[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

Homopolar motor Electric conducibility with mercury

This video shows contrary to the claim in previous post.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

Liquid Mercury vortex in a magnetic field

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.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

Faraday motor using salt water.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

Plasma seems to experience the same effect.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

Most demonstation videos of homopolar motor only show that electric current across a magnetic field can cause angular motion, but they don't clearly show the conservation of angular momentum. That's what I intend to show in my next experiments.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

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

\What happened when you used them?

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

Any news?

Thanks for the reminder.

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

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

My preliminary results look promising. I need to modify the experimental setup quite significantly. It'll take a while to produce conclusive results. And yet more time will be needed to record, edit, and upload the video. So please have some patience.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

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.



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

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

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

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

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

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

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

To measure the generated magnetic force to test particle, an empty metal can is inserted below each container. The electrons in the can metal will be attracted by the force, which would produce some positive potential at the bottom of the cans. Different types of solution would produce different strength of magnetic force, which translates to potential difference at the bottom of the cans. A digital Voltmeter with 0.1 mV precision should be able to read it.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

In my preliminary experiment, I used two polypropylene boxes designed for microwave oven. The volume is stated at 750 mL. At the bottom, the size is around 14x9 cm, while at the top, it's around 16x11 cm. The height is 5.5 cm.

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

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

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

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

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

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

I'm ordering other kind of salts to make comparison, which are MgCl2 and KCl. They are chosen for being non-hazardous substances, and affordable price tags. Having the same negative ions also help reducing the number of variables affecting the results.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

If confirmed by subsequent experiments, my hypothesis would have profound impacts on current theories of physics. Our understanding of magnetic force would be fundamentally changed. Electricity and magnetism would no longer be seen as the different sides of the same coin. Magnetism won't be seen as simply Electricity in motion anymore. Instead, it would be seen as a combination between electricity and gravity.
The electrohydodynamic balance I used here might be regarded as monumental as Foucault pendulum. It's simple in construction, but powerful in providing evidence of the things that has been suspected for a long time.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

Here's the sketch of the experimental setup. I think this is so simple that anyone can replicate it.


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.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

What's the best way to understand gravity?

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]

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?

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

Veritasium's video below say that gravity is not a force, contrary to what most people were taught in school.

Why Gravity is NOT a Force

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

Huge thanks to Prof. Geraint Lewis for hours of consulting on this video so I could get these ideas straight in my own brain. Check out his YouTube channel: https://ve42.co/gfl or his books: https://ve42.co/GFLbooks

Here's a question I've seen a lot in comments: OK, I'm accelerating up but then shouldn't someone on the other side of the globe fall off? No, here's why:
Either watch again from 8:28 or read what I've written below...

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

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

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

The traditional definition of acceleration is something changing its velocity.

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

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

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

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

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

Gravity is not a force. But what does that mean?

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

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

While the video below is a countering argument.

Gravity is a Force.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

Here's another competing idea.

Why General Relativity (and Newton's Laws) tell us The Sky is Falling Up

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!

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

The Bucket Experiment is one of the most important tools to understand gravity.

Newton vs. Mach: The Bucket Experiment

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

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

A thought about Mach principle.

How I rediscovered Mach's Principle

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

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

How to Explain G - Mach's Principle and Variable Speed of Light

Maybe the most intriguing consequence of Einstein's 1911 variable speed of light approach to general relativity.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

Basically, the other videos I've posted above are preamble for this one.

The Most Fundamental Problem of Gravity is Solved

If you are familiar with Newton's bucket, you may skip to 6:10.
Until recently, I had not realized the flash of genius of Dennis Sciama who linked inertia and gravity in a Machain way already in 1953.

I think it's a typo, he should write Machian instead of Machain.

I think the idea is great. I wonder why it's not widely taught, or at least introduced in school.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

This video just came out in my subscription list. It's a happy coincidence.

Magnets at the LIMITS of Scientific Knowledge

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.