Magnetism

[seasmith]

Questions-

Is Magnetism a thing? No. Is Electricity a thing? No. Is Charge a thing? Pretty much.

There are good folks on this forum attempting to attribute the opposite relative Motions of ‘charge-things’ to magnetism, (and so by direct inference to electricity). This is not productive.

The charge(d) things’ opposing motions can be directly observed by any casual observer, and is not in question here. The question is what is causing the opposition. Taking the relative opposing motions as given, the assumption may be made here that electric and magnetic fluxes are opposing modes of propagation. One is of charge dispersion, the other of charge return. Thus charge cycles and recycles and endures over time.

This propagation of magnetic and electric fluctuations we trace out routinely on paper and oscilloscope, so we know charge, like our observation, requires duration.

implicit duality

North/south poles and plus/minus designations merely represent where in the circuit one places a ~ground state, ie charge equilibrium; andor, a ~generator, ie chargefield.

[Michael V]

seasmith,

Is Magnetism a thing? No. Is Electricity a thing? No. Is Charge a thing? Pretty much.

Magnetism is an effect, Electricity is an effect, both are associated with the coherent emission of aligned free-electrons. Charge is the kinetic emission of quantum aether particles from electrons and protons.

Taking the relative opposing motions as given, the assumption may be made here that electric and magnetic fluxes are opposing modes of propagation. One is of charge dispersion, the other of charge return. Thus charge cycles and recycles and endures over time.

On the basis of the coherent emission of free-electrons, electric and magnetic fluxes are essentially the same thing. The differences occur from the alignment pattern of the free-electrons and their spatial and confinement circumstances.

I hope you're not suggesting that the charge goes out of one pole curves round and goes back in the other pole. Next you'll be saying that the magnetic field is curved, and that particular joke is rather too old and worn-out.

The magnetic field of a bar magnet is caused by the coherent emission of charge particles away from the magnet in straight lines at the speed of c, never ever to return.

North/south poles and plus/minus designations merely represent where in the circuit one places a ~ground state, ie charge equilibrium; and or, a ~generator, ie charge field.

Magnets, with North/South poles, do not require a circuit. Electricity does not require a circuit. Magnetism is not circulatory. What is the significance to you of "a circuit"?

What is a ground state? Can you be more detailed please?

What do you mean by "charge equilibrium"?

Michael

[Sparky]

Would someone please just explain what is happening with my doggy magnets? One orientation they come together, and the in the opposite they push away and spin around to come together.

[seasmith]

MV wrote:

“Charge is the kinetic emission of quantum aether particles from electrons and protons.”
“… charge particles [~fly] away from the magnet in straight lines at the speed of c, never ever to return.”

You’ve managed to localize charge in the first line, then banish it to the great cosmic unknowns in the last. We cannot at present but speculate on the ends or origins of charge at any cosmic antipodes;
however locally it is easier to observe by it’s EM/ES, molecular, photonic and possibly gravitic effects.
Here we will define local as the terra-magnetosphere on a trajectory within the heliosphere, and with both on trajectory through our local galactic matrix, of which we know little other than that the emissions of Terra and Sol interact continually with the eemmissions and flows of the Milky Way (and ad infinitum).

Local ground, the one we drive large copper rods into for dumping of excess local charge, is where relative charge equilibrium is attained.
Placing one finger on a generator output, or battery in this case, and the other in the ground, we may feel a tingle as charge moves from battery to local equilibrium.
We know it has achieved relative equilibrium because we can place either or both of the battery input/output contacts on the ground all day and the battery does not regain one whit of (local) surplus charge.

Circuits (charge recycling formations) can be a more complex concept because ~Conduits of charge may take many forms and also may be interconnected at terra, solar and galactic scales.

You would agree that charge emissions impinging upon the terraspheric system, from outside,
are recycled, yes ?

