Quantum Locking and diamagnetic magic

Discussion in 'Physics' started by Wolframore, Aug 15, 2019 at 6:49 AM.

  1. Wolframore

    Thread Starter Active Member

    Jan 21, 2019
    934
    282
    this is pretty amazing



     
    cmartinez likes this.
  2. nsaspook

    AAC Fanatic!

    Aug 27, 2009
    5,921
    6,680
  3. Wolframore

    Thread Starter Active Member

    Jan 21, 2019
    934
    282
    I know isn’t it amazing? Now look at paramagnetic and diamagnetic examples.
     
  4. nsaspook

    AAC Fanatic!

    Aug 27, 2009
    5,921
    6,680
    To me the amazing part is knowing how it works (the human supplies the needed energy for locking) and seeing that CoE and CoM also apply at the Quantum level.
     
    cmartinez likes this.
  5. Wolframore

    Thread Starter Active Member

    Jan 21, 2019
    934
    282
    Yes but it's the mystery that drive us to understand it... it sticks out for this reason....

    Did you look into paramagnetic and diamagnetic... I have a sense that Newton was completely wrong.
     
    Last edited: Aug 15, 2019 at 12:17 PM
  6. nsaspook

    AAC Fanatic!

    Aug 27, 2009
    5,921
    6,680
    Wrong about what?

    His theories were incomplete but perfectly functional for the model that existed at the time. It wasn't totally correct but it can't be completely wrong either because it's an approximation of reality verified by countless experiments in it's scale of precision to reality.
     
    cmartinez likes this.
  7. Wolframore

    Thread Starter Active Member

    Jan 21, 2019
    934
    282
    I’m glad you said theories.
     
  8. nsaspook

    AAC Fanatic!

    Aug 27, 2009
    5,921
    6,680
    If you have something better then tell us about it.
    [​IMG]
     
  9. Wolframore

    Thread Starter Active Member

    Jan 21, 2019
    934
    282
    I have my own theories but might need some more thought before I feel comfortable saying more... that's why I said it the way I did... it's just intuitive at the moment. Gravity has some issues...
     
  10. SamR

    Active Member

    Mar 19, 2019
    698
    246
    The only issue I have with gravity is when small mass (me relatively) collides with large mass (Earth). The results although mathematically correct are sometimes painful, depending on d.
     
  11. Wolframore

    Thread Starter Active Member

    Jan 21, 2019
    934
    282
    The issue I was alluding to are things like the expansion of the universe which is accelerating and makes no sense from view of gravity, so people make up new things like dark energy and graviton to try to explain this. Again all non-observed and unknown made up words... general theory of relativity has issues due to gravity also... I believe we are missing something here.

    For example we are taught: moon's gravity causes tides... if the moon's gravity causes a bulge underneath the moon why do we have two high tides daily... Theory of universal gravity has issues.

    Our planets have been rotating for millions and billions of years and yet the laws of thermodynamics would say this is not possible if you accounted for gravity.

    Anyhow... still just a thought and I'm sure there are more examples.
     
    Last edited: Aug 15, 2019 at 10:01 PM
  12. nsaspook

    AAC Fanatic!

    Aug 27, 2009
    5,921
    6,680
    Tides and planetary orbits are not where the problems in gravity theories are. It might be instructive to have some basic knowledge of the fundamentals before trying to refute easily obtained information.

    Several decades later, Isaac Newton published his famous Principia. The book was most famous for describing the laws of gravity, and these same laws finally explained the tides.
    https://cosmosmagazine.com/geoscience/why-are-there-two-tides-day
     
    Last edited: Aug 15, 2019 at 2:04 PM
    cmartinez likes this.
  13. Wolframore

    Thread Starter Active Member

    Jan 21, 2019
    934
    282
    Consider the rings of Saturn... my intuitive thought might explain this and well as tides and expansion. is it possible that what we are observing is some other force is all I’m asking you, because I don’t believe everything I’m taught or read and you know there are issues with universal theory of gravity.
     
    Last edited: Aug 15, 2019 at 10:11 PM
  14. profbuxton

    Active Member

    Feb 21, 2014
    390
    177
    The reason we have two tides is because of the size difference of earth and moon! If they were the same size, I guess there would be a lump(tide) on one side, but the earth is much bigger so the gravity effect is different at the places furthest from the moon. Imagine a rod through earths centre at roght angle to the moon. The moons effect on the ends of the stick would be slightly less than the effect directly below the moon so it would tend to be attracted more at the rods centre than the ends. So we have the water attracted strongly under the moon and less strongly further away. This causes the water to form a "stretched ellipse" with a high tide under the moon and another high on the opposite side if earth.
    You don't have to believe everything you read or learnt but lets see ANYONE come up with a better workable and experimentally viable alternative replace what people have successfully used for a long time.
     
