Science: questions and answers

[Sparky]

Free electrons? Moving? What would cause them to move? A difference of potential? Wouldn't any movement of electrons to equalize potential quickly do just that? Then, at that point, what would cause electrons to move?

[Dotini]

Is there constant movement of free electrons in isolated magnetized materials and that's why they're magnetic? I remember as a child experimenting with using a simple magnet to magnetize metals by simply moving the magnet in close but non-touching circles around the metal object numerous times. Does this rotation action of the magnet start the free electrons moving in the other material, thus creating the magnetic field in the previously non-magnetized metal?

In magnets, the electrons of atoms are lined up so that they are all spinning in the same direction. This group of aligned atoms is called a magnetic domain. In nonmagnetic materials the electrons are oriented in different directions. Some materials, such as pieces of iron, can be temporarily magnetized with a bar magnet, which can line up the domains in the same direction. In this activity you will use a bar magnet to magnetize an iron nail so it becomes a temporary magnet.
http://www.education.com/study-help/art ... ng-metals/

[Maxwell Jennings]

Thanks for the information. The reason I asked is based on the EU premise stated often here that electrical currents are responsible for magnetic fields or the presence of magnetic fields requires electrical current (?), but not so with simple magnets, i.e. it's simply due to electron alignment/spin rotation in that case. I'm just a novice interested in understanding the whole EU picture.

[DustyDevil]

Thanks for the information. The reason I asked is based on the EU premise stated often here that electrical currents are responsible for magnetic fields or the presence of magnetic fields requires electrical current (?), but not so with simple magnets, i.e. it's simply due to electron alignment/spin rotation in that case. I'm just a novice interested in understanding the whole EU picture.

Here's the link to a physics course called "Electromagnetism and Optics: An introductory course" by Professor Richard Fitzpatrick of the University of Texas at Austin:

http://farside.ph.utexas.edu/teaching/3 ... tures.html

This is what Professor Fitzpatrick wrote on this topic in his chapter called "Origin of Permanent Magnetism":

Well, atoms consist of negatively charged electrons in orbit around positively charged nuclei. A moving electric charge constitutes an electric current, so there must be a current associated with every electron in an atom. In most atoms, these currents cancel one another out, so that the atom carries zero net current. However, in the atoms of ferromagnetic materials (i.e., iron, cobalt, and nickel) this cancellation is not complete, so these atoms do carry a net current. Usually, the atomic currents are all jumbled up (i.e., they are not aligned in any particular plane) so that they average to zero on a macroscopic scale. However, if a ferromagnetic material is placed in a strong magnetic field then the currents circulating in each atom become aligned such that they flow predominately in the plane perpendicular to the field. In this situation, the currents can combine together to form a macroscopic magnetic field which reinforces the alignment field. In some ferromagnetic materials, the atomic currents remain aligned after the alignment field is switched off, so the macroscopic field generated by these currents also remains. We call such materials permanent magnets.

In conclusion, all magnetic fields encountered in nature are generated by circulating currents. There is no fundamental difference between the fields generated by permanent magnets and those generated by currents flowing around conventional electric circuits. In the former, case the currents which generate the fields circulate on the atomic scale, whereas, in the latter case, the currents circulate on a macroscopic scale (i.e., the scale of the circuit).

For your convenience, here's the direct link to this chapter:

http://farside.ph.utexas.edu/teaching/3 ... ode77.html

DD

[whitenightf3]

I ask because elsewhere on the site I saw photos of huge spirals and now we have physicist Nassim Haramein saying the traditional view of the earth going around the sun is wrong as taught in schools:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-NH5yK3ZN54

[Sparky]

physicist Nassim Haramein saying the traditional view of the earth going around the sun is wrong

a doctorate degree says nothing about one's sanity nor ability to reason, using one's training...the internet is full of nut job theories....and each one has an element of provable fact, which is usually terribly distorted...

And observing movement is dependent on where the observer is.
the sun may be moving through the universe, or the universe may be moving past the sun...

[fosborn_]

I ask because elsewhere on the site I saw photos of huge spirals and now we have physicist Nassim Haramein saying the traditional view of the earth going around the sun is wrong as taught in schools:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-NH5yK3ZN54

Is the Sun static or motionless?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_He ... uble_Stars

Herschel's telescopes
From studying the proper motion of stars, he was the first to realize that the solar system is moving through space, and he determined the approximate direction of that movement .

Proper motion; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proper_motion

So sense the Sun has proper motion toward the star Vega, and the planets orbit the sun. Corkscrew motion seems to describe it okay to me.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_apex

reason for edit; add a link

[whitenightf3]

So sense the Sun has proper motion toward the star Vega, and the planets orbit the sun. Corkscrew motion seems to describe it okay to me.

Yes cork screw motion is what Haramein is getting at seems to make more sense in a dynamic universe.

[Siggy_G]

If viewed from a distance and plotting the paths, the objects within the solar system will form cork screw motions through space. But viewed as an isolated system (that is affected by mutual external forces), the planets rotate around the Sun, so I don't think the cork screw rendering falsifies anything in regards to the established view of the solar system motions. There's no reason why the Sun, or the Earth for that matter, should be standing still (compared to what?) when everything else is in the universe is dynamic.

[mathew]

The Sun is not static-

http://www.binaryresearchinstitute.org/

[Sparky]

There's no reason why the Sun, or the Earth for that matter, should be standing still (compared to what?)

exactly...excellent point...

when everything else in the universe is dynamic.

it appears to be .. but, what if----

(having a relapse into quantum theory).

[fosborn_]

There's no reason why the Sun, or the Earth for that matter, should be standing still (compared to what?) when everything else is in the universe is dynamic.

Is this really fair to the OP? I took the reference to be the stellar neighborhood. Or even to be within the Milkyway.
This board is about astronomy isn't it? Maybe a little more focus on the basics would help us keep our prospective IMO.
Sorry, reading a book; Parallax, the race to measure the cosmos by Alan Hirsfeld
So I have found a new soap box to stand on.

Sparky » exactly...excellent point...
it appears to be .. but, what if----

See what happens.

[Sparky]

I ask because elsewhere on the site I saw photos of huge spirals and now we have physicist Nassim Haramein saying the traditional view of the earth going around the sun is wrong as taught in schools:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-NH5yK3ZN54

Is the Sun static or motionless?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_He ... uble_Stars

Herschel's telescopes
From studying the proper motion of stars, he was the first to realize that the solar system is moving through space, and he determined the approximate direction of that movement .

Proper motion; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proper_motion

So sense the Sun has proper motion toward the star Vega, and the planets orbit the sun. Corkscrew motion seems to describe it okay to me.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_apex

reason for edit; add a link

Excellent, an informative, and pretty much comprehensive post.

Sparky »

exactly...excellent point...
it appears to be .. but, what if----

Fosborn,

"See what happens."

Yes, sorry...i conflated relative celestial movements with quantum theory, intrinsic uncertainty, etc....

It won't happen again...

[whitenightf3]

Hi I just came across this guy Ivan Stein and he is talking about rotation, in relationship, to both galaxies and the earth. I think this would interest those who think the universe is a electrical entity, so check this out because I would like to know what you make of the photo he shows us during his talk on the clip below. From reading Thunderbolts of The gods I know that Wallace Thornhill has done a lot of research on Catastrophism and that is what Stein's overall talk is all about 2012 and he seems to think we are heading into a Ice Age. I would like to know what your thoughts are on the subject:


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EXPWYPD- ... ature=fvwp

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mINIBGGorEA&NR=1

Have to say i think his lecture would be of interest to Talbot and Thornhill he seems to be talking on the same wavelenght.