[Michael V]

seasmith,

Michael V : “Charge is the kinetic emission of quantum aether particles from electrons and protons.”
“… charge particles [~fly] away from the magnet in straight lines at the speed of c, never ever to return.”

seasmith : You’ve managed to localize charge in the first line, then banish it to the great cosmic unknowns in the last.

Charge is by definition "localised". It is localised around every single electron and proton. Both the source and destination of the particle emissions that we identify as charge is the entire universe in which the electrons and protons exist.

Placing one finger on a generator output, or battery in this case, and the other in the ground, we may feel a tingle as charge moves from battery to local equilibrium.

A "tingle" defines and flow of mass FROM A TO B?

Really now, that is just reasoning by childish anecdote and a clumsy attempt to provide logical conjecture by agenda.
The "tingle" is evidence merely of the presence of an electrical effect. No more information can be gleaned without reference to theory. Your preconceived theoretical stance made agenda, has defined your interpretation, which is the reason that you are so very far from the truth.

We know it has achieved relative equilibrium because we can place either or both of the battery input/output contacts on the ground all day and the battery does not regain one whit of (local) surplus charge.

Oh dear, oh dear. You have flattened the Earth and circled the orbits around it. The battery never had your erroneous "charge" in the first place, although ironically the real charge is utterly permanent.

You would agree that charge emissions impinging upon the terraspheric system, from outside,
are recycled, yes ?

No.
On the basis that the particles that provide the existence and function of charge to electrons and protons, are travelling through the universe at the speed of c, and that in order to reach an electron or proton they must have come from "outside" those systems, you may attempt to find some simple agreement to your preposition come question. But that would be an enormously simplistic misunderstanding of the fundamental environment in which we exist.

Everything and everywhere contains, and is surrounded by, a material field of moving quantum aether particles. To say that charge is received from "outside" and is recycled, is to imply that charge somehow initiates, operates and then ceases - presumably you are chasing some philosophical circuit.
A more useful and more operationally accurate description would be to say that all electrons and protons exist inside the field. Charge, as described as electrostatic charge and simultaneously as electrostatic field, is a reaction of electrons and protons to the field. In essence we may think of this as a reflection or rebounding of quantum aether particles. The effect of which is to provide a field of force around electrons and protons that is vector centred at and away from those objects. As such, electrons and protons may be described as charged particles. However, this is not a temporary or transient condition, it is constant and permanent. All electrons and protons in the entire universe are at all times and in all places "charged". The effects of electricity and magnetism are as a result of a characteristic of electrons, or more specifically free-electrons, that are not encumbered by atomic structure duties.
Electrons behave as if they are disc shaped, you may visualise a Catherine Wheel, or if you prefer a sphere and ring system or a torus or oblated sphere with equatorial emission - all may serve the same purpose, that is, to allow forced alignment and concentrated non-spherical emission.

I think, young seasmith, that you are pondering the universe whilst still restricting your thinking to the limits imposed upon our cave-dwelling ancestors. You are still collecting the wood, taking in back to the cave, burning it and then throwing the ashes back out into the woods. That mode of operation does not apply to charged particles. A fish does not need to collect water and take it back to that place where it wishes to swim - the fish exists within the water and the water is available to the fish at all times. Whether the fish swims alone or with a shoal may be considered analogous to electrostatic charge and electromagnetism.

Michael

[seasmith]

Michael,

Everything and everywhere contains, and is surrounded by, a material field of moving quantum aether particles. To say that charge is received from "outside" and is recycled, is to imply that charge somehow initiates, operates and then ceases - presumably you are chasing some philosophical circuit.

A wrong presumption. Charge moves in and out of our particular earth-bound realm of 'existence'. Circuits are just smaller subsets of larger cycles. Your spinning Cathrine Wheel cycles, if it spins.

Charge, as described as electrostatic charge and simultaneously as electrostatic field, is a reaction of electrons and protons to the field. In essence we may think of this as a reflection or rebounding of quantum aether particles. The effect of which is to provide a field of force around electrons and protons that is vector centred at and away from those objects.

