moving electrons in second wire length contracted,......This line of reasoning and many of the comments you copied-and-pasted from a YT video just a little earlier are all based on the notion that length contraction should apply to the free electrons just as it applies to the metal ions. So that in a lab frame where the metal ions were stationary, the electrons are then drifting, so they would have higher density due to length contraction and thus the wire should be of net negative charge. This was discussed in an earlier post (post # 406):.....it is just not possible for the (current carrying) wire to be of overall neutral charge in every frame..... For some reason the frame of reference where the wire is overall neutrally charged is the usual one, the one where the wire (the positive metal atoms in it rather than the free electrons) is stationary....
NOTE: text in blue italics added to the original quote for clarity
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 06/01/2025 11:36:09
But since the drift velocity is of the order of 0.1 mm/s you can safely ignore any relativistic effect.Proponents of relativistic explanation for magnetic force disagreed, based on sheer number of free electrons in a wire, as described in Veritasium's video.
Post by: alancalverd on 07/01/2025 15:38:07
the wire is observed by the test particle as effectively electrically neutral, if we intend to perceive the electrodynamic effects on the test particle as purely electrostatic one.As noted by birds sitting on 400 kV grid wires. The field along the wire is negligible and the field perpendicular to the wire depends on the proximity of a surface at a different potential, so in an ideal case the E vector is negligible and the test charge has no inclination to move.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 08/01/2025 03:54:28
The birds themselves are usually electrically neutral, unlike the test particle.the wire is observed by the test particle as effectively electrically neutral, if we intend to perceive the electrodynamic effects on the test particle as purely electrostatic one.As noted by birds sitting on 400 kV grid wires. The field along the wire is negligible and the field perpendicular to the wire depends on the proximity of a surface at a different potential, so in an ideal case the E vector is negligible and the test charge has no inclination to move.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 08/01/2025 11:05:24
This article is closer to the original source I referred to.It seems like the Wikipedia article has been edited from when I referred to it in the OP.There was shown that electric current in the wire is produced by the stream of positively charged particles,"Conventional " current, in classical electromagnetism, flows from positive to negative. This gets the signs correct in Fleming, Ampere, Corkscrew and other Rules.
https://physics.weber.edu/schroeder/mrr/MRRhandout.pdf
Quote
Purcell Simplified : Magnetism, Radiation, and Relativity(https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=67448.0;attach=34538)
Anaheim,CA,14January1999
Dan Schroeder, Weber State University, http://physics.weber.edu/schroeder
Introductory Comments
-There's almost nothing original in this talk; Purcell gets all the credit.
-Don't use Purcell's book in an introductory course. If you're tempted, read the reviews in Amazon.com.)
- I'm not presenting a complete curriculum; this material would occupy only 3?5 class sessions.
- I have prepared a 39-page set of type set class notes, suitable for a calculus-based introductory course, which you can download from my website.
-This material could also be adapted to an algebra-based course, with some loss of rigor.
-Prerequisites:
1.An understanding of electrostatic fields, including either Gauss's law or equivalent rules for field lines.
2.Familiarity with basic magnetic phenomena, e.g., parallel currents attract.
3.The basics of special relativity, including reference frames, length contraction, and the cosmic speed limit but not including the Lorentz transformation equations or relativistic dynamics
Can you find the problems with this explanation?
Post by: alancalverd on 08/01/2025 22:22:38
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 09/01/2025 02:03:00
Insert a realistic value for v and see if you get the right answer.Is 1 mm/s realistic for you?
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 09/01/2025 02:16:50
(https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=67448.0;attach=34538)The model of stationary current carrying wire in the first sentence is questionable. It uses conventional current, as if we didn't know about electron yet.
Can you find the problems with this explanation?
Post by: alancalverd on 09/01/2025 10:33:47
Is 1 mm/s realistic for you?See reply #451 above.
