[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

Here is the visualization of the second experiment, which start from the first as described before. If the charged particle is stationary to the wire, no magnetic force is received.



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



From the picture above, the electrons inside the wire move to the left with speed v, but particle q doesn't receive magnetic force.
Now if the wire is moved to the right with speed v, the speed of electrons becomes 0, while the speed of the metal atoms = v. It is shown that magnetic force F is produced downward.



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



Here we can conclude that electron's movement is not responded by the particle, while atom's movement produces magnetic force to the particle. It seems that for a long time we had missed the difference between atoms and free electrons which cause electric current and produce magnetic force.
For the second experiment, we will study the effect of the movement of charged particles inside a conductor (or convector) toward the test particle. We will study the hypothesis that magnetic force is not only affected by the magnitude of electric charge that moves inside a conductor (or convector), but also affected by the mass of the particle.
Electric current in a copper wire is produced by the flow of electrons inside. The charge and mass of electrons are always the same, so we need some other particles as electric current producers to get reference. For that we will replace the conductor by a hose filled by electrolyte solution that contains ions, since ions are also electrically charged and have various masses. Some of electrolytic solutions that will be used are NaCl, H2SO4, HCl, CuSO4, FeCl3.

We can make a table showing the force experienced by the stationary test particle in various velocities of both positive and negative particles in the wire. I'll use standard Lorentz force to calculate the force, which states that
F = B.q.v
Where B is proportional to electric current in the wire, which depends on velocity difference between positive and negative particles in the wire.
v represents the velocity difference between the test particle and the wire. Since the test particle is stationary, it's merely determined by the velocity of positive particles in the wire.
It's assumed that all positive particles have uniform velocity. Negative particle has uniform velocity as well.

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

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

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

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

There are some patterns identified in the third table.

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

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

There are more positive values than negative values. Thus if the velocities of particles in the wire are random, it's more likely for the test particle to be pushed away.

When the electrons in the wire are kept stationary, the Lorentz force to the test particle is proportional to the square of wire's speed.

Can these patterns be explained using length contraction and time dilation?

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

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.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

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.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

There are many YouTube videos about MHD. But this one stands out for its clarity and some quantitative data.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

Here's another video from Fermilab explaining magnetism using special theory of relativity.

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.

[Bored chemist]

Magnetism is a fundamentally quantum phenomenon.
Maxwell's equations aren't.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

Magnetism is a fundamentally quantum phenomenon.
Maxwell's equations aren't.

Yet we can still find someone said that Maxwell's equations can describe macroscopic electromagnetic phenomena completely.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

Here's another short experiment showing electromagnetic force. From the response shown by the large magnet, can we explain how the current carrying wire exerts force on it?

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

https://www.academia.edu/resource/work/43077909
Michael Faraday?s Electrogravity
By AndrewN. Adler

The search for a relation between electricity and gravity comprised one of Michael
Faraday?s last research undertakings.[1] During his first period of experimentation, Faraday himself deemed his chances of success very slim.[2] His colleagues almost unanimously ignored or criticized his theoretical ruminations on the subject, and Faraday openly courted hostility by espousing them. When his results of 1849 yielded nothing useful, Faraday published them anyway, writing that, ?[The negative results] do not shake my strong feeling of the existence of a relation between gravity and electricity, though they give no proof that such a relation exists.?[3] In 1855, Faraday lamented, ?I suppose that nobody will accept the idea [of gravity interconversion with electricity] as possible.?[4] Yet, four years later, he executed another round of electrogravity investigations. These also failed. Faraday again sought publication, but this time, he was prevailed upon to withdraw his paper.

Regarding his gravity researches, Faraday declared, ?Let the imagination go, guiding it
by judgment and principles, but holding it in and directing it by experiment.?[9] Yet as noted above, for this scientist some ?principles? rest upon absolute truth.[10] Neither negative experiments nor conflicting theories can disprove such ?principles.? A tension thus resides in Faraday?s method, although neither he nor scholars of his work necessarily have admitted as much.
Of course, Faraday was motivated, too, by the prospect that a successful unification
would revolutionize science. As he confessed one day in 1849: It was almost with a feeling ofawe that I went to work, for if the hope should prove well
founded, how great and mighty and sublime in its hitherto unchangeable character is the force I am trying to deal with, and how large may be the new domain of knowledge that may be opened up to the mind ofman.[11] Other scientists seeking some grand synthesis must have shared this ?feeling of awe.? Thus, even Einstein was driven to spend years in an endeavor similar to Faraday?s; yet electrogravity eluded him as well.

Efforts to unify electricity and gravity have been done for a long time. But no one can come up with a convincing result yet. So I guess It won't be too embarrassing if I also fail.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

There are more positive values than negative values. Thus if the velocities of particles in the wire are random, it's more likely for the test particle to be pushed away.

When the electrons in the wire are kept stationary, the Lorentz force to the test particle is proportional to the square of wire's speed.

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

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

In this video Paul Andersen shows you how to develop and use models in a mini-lesson on modeling phenomena.  Two examples are included in the video and two additional examples are included in the linked thinking slides. 

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

This progression is based on the Science and Engineering Practices elements from the NRC document A Framework for K-12 Science Education.  ?Develop a model to describe a phenomena.?
Source:  https://www.nextgenscience.org/

It shows how to develop a scientific model in a systematic way, which would be useful in designing our experiment.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

I think I can utilize the high voltage generator from my other thread to produce observable electrostatic force from its electric charges.
By adding an impedance matching transformer, the induction heater I used in my other thread might produce strong enough ionic current.
A right combination of them might allow me to reproduce the table of Lorentz force by moving electric charges to a stationary test particle.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

The video explains why light has momentum even without mass.

[alancalverd]

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.

[Eternal Student]

Hi.

The video explains why light has momentum even without mass.

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

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

There is another minor issue:
    At about time index 16:45  the video asserts  F_E . 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.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

It's a bit suspicious that Maxwell didn't realize that his equations can't make sense of magnetism, as asserted in the beginning of the video.

Why should they? His equations predict the propagation of electromagnetic waves, nothing else. You mighty as well be suspicious than an engineer  built a bridge but didn't make sense of the shear strength of steel.

Scientists have different concerns than engineers.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

It seems like Ampere had done many experiments and came up with conclusions which were not compatible with contemporary physics understandings of his time.

It's a long video discussing about the history of scientific progress which are not widely known by common people.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

Here's the more common depiction of Ampere's contribution to the understanding of electromagnetism.

At 7:10 it said, Ampere suspected that electric current created magnetic field around the conductor.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

I'm interested to test the claims in this video.

Exx-020 Homopolar Motor Torque Mystery

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.