Now you are describing a version of wave theory: little proton and electron boats bobbing in a sea of aether and creating waves radiating outwards. Now you must explain the force propagating in those waves...

As such, electrons and protons may be described as charged particles. However, this is not a temporary or transient condition, it is constant and permanent. All electrons and protons in the entire universe are at all times and in all places "charged".

Correct

The effects of electricity and magnetism are as a result of a characteristic of electrons, or more specifically free-electrons, that are not encumbered by atomic structure duties.

Probably

Electrons behave as if they are disc shaped, you may visualise a Catherine Wheel, or if you prefer a sphere and ring system or a torus or oblated sphere with equatorial emission - all may serve the same purpose, that is, to allow forced alignment and concentrated non-spherical emission.

A crude and misleading analogy. It does not account for the basic attribute of space- volume.

Rotifer

[Sparky]

Magnetism

[Michael V]

Sparky,

Yes mate. Electricity and Magnetism: both effects associated with the alignment of free-electrons and their emission of charge.

Michael

[tb2]

At the risk of saying something completely at cross-purposes to what you all are discussing at great length here, I would like to offer the following comment:

Both electric fields and magnetic fields require charge to be present somewhere in the vicinity of the fields. Of course in the cosmos the word “vicinity” can have very large dimensions.
§ An electric E-field depends on the existence of one kind of “charge” being located somewhere and the opposite kind of charge being somewhere else. We arbitrarily call these two different kinds of charge “positive” and “negative”.
§ A magnetic B-field depends on the time rate of change of position of some charge.
§ An electro-magnetic (EM) field, such as radio or microwave transmission depends on the existence of both an oscillating E-field and an oscillating B-field. These must be at an angle (usually a right angle) in space with respect to each other. The direction in which power is transmitted is given by the cross-product of the two fields. This is called the Poynting vector.
§ No particles (electrons or +ions) leave the transmitting antenna – just the fields.
§ We do not claim these fields are extant physical objects. But they act as though they really exist (it may be they are just a useful abstract theoretical concept).
§ Obviously engineers use EM field theory to design all sorts of useful (real) things, such as microwave ovens and space communications systems.
§ To do this they do not have to get into discussions of photon spin or gluon stickiness. Nor does it involve any consideration of the physical mass of the particle carrying the “charge”.

I apologize if this is not germane to your discussion here, but I just thought I’d mention it.
Don Scott

[Michael V]

seasmith,

Michael V: As such, electrons and protons may be described as charged particles. However, this is not a temporary or transient condition, it is constant and permanent. All electrons and protons in the entire universe are at all times and in all places "charged".

seasmith: Correct


Michael V: Everything and everywhere contains, and is surrounded by, a material field of moving quantum aether particles. To say that charge is received from "outside" and is recycled, is to imply that charge somehow initiates, operates and then ceases - presumably you are chasing some philosophical circuit.

seasmith: A wrong presumption. Charge moves in and out of our particular earth-bound realm of 'existence'. Circuits are just smaller subsets of larger cycles. Your spinning Cathrine Wheel cycles, if it spins.

If the first statement is correct, then how is it that the second is wrong?

It has to be taken that electrons and protons are permanently spinning. However, to then say that an electron and the universal quantum aether field are a circuit, is pushing the point somewhat. My premise is that a single electron isolated in the most distant reaches of intergalactic space is still receiving and emitting charge on a constant basis, but is not part of any circuit.

Michael V: Electrons behave as if they are disc shaped, you may visualise a Catherine Wheel, or if you prefer a sphere and ring system or a torus or oblated sphere with equatorial emission - all may serve the same purpose, that is, to allow forced alignment and concentrated non-spherical emission.

seasmith: A crude and misleading analogy. It does not account for the basic attribute of space - volume.

"A crude and misleading analogy" - I presume you will not clarify that remark. Admittedly, any such analogy can only be speculative, but regardless of the crudeness or otherwise, it does allow for an accurate interpretation of effects, both in terms of electricity and magnetism.