It uses conventional current, as if we didn't know about electron yet.All classical electrodynamics uses conventional current. Some conductors use hole mobility, so the classic sign convention just gives us consistent models. And in my book 0.1 mm/s is a good as stationary compared with c.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 09/01/2025 12:01:30
The article I quoted disagrees.Is 1 mm/s realistic for you?See reply #451 above.It uses conventional current, as if we didn't know about electron yet.All classical electrodynamics uses conventional current. Some conductors use hole mobility, so the classic sign convention just gives us consistent models. And in my book 0.1 mm/s is a good as stationary compared with c.
(https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=67448.0;attach=34544)
Post by: alancalverd on 09/01/2025 15:39:43
The article I quoted disagrees.Then it was clearly written by someone who knows nothing of electrodynamics, or is unable to evaluate his own equations
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 10/01/2025 08:39:34
The article I quoted disagrees.Then it was clearly written by someone who knows nothing of electrodynamics, or is unable to evaluate his own equations
Maybe you can tell him his mistakes so they won't be more widespread.
Quote
https://physics.weber.edu/schroeder/
Daniel V. Schroeder
Department of Physics and Astronomy
Weber State University
1415 Edvalson Street, Dept. 2508
Ogden, UT 84408-2508
USA
Office: Tracy Hall Science Center 322
Phone: (801) 626-6048 (messages are checked infrequently)
email: dschroeder@Weber.edu
Biography
I was born in St. Louis, Missouri, and grew up in the suburb of Webster Groves. From 1980-84 I attended Carleton College, and from 1984-90 I was a graduate student at Stanford University, where I spent most of my time at the Stanford Linear Accelerator Center. I taught physics at Pomona College for one year and at Grinnell College for two years before coming to Weber State in 1993.
Post by: alancalverd on 10/01/2025 17:25:26
Next, is a failure to provide a numerical value for his derived magnetic force and compare it with experiment.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 11/01/2025 11:53:23
The most obvious mistake is using v to denote two different speeds.This can be simply solved by adding indices or subscripted letters.
Next, is a failure to provide a numerical value for his derived magnetic force and compare it with experiment.I asked chatGPT to calculate Lorentz force using relativistic method, it first derived it into classical Amperian equations, and only then it produced numerical values. Gemini somehow refused to provide numerical calculations and keep making excuses that classical formula is adequate to get accurate results, while keep insisting that relativistic explanation provides a deeper understanding of the underlying mechanism.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 11/01/2025 12:10:17
Post by: alancalverd on 11/01/2025 18:03:01
This can be simply solved by adding indices or subscripted letters.Which he didn't do.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 12/01/2025 00:43:01
He mentioned the reference frame right before the equation.This can be simply solved by adding indices or subscripted letters.Which he didn't do.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 12/01/2025 01:14:49
The results in the last experiment has a pattern.The next step is to conduct the experiment with other ionic solutions, like HCl and LiCl. I didn't use them because of their hazards, or economic consideration. But with the latest development, it becomes necessary to rule out some uncertainties.
The first graph shows the voltage measurement against the weight/charge ratio of the salts.
(https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php? action=dlattach;topic=67448.0;attach=34528)
The second graph shows the voltage measurement against the weight/charge ratio of the salts, when the charge of MgCl2 is "corrected" to make the graph linear.
(https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=67448.0;attach=34530)
The second graph shows the voltage measurement against the weight/charge ratio of the salts, when the molecular weight of MgCl2 is "corrected" to make the graph linear.
(https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=67448.0;attach=34532)
Perhaps I also need to experiment with different shapes and materials for the conductor below the ionic solutions.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 12/01/2025 06:08:09
Quote
I was always wondering whether the electromagnetic fields are real or just mathematical objects. This is how I understand it now after some years of studying physics.
And here's some comments.
Quote
I believe that magnetic "Lines of Force" are a nonsensical construction that emerged because the iron filings used to explore magnetic fields arranged themselves into lines. The field is clearly continuous, and any lines made visible from iron filings are an emergent property of iron filings sprinkled onto the paper over a bar magnet. All this should be obvious, but one still runs across people that speak of "lines" as if they were a fundamental part of nature.