  15. Wolframore

    Thread Starter Active Member

    Jan 21, 2019
    934
    282
    Water is also paramagnetic perhaps even more so with the salts and minerals in our oceans. I’m aware of what we’re taught. Is it gravity that also powers the expansion of our universe, shouldn’t it slow down and not accelerate? I wonder if there are magnetic fields that we are not aware of. These paramagnetic and diamagnetic examples prove that everything is affected by magnetism. In any case it’s inspired me to explore and test...
     
  16. Wolframore

    Thread Starter Active Member

    Jan 21, 2019
    934
    282
    I have a question about magnetism maybe you guys know the answer. Is a magnetic field from a magnet static or does it flow? By static I mean that it’s a property that just exists and therefore nothing is expended which again makes no sense since there is a force produced. Or does it flow and therefore something that would expend it’s energy and fit in our model of the universe. Same thing about gravity what is the source of this power?
     
  17. nsaspook

    AAC Fanatic!

    Aug 27, 2009
    5,921
    6,680
    The first sign on crackpot alley is a picture of a magnet as a source of energy for work (the transfer of energy that occurs when a force makes an object move).
    A permanent magnet is a transformation device. It's a way to transform energy from one form to another, not a source of power.

    [​IMG]
    Don't walk through that door.

    Magnetism is one aspect of the combined electromagnetic force. It's not energy.
    https://www.mansfieldct.org/Schools/MMS/staff/hand/work=fxd.htm
    Work = Force x Distance

    The source of energy in the magnet is the aligned parallel magnetic dipole moments. This physical forming energy is not free and is stored in the magnetic field of the magnet. As the magnet attracts and repels, the potential energy in the magnetic field varies by the amount of kinetic energy used to manipulated the objects. If the magnet physical forming energy is extracted as a energy source the magnetic dipoles are unaligned and boom, then it's no longer a magnet.
     
    cmartinez likes this.
  18. Wolframore

    Thread Starter Active Member

    Jan 21, 2019
    934
    282
    Please explain why magnetism is not a source of energy is this incorrect:

    concept of magnetic energy or torque:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magnetic_energy

    I believe this answers my question... a magnetic field stores magnetic energy. But now I have more questions... such as, what is the source of gravitational energy
     
    Last edited: Aug 16, 2019 at 11:52 AM
  19. Wolframore

    Thread Starter Active Member

    Jan 21, 2019
    934
    282
    Sorry gravity question is too hard... Do you have a formula for how long a magnet can maintain a magnetic field... how about when it is actively holding something in place? Let's make this even easier... let's turn an electro magnet on... how long does it hold and object in place when the power is taken away? Where does this magnetic energy go?
     
  20. bogosort

    Active Member

    Sep 24, 2011
    357
    205
    I get the sense that you're confusing the map with the terrain, so to speak. A field is a mathematical -- not physical -- object; it's a function that maps one set of values to another. It doesn't make sense to say that a field is static or flowing.

    It's important to recognize that physics makes no attempt to tell us what's actually "out there". Instead, physics attempts to quantify empirical phenomena -- the stuff we observe -- using mathematical models. The foundational idea behind physics is that the universe is governed by a set of rules. Physics is the science of finding those rules. Nothing more.

    The notion of a magnetic field is purely mathematical; it is an incomplete mathematical description of the phenomenon we associate with magnetism. We know it's incomplete because it changes depending on our choice of coordinates, and the physics of something shouldn't depend on such arbitrary choices. A much better description is the electromagnetic field, which doesn't depend on our choice of coordinates (it's Lorentz invariant). Of course, the EM field too -- like everything else in physics -- is 100% mathematical. Both the magnetic field and the EM field are tools that let us calculate values of interest associated with observed phenomena, but the EM model fits better with the other models we use in physics. If you take away the EM model and replace it with separate electric and magnetic fields, you'll find a bunch of holes in your theory. In any case, none of these models are physical things that exist "out there".

    Gravity is the same. Even Newton refused to try to guess what it "is" -- I make no hypotheses, he famously said --instead focusing on building a suitable model of it. Einstein did better by using a geometric model, associating the phenomenon of gravity with the mathematical notion of a metric, the distance between two things in some particular geometry. In this case, the geometry that works is a 4-dimensional manifold, which we call spacetime. We apply the model as if it really were "out there" -- we even sometimes say that space is curved -- but spacetime is 100% a mathematical structure. In this model, which is incredibly accurate and consistent, gravity is nothing more than a change in the metric. It makes no more sense to ask for the "source of power" of gravity than to ask for the source of power of f(x) = x^2.

    I used to feel wholly unsatisfied when my "but what is it?" questions were answered with "no one knows, but check out these equations". But after some time studying the equations and thinking about what they tell us, I realized that they give us far more insight into what's really going on than any amount of armchair philosophizing ever could. It's highly unlikely that we'll ever know why any of this is happening, or what it really is. At least, however, we can get a sense of how it works. But to really do that, we need to study the models; trying to extrapolate from our everyday experience simply doesn't cut it.
     
    nsaspook and cmartinez like this.
Loading...