"It does not account for the basic attribute of space - volume." - It is not too difficult to imagine that a spinning disc may also tumble radially and hence produce a spherical emission distribution. When subjected to a sustained directional force, such as the charge emissions of other electrons, it may also cease to tumble and emit two-dimensionally and in the process, give rise to the effects they we identify as electro-magnetism.

Michael

[Michael V]

Don,

Hmmm, You have listed many of the erroneous elements of present electro-magnetic theory. The most outlandish claim must surely be the assertion of the existence of electro-magnetic waves:

an oscillating E-field and an oscillating B-field. These must be at an angle (usually a right angle) in space with respect to each other.

This really is well and far beyond the logical pale - have you been listening to that Maxwell bloke? Electromagnetic fields do not exist in any way or form without the free-electrons that emit them. The premise that light/photons is an electro-magnetic wave is a flat-Earth/black-hole/big-bang rolled into one. It is possibly the hugest scientific blunder that we are presently faced with undoing.
Maxwell's invented mathematical conjecture was accepted solely on the basis of a common velocity. The undeniable fact that electro-magnetic waves have never been detected does not appear to deter believers. The undeniable fact that light has absolutely no electro-magnetic components does not appear to deter believers. TEMs are a belief system that is in no way scientific. Although, I am presently most convinced by light as a composite particulate photon, I am also deliberating the possibility that light may actually be some sort of wave or oscillated composite particle defined by frequency. However, I consider the possibility that light is a transverse electro-magnetic wave to be zero.

Both electric fields and magnetic fields require charge to be present somewhere in the vicinity of the fields.

Electric and magnetic fields emanate from matter - the "somewhere is the vicinity" is at the centre of the fields.

An electric E-field depends on the existence of one kind of “charge” being located somewhere and the opposite kind of charge being somewhere else. We arbitrarily call these two different kinds of charge “positive” and “negative”.

What evidence do have for this claim of different "kinds" of charge? This is a very important point to be explained - that there is presently no explanation available or forthcoming should be rather worrying for proponents.

A magnetic B-field depends on the time rate of change of position of some charge.

Charge particles are emitted from free-electrons with a speed of c, but of course that is not what you are referring to. Your statement is presumably a reference to "electricity flowing" in a wire or plasma. Would I be also correct in assuming that your "charge" consists of electrons?. How do you suppose that "electrical" magnetism differs from the permanent magnetism of a bar-magnet?

No particles (electrons or +ions) leave the transmitting antenna – just the fields.

Ions (I'm still curious why you denote them as +ve) do not emit photons - electrons emit photons, and the photon "particles" are transmitted.

We do not claim these fields are extant physical objects. But they act as though they really exist (it may be they are just a useful abstract theoretical concept).

Force and the reactive motion of affected objects are not theoretical concepts. Something real and physical must exist.

Obviously engineers use EM field theory to design all sorts of useful (real) things, such as microwave ovens and space communications systems. To do this they do not have to get into discussions of photon spin or gluon stickiness. Nor does it involve any consideration of the physical mass of the particle carrying the “charge”.

I do not dispute that engineers/technologists are able to design and build all sorts of devices despite the underlying theory being intrinsically wrong - gluons do not exist, don't even go there.

It is quite possible that we will have to agree to differ on some theoretical areas, however, I would appreciate your response particularly in respect of the bolded questions.

Thanks in advance

Michael

[seasmith]

Both electric fields and magnetic fields require charge to be present somewhere in the vicinity of the fields. Of course in the cosmos the word “vicinity” can have very large dimensions.
§ An electric E-field depends on the existence of one kind of “charge” being located somewhere and the opposite kind of charge being somewhere else. We arbitrarily call these two different kinds of charge “positive” and “negative”.