Quote
Electro-Maganetic fields are as real as gravity! Math is just a language to describe reality. They are both testable and so are scientific realities.
Quote
Magnetic field lines are no more real than contour lines on a map or isobars on a weather chart.
Magnetic field lines are drawn in line with the field gradient, whereas the others I mentioned are perpendicular to their gradients.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 12/01/2025 07:12:06
Quote
Excellent presentation. Thanks. It seems to me that there's another conundrum. I read some where that the vector cross product does not exist in any randomly chosen number of dimensions. It does exist in 3 dimensions and in 7 dimensions. This means that you can't imagine that there are 4 dimensions of space because maxwell's equations would not work. But you can imagine that there are 7. The conundrum will be, however, if the 7 dimensional meaning of cross product is the same as the 3+1d version if we are trapped in a 3+1d brane in 7+1d space. But it's it the same? If not, that could eliminate the possibility that we live in universe with a higher number of dimensions - wouldn't it?
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 14/01/2025 06:42:01
Quote
This equipment shows the electromagnetic force acting on two parallel current carrying wires. When the currents are in the same direction, there is an attraction force between the two wires. When the currents are in the opposite direction, there is a repulsion force between the two wires. The force is caused by the interaction of the circular magnetic field produced by each wire.
This setup is interesting. It seems sensitive enough to show small force between the wires. I think I'll try to replicate this experiment to investigate an idea from the comment section in another video explaining magnetism as a relativistic effect.
Quote
If the conductor is shielded with a conducting foil eg. Aluminum, your theory does not work because electric charges do not interact thru the shield. But the constant magnetic field passes thru the non magnetic shield as every pupil knows. How comes that?
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 14/01/2025 13:59:34
Physics Demo -- Jumping Ring
Quote
A solid metal ring is placed on an iron core whose base is wrapped in wire. When DC current is passed through the wire, a magnetic field is formed in the iron core. This sudden magnetic field induces a current in the metal ring, which in turn creates another magnetic field that opposes the original field. This causes the ring to briefly jump upwards.Some discussion in the comments section.
If there is a cut in the ring, it cannot form current inside it, and thus will not jump.
When the ring is cooled in liquid nitrogen, the resistance of the metal is lowered, allowing more current to flow. This lets the ring jump higher. However, the magnetic field curves away at the top of the iron coil, meaning with DC power, the ring will never fly off the top.
When AC current is passed through the wire, the ring flies off the top of the iron core. This is due to the fact that the current lags the emf by 90 degrees in inductors (which is what we have here). This yields forces on the ring that are always pointing upwards, even as the current oscillates.
Quote
No, the current inducted in the ring is always the opposite direction of the current in the coil, so the magnetic field of the ring always opposes the iron core's, and always is repelled. Think of the AC current demo, the current's direction is switching 60 times a second, but the ring only moves away from the coil.
Quote
well its not exactly accurate although close. When dc is connected you have an initial changing magnetic field- as the dc current rapidly changes from zero to full current flow, this change in magnetic field induces current in the ring and it jumps. But the dc current reaches a peak and is then steady non changing current, therefor can no longer induce current in the ring. In the ac current, the magnetic field is constantly changing, therefor current constantly induced in the ring, so keeps goin
What's the relativistic version of this experiment?
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 01/04/2025 02:00:59
Quote
Physics Ninja calculates the magnetic field produced by a spinning disk of charge Q. The charge is uniformly spread on the surface of the disk and the disk spins at a constant angular frequency omega. The exact results is found and the limit of the result is evaluated for a point far from the disk.Has anyone done the experiment?
Post by: alancalverd on 01/04/2025 08:13:51
Arago's rotations is an observable magnetic phenomenon that involves the interactions between a magnetized needle and a moving metal disk. The effect was discovered by Fran?ois Arago in 1824. At the time of their discovery, Arago's rotations were surprising effects that were difficult to explain. In 1831, Michael Faraday introduced the theory of electromagnetic induction, which explained how the effects happen in detail.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 03/04/2025 09:22:46
Quote
Had a real experiment ever been done to demonstrate and calculate the magnetic field of a rotating charged disk? Or only thought experiments?It seems like someone else has also found the same problem. Perhaps I can help them out while also satisfy my own curiosity. I'm open to suggestions. What's your ideas to show the effects unambiguously while still economically feasible.
Asked 1 year, 9 months ago
Modified 1 year, 9 months ago
Viewed 125 times
I have been trying to find if a real experiment has ever been done to prove and calculate the magnetic field of a rotating charged disk, whether it's a conducting or a non-conducting charged disk. All I found on Google and YouTube are just thought experiments, so please if anyone had come across an actual experiment let me know.
https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/768930/had-a-real-experiment-ever-been-done-to-demonstrate-and-calculate-the-magnetic-f
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 03/04/2025 10:35:16
From Wikipedia:This is more like Eddy current braking, but viewed in rotating reference frame.
Arago's rotations is an observable magnetic phenomenon that involves the interactions between a magnetized needle and a moving metal disk. The effect was discovered by Fran?ois Arago in 1824. At the time of their discovery, Arago's rotations were surprising effects that were difficult to explain. In 1831, Michael Faraday introduced the theory of electromagnetic induction, which explained how the effects happen in detail.
Quote
5K20.42 Magnetic Induction Disk (Arago's Rotations)
A pulley wheel turns a copper disc under a plastic box which rotates a magnet above.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 03/04/2025 10:37:33
Arago's Scheibe,Disk
Quote
In 1825, the French astronomer and physicist Dominique Fran?ois Jean Arago (1786-1853) observed that if a horizontal magnetic needle is suspended above a copper disc and the disc is rotated around the vertical axis, the needle starts to rotate in the same direction. In order to carry out this classical experiment, a number of constructions have been conceived and built over the past almost 200 years. Now I was able to get hold of such a historical device. I estimate that it was built between 1850 and 1880 and is made of solid walnut and brass. In addition to the two copper discs, there was certainly a third one, one with radial slots. Also the glass disc and the magnetic needle were missing and were copied.
With the help of a crank, a conical friction gear is driven which brings the rotation into a vertical axis and simultaneously increases the speed. The friction wheel on the crank side is made of walnut wood and the friction surface is covered with chamois leather. Several, thick leather disks, which are tapered, form the second friction wheel which drives a turntable via a vertical shaft. This can be covered with one of the two existing copper discs. Above this turntable and thus above the copper disc a round glass disc is fixed in a brass ring which has the purpose to demonstrate that no air friction or similar causes the magnetic needle to rotate. Furthermore, the glass plate carries a small tripod on which the magnetic needle rests rotatably.
The physical effect is no longer spectacular from today's point of view, but at the time of its discovery it certainly caused smoking heads, because a non-magnetic material was able to send force effects through a glass pane. The fact that these are eddy currents in copper, i.e. induction, was only discovered a few years later. The proof was achieved by using radial or circular concentric slits instead of a solid copper disc. The eddy currents are prevented from spreading through these slits; thus the associated magnetic field can no longer attain the strength of a solid disc. Consequently, the magnetic needle remains almost at rest.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 03/04/2025 10:50:16
The biggest challenge here is to separate electrostatic force from electrodynamic force.QuotePhysics Ninja calculates the magnetic field produced by a spinning disk of charge Q. The charge is uniformly spread on the surface of the disk and the disk spins at a constant angular frequency omega. The exact results is found and the limit of the result is evaluated for a point far from the disk.Has anyone done the experiment?