-Don Scott


Don,

Thank you for your input. Your quote above is a much more coherent instance of 'charge locality', than my long-winded excursion to the nether reaches of the local galaxy.
Michaelv's response to your quote is also pertinent to the recent discussion here, as dealing with Apparent merging/diverging EM/ES effects.


There seems to be majority agreement that 'charge' exists on a more fundamental level than derivative EM/ES effects, or some second derivative Poynting vector.
Questions remain regarding the essence of charge (and therefor the question of Magnetism), ie: possible mass/diameter relationships and wether extrapolated charge differences depend on relative quantity, directionality, inherent polarity, an aetheric tension/pressure, some mix of the preceding or none of the above.

Until we fully understand all that is happening in the space between charge domains (the most basic circuit), and the very nature of that space, we probably can't define charge (or magnetism). A 'sea of particles' doesn't do it,
imho.

1-2-3

yinYangsm.jpg (5.81 KiB) Viewed 784 times

[Sparky]

Thank You, Don Scott, for your perspective. I need to be reminded of those points while I try to gather in the new theories, which must conform to what has been documented, measured, quantified, and used so successfully for so many decades.

*****************
(((((((((((((((((
*****************

V,

How do you suppose that "electrical" magnetism differs from the permanent magnetism of a bar-magnet?

THAT'S WHAT I'VE BEEN TRYING TO FIND OUT..How does magnetism work? The nuts and bolts of emitted quantum, "attracting" and "repelling"? How does that work?

Do I need to look hereto find what I want?

From close up, all we see is the individual magnetic fields which surround each charge. The intensity of these fields is many orders of magnitude more than that of any magnetic field we might create in a laboratory or in an electric motor. This field forms circular loops about the line of motion of the charge. At this scale we can use the term "field of motion" to describe the magnetic field surrounding the charge. As we move away from an individual charge, the strength its magnetic field falls off until we find it merging into and combining with the fields of other charges. Eventually we reach human scales and see magnetic fields as revealed by iron filing patterns. But to gain an understanding of the nature of magnetism, we need to consider a simple moving charge. Put aside your concept of an electron and consider a fictional entity which I call a pure charge. It has no mass, no angular momentum and no intrinsic magnetic moment. It is simply a hollow spherical surface of charge.-----------There is the energy stored in the magnetic field surrounding the electron and we can think of this as the kinetic energy of the electron. Then there is the energy which the electron contributed to the magnetic field which the current generates. But the removal of one electron from the group would mean that the the current is reduced and the surrounding magnetic field needs to shrink. This loss of energy from the magnetic field results in equal amounts of energy have to be transferred to each electron of the current. This flow of energy into the surfaces of the individual charges results in the generation of a force tending to accelerate each electron in the direction of the current. I call this the intimate connection because it links the motion of all of the electrons which constitute the current. A collision which decelerates on electron accelerates all the other electrons. This is the essence of the effect which we call self inductance.---------------One thing is certain: there is more to magnetism than we ever imagined.

It has been experimentally proven that an electron has a magnetic field about it along with an electric field. The effectiveness of the magnetic field of an atom is determined by the number of electrons spinning in each direction. If an atom has equal numbers of electrons spinning in opposite directions, the magnetic fields surrounding the electrons cancel one another, and the atom is unmagnetized. However, if more electrons spin in one direction than another, the atom is magnetized. An atom with an atomic number of 26, such as iron, has 26 protons in the nucleus and 26 revolving electrons orbiting its nucleus. If 13 electrons are spinning in a clockwise direction and 13 electrons are spinning in a counterclockwise direction, the opposing magnetic fields will be neutralized. When more than 13 electrons spin in either direction, the atom is magnetized.

Examination of the arrangements of iron filings in figure 1-13will indicate that the magnetic field is very strong at the poles and weakens as the distance from the poles increases. It is also apparent that the magnetic field extends from one pole to the other, constituting a loop about the magnet.