Post by: alancalverd on 03/04/2025 11:30:19
Quote
........The proof was achieved by using radial or circular concentric slits instead of a solid copper disc. The eddy currents are prevented from spreading through these slits; thus the associated magnetic field can no longer attain the strength of a solid disc. Consequently, the magnetic needle remains almost at rest.
Thus proving that it is not an electrostatic effect. Very clever!
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 04/04/2025 02:37:02
It proves that radial current in the spinning disc is needed to produce measurable force to the magnet. The disc is electrically neutral.Quote........The proof was achieved by using radial or circular concentric slits instead of a solid copper disc. The eddy currents are prevented from spreading through these slits; thus the associated magnetic field can no longer attain the strength of a solid disc. Consequently, the magnetic needle remains almost at rest.
Thus proving that it is not an electrostatic effect. Very clever!
While in the video by physics ninja, the magnetic field is produced by purely tangential current of electric charges moving around the axis. But to do this, the disc must be electrically charged.
Post by: alancalverd on 04/04/2025 15:17:21
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 06/04/2025 17:09:04
radial current = flow of charge.What's tangential current?
Why it doesn't produce magnetic force in the experiment?
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 16/04/2025 07:43:24
Is there an experiment video demonstrating the generation of magnetic field by spinning an electrically charged disk?
After searching 15 web pages, here's its answer.
Quote
I couldn't find a specific experiment video that directly demonstrates the generation of a magnetic field by spinning an electrically charged disk, based on available information and the provided search results. However, I can explain why such a video might be rare, describe the theoretical basis for the experiment, and point you toward related resources or experiments that come close. I'll also address the context of your previous questions about planetary precession and angular momentum to ensure the response is cohesive.
.....
Why Specific Videos Are Hard to Find
Experimental Challenges:
Small Magnetic Field: Even with a highly charged disk (e.g., 20 pF at 10 kV, yielding 2 μC) spinning at 100 Hz, the resulting current is small (~0.2 mA), producing a weak magnetic field that requires sensitive detectors.
Charge Retention: Maintaining a stable charge on a rapidly spinning disk is difficult due to leakage or discharge, especially in air. Vacuum setups or specialized materials are needed.
Practicality: The experiment is less common in educational settings because simpler demonstrations (e.g., current-carrying wires or solenoids) illustrate the same principles more effectively.
Historical Context:
The concept was experimentally verified by Henry Rowland in 1878, who measured the magnetic field of a rotating charged disk to confirm that moving charges produce magnetic fields. This experiment is rarely replicated today due to its complexity and the reliability of electromagnetic theory.
Modern experiments focus on more practical or advanced applications, like dynamos or magnetic resonance, rather than revisiting this fundamental demonstration.
Search Limitations:
The search results provided don't include a direct video of this experiment. While there are references to related experiments (e.g., Faraday's disk, dynamo experiments, or rotating charged rings), none specifically match the charged disk setup.
Online platforms like YouTube may have relevant content, but no specific video was identified in the results or general web knowledge up to April 16, 2025.
The same question was asked to Meta AI, and this is its answer.
Quote
I couldn't find any videos showing an experiment with a spinning electrically charged disk generating a magnetic field. Would you like to try searching with different keywords or phrasing? I'm here to help you find the content you're looking for!
It seems like an opportunity for us to fill the research gap by recording our own experimental video.
Post by: alancalverd on 16/04/2025 10:11:19
Quote
Experimental Challenges:
Small Magnetic Field: Even with a highly charged disk (e.g., 20 pF at 10 kV, yielding 2 μC) spinning at 100 Hz, the resulting current is small (~0.2 mA), producing a weak magnetic field that requires sensitive detectors.
Says it all. There is a huge difference between electrostatics and electrodynamics experiments, but you are welcome to try.