[saul]

[snip]

The undeniable fact that electro-magnetic waves have never been detected does not appear to deter believers. The undeniable fact that light has absolutely no electro-magnetic components does not appear to deter believers.

I admire your questioning of the most fundamental building blocks. Do consider that one can run a current though a wire, and one can oscillate the amount of current. In another wire some distance away this current oscillation will appear! This phenomenon is called "light" and has been extensively studied over an amazing range of frequencies. There is no other phenomenon that so perfectly obeys the linear wave equation over such a dynamic range.

[davesmith_au]

Don,

Hmmm, You have listed many of the erroneous elements of present electro-magnetic theory. The most outlandish claim must surely be the assertion of the existence of electro-magnetic waves:

an oscillating E-field and an oscillating B-field. These must be at an angle (usually a right angle) in space with respect to each other.

This really is well and far beyond the logical pale - have you been listening to that Maxwell bloke? Electromagnetic fields do not exist in any way or form without the free-electrons that emit them. The premise that light/photons is an electro-magnetic wave is a flat-Earth/black-hole/big-bang rolled into one. It is possibly the hugest scientific blunder that we are presently faced with undoing.
Maxwell's invented mathematical conjecture was accepted solely on the basis of a common velocity. The undeniable fact that electro-magnetic waves have never been detected does not appear to deter believers. The undeniable fact that light has absolutely no electro-magnetic components does not appear to deter believers. TEMs are a belief system that is in no way scientific. Although, I am presently most convinced by light as a composite particulate photon, I am also deliberating the possibility that light may actually be some sort of wave or oscillated composite particle defined by frequency. However, I consider the possibility that light is a transverse electro-magnetic wave to be zero.

Both electric fields and magnetic fields require charge to be present somewhere in the vicinity of the fields.

Electric and magnetic fields emanate from matter - the "somewhere is the vicinity" is at the centre of the fields.

An electric E-field depends on the existence of one kind of “charge” being located somewhere and the opposite kind of charge being somewhere else. We arbitrarily call these two different kinds of charge “positive” and “negative”.

What evidence do have for this claim of different "kinds" of charge? This is a very important point to be explained - that there is presently no explanation available or forthcoming should be rather worrying for proponents.

A magnetic B-field depends on the time rate of change of position of some charge.

Charge particles are emitted from free-electrons with a speed of c, but of course that is not what you are referring to. Your statement is presumably a reference to "electricity flowing" in a wire or plasma. Would I be also correct in assuming that your "charge" consists of electrons?. How do you suppose that "electrical" magnetism differs from the permanent magnetism of a bar-magnet?

No particles (electrons or +ions) leave the transmitting antenna – just the fields.

Ions (I'm still curious why you denote them as +ve) do not emit photons - electrons emit photons, and the photon "particles" are transmitted.

We do not claim these fields are extant physical objects. But they act as though they really exist (it may be they are just a useful abstract theoretical concept).

Force and the reactive motion of affected objects are not theoretical concepts. Something real and physical must exist.

Obviously engineers use EM field theory to design all sorts of useful (real) things, such as microwave ovens and space communications systems. To do this they do not have to get into discussions of photon spin or gluon stickiness. Nor does it involve any consideration of the physical mass of the particle carrying the “charge”.

I do not dispute that engineers/technologists are able to design and build all sorts of devices despite the underlying theory being intrinsically wrong - gluons do not exist, don't even go there.

It is quite possible that we will have to agree to differ on some theoretical areas, however, I would appreciate your response particularly in respect of the bolded questions.

Thanks in advance

Michael

Michael your bald assertions do not trump Don's expertise. You're addressing a Professor of Electrical Engineering with almost 4 decades of teaching experience, several books published including a 700+page textbook on the subject yet you yourself offer nothing but assertions backed by ... well ... nothing! You seem to have adopted very much a posture on this forum of "you're all wrong and I'm right because I say so". Please start treating your hosts with at least a little respect and find somewhere else to publish your thoughts.

Dave Smith.
Forum Administrator.