Quote
The concept was experimentally verified by Henry Rowland in 1878, who measured the magnetic field of a rotating charged disk to confirm that moving charges produce magnetic fields. This experiment is rarely replicated today due to its complexity and the reliability of electromagnetic theory.
https://dspace.mit.edu/bitstream/handle/1721.1/152092/25215455-MIT.pdf?sequence=1 is an account of a "recent" (1970) Rowland Disc experiment, but you may find a better illustration in an old physics textbook. I'm intrigued and would like to find
Rowland's apparatus or a copy - there must be one in a museum somewhere!
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 24/04/2025 14:59:00
Quote
The magnetic field sensor (magnetometer) in a typical smartphone is quite sensitive for consumer applications, though not as precise as scientific instruments. Here's a breakdown:
Typical Sensitivity and Specs:
Resolution: ~0.1 to 1 microtesla (?T)
Full-scale range: Usually around ?50 to ?1000 ?T
Earth?s magnetic field: ~25 to 65 ?T depending on location, so smartphone sensors are designed to easily detect that range.
Key Points:
They can detect changes in magnetic fields from small magnets, metal objects, and even nearby wires with current.
They're not sensitive enough to detect extremely weak magnetic fields, like brain waves or the magnetic field from a single wire unless it's carrying significant current.
Interference from nearby electronics or magnets can affect accuracy.
Modern magnetometers are typically 3-axis (detect X, Y, Z directions).
Use cases in phones:
Compass functionality
Metal detectors (some apps use it)
Magnetic anomaly detection
Orientation and navigation support
If you're thinking of detecting something specific (like an electron beam?s field, or hidden wiring, etc.), I can help estimate whether a phone magnetometer would be sufficient. Want to test a specific field strength or setup?
Post by: alancalverd on 24/04/2025 23:09:56
Quote
Interference from nearby electronics or magnets can affect accuracy.
and spot bullshit. What, pray, is a "significant" current?
Quote
If you're thinking of detecting something specific (like an electron beam?s field, or hidden wiring, etc.), I can help estimate whether a phone magnetometer would be sufficient. Want to test a specific field strength or setup?
in other words, if you tell ChatGPT the answer, it will tell you the answer. The ultimate management consultant!
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 01/05/2025 22:59:04
Anyone else would have checked the published specification of a phone.The current in earth outer core which produces geodynamo effect.QuoteInterference from nearby electronics or magnets can affect accuracy.
and spot bullshit. What, pray, is a "significant" current?QuoteIf you're thinking of detecting something specific (like an electron beam?s field, or hidden wiring, etc.), I can help estimate whether a phone magnetometer would be sufficient. Want to test a specific field strength or setup?
in other words, if you tell ChatGPT the answer, it will tell you the answer. The ultimate management consultant!
Also, electrical currents in the ionosphere and magnetosphere.
Some electronics like welding machine, EV charger, and battery for rooftop solar cells use significant electric current which produce measurable magnetic field.
ChatGPT doesn't always agree with what you tell it.
Post by: alancalverd on 02/05/2025 22:09:50
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 12/05/2025 12:58:37
Quote
In this video I show you how the field shifts when magnets are rotated with a colour gradient magnetic viewing film.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 12/05/2025 13:00:56
Quote
This is the second video where I show you how the field shifts when magnets are rotated with a colour gradient magnetic viewing film.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 31/08/2025 07:32:34
Quote
I think the experiment to measure magnetic force between a pair of parallel solenoids can be done easily. Let's find out.
We?re all taught that moving charges create magnetic fields.
But 200 years ago, Andr?-Marie Amp?re discovered something deeper: a direct force law between currents ? one that explained both attraction and repulsion without invoking fields at all.
James Clerk Maxwell called it ?one of the most brilliant achievements in science.?
And yet, within a few decades, it was forgotten ? replaced by the field-based picture of Faraday, Grassmann, Neumann, Lorentz, and finally Maxwell?s own equations.
So what exactly did Amp?re see in his experiments?
Why did physics turn its back on it?
And what would it mean if he ? and later defenders like Wilhelm Weber, Andr? Assis, and Peter & Neal Graneau ? were right?