Apparently 1 Weber=100,000,000 lines

 

Bill_Marsden, I think you are correct, saying that "You still cling to the assumption that a static field is moving when it is not. Near as I can tell this is the heart of your lack of understanding"

But I guess one of the big reasons for seeing the Magnetic field as composed of virtual photons or at least in some way part of, is because according to QED, the force carrier is the Virtual photon. Also yes the electron or more precisely the charged particle is where the magnetic field originates. All QED says though is that the field is in reality composed of these Virtual Photons and these are what are responsible for all the interactions involving the magnetic field, even between something macroscopic like two coils.

about your statement " Following your logic there needs to be a carrier for an electric field, which is the inverse of a magnetic field." The carrier or as far as forces are concerned, there is and it is the virtual photon, I know weird but that is what QED says?

So I guess my problem is either not understanding QED, lol (more then likely) or Trying to combine two different views that just aren't easily combined, lol (also more then likely)

There are no virtual particles associated with magnetic fields. There is only the fields creator, electrons. Photons are not related either, a photon is both an electric field and a magnetic field, remove one and it is not a photon. This is what I mean about assumptions, you are forcing a theory that is not valid onto reality, and then wondering why it doesn't conform.

I made the point about rate of change a while back. I suspect this is the point BillO is trying to make. Without a rate of change in the field strength there will be no EMF generated. If you rotate a magnet in such a manner where its poles do not move then there will be no EMF, because there is no change in the magnetic field strength. Last I heard this unit of measurement is the Tesla.

 

Apparently 1 Weber=100,000,000 lines

Saw that on-line calculator.

Sounds like someone arbitrarily assigned 1 Maxwell = 1 line. I have never heard of this before and can find nothing to corroborate doing this.

Nonetheless, this gives nothing of the nature of a 'line' other than a single scalar value. The concept of a line demands more than a single scalar quantity. A simple straight line requires two ordered pairs to define. A specific curved line in 3 dimensions would require at least one ordered triplet and a trivariate relationship to define.

Still, this would not adequately define one of these magical ‘lines of magnetic force’ which seem, to some, to be somehow immovably fixed to the source.

I admit, I have no proof that magnetic fields are of the nature I describe, unattached, as it were, from their sources. However, I fully believe nature is inherently stingy. Nothing is there if it is not necessary. I see no need, nor any evidence, for a field to be ‘attached’ in this way to the source.

In fact, I see more merit to Wes’ concept of the field being constructed of virtual photons, with a population density that is proportional to the field density/strength. I encourage him to investigate this further.

 

I suppose this will go on and on...

However, one finds this in Wikipedia

Some observations

Whether the magnet is "moving" is irrelevant in this analysis, as it does not appear in Faraday's law. In fact, rotating the magnet does not alter the B-field. Likewise, rotation of the magnet and the disc is the same as rotating the disc and keeping the magnet stationary. The crucial relative motion is that of the disk and the return path, not of the disk and the magnet.
This becomes clearer if a modified Faraday disk is used in which the return path is not a wire but another disk. That is, mount two conducting disks just next to each other on the same axle and let them have sliding electrical contact at the center and at the circumference. The current will be proportional to the relative rotation of the two disks and independent of any rotation of the magnet.
In an experiment done by A. G. Kelly shows there is a difference between rotating the disk only or the disk and the magnet. When the disk alone was rotated and the leads to the galvanometer were rearranged multiple configurations the reading did not change. However when the disk and magnet were rotated and the leads were rearranged, the reading was different for each configuration of the leads. Therefore, whether the magnet is rotating is relevant. This leads us to believe that the magnetic field rotates with the magnet.

The quote comes from - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faraday_paradox

What mechanism would cause a magnetic field to not rotate? Field lines frozen into the luminiferous aether? If the field remains attached to a permanent magnet when it gets displaced in space in every other way, why won't it rotate?

If it does not rotate, that's not a problem. I simply would like to find that there is some reason for it's being fixed in that manner.

 

....a photon is both an electric field and a magnetic field, remove one and it is not a photon.

Conservation of mass/energy would demand that the creation of a vitual photon be accompanied by the cretion of what might be termed a 'virtual anti-photon'. I would be willing to allow, for the sake of argument, that this 'anti-photon' would be identical to the virtual photon in every respect except the sign of its electric field. This would mean the net electric field of all the virtual photons would be zero, leaving only the magnetic field.

Yes, this is a stretch, I'm aware of that.

I suspect this is the point BillO is trying to make. Without a rate of change in the field strength there will be no EMF generated.

Right, this is the point of my first post.

Last I heard this unit of measurement is the Tesla.

Also the Maxwell in cgs.

 

Therefore, whether the magnet is rotating is relevant. This leads us to believe that the magnetic field rotates with the magnet.

I'll go along with the fact that they measured a difference, but not why. I think it would be impossible to create a truly uniform magnetic field. I am not aware of the care that was put into this respect during the experiment referenced here. If the source produces a field with any variance, that variance will rotate with the source and cause the effect they saw.

There might be a way to show this by repeating the experiment multiple times with various large know variances in the field and noting the results.

I suppose this will go on and on...

However, one finds this in Wikipedia The quote comes from - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faraday_paradox

What mechanism would cause a magnetic field to not rotate? Field lines frozen into the luminiferous aether? If the field remains attached to a permanent magnet when it gets displaced in space in every other way, why won't it rotate?

If it does not rotate, that's not a problem. I simply would like to find that there is some reason for it's being fixed in that manner.

I'm not postulating it is fixed at all, not to the source, and certainly not to the aether. I'd rather it did not have, nor require, any frame of reference at all.

For what its worth, I also think this is related to the results of special relativity and the concept of an absolute speed of light, regardless of frame of reference.

I agree, this could go on a long time. I think resolution of this requires someone to put together a formal hypothesis, do the math then substantiate the results with experimentation. Unfortunately, this is not something I have the time or resources for. In retrospect Kermit2 was right. There is work to be done here.

 

Well I have pretty much come to the conclusion that we have no idea exactly what a magnetic field is, lol. We have many equations and such that are extremely accurate in predicting a experimental result though and even what the field would look like around given coil. As for what it is, well the closest idea I have or actually even heard of, which by the way started because of too much QED, QFT reading, lol, is the one I posted but even that idea has problems, lol.

Also from the quote "Without a rate of change in the field strength there will be no EMF generated. " I have always understood that point, you can't change nature, I just wanted to see if the idea could somehow explain why a changing field is needed for a EMF to be created by using the QED approach of Virtual photons (which by the way would actually be a Excitation of a underlying field, just as according to QFT, the electron is just a Excitation of a underlying field) and if not (which so far, not that great), then why?

By the way, I think this topic is getting way to close to my original one of what is a magnetic field, lol. In this one, I really just wanted to know if we knew exactly why a changing field is needed for induction from the standpoint of Quantum mechanics. But I guess to know that you need to first know exactly what the magnetic field is from the standpoint of Quantum mechanics, lol.


Also, here is something interesting I found that some of you might like to read, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vacuum_fluctuations

 

Bad assumption again, because you don't understand something does not mean no one else does.

 

Well I have pretty much come to the conclusion that we have no idea exactly what a magnetic field is, lol.

That's what I said way back at the start of this post and the subsequent posters wanted to argue my point.

Be patient, and someone will be along to argue with you about it soon I'm sure.

 

No doubt as to the arguments. The following is simply ripe for it:

I'm not postulating it is fixed at all, not to the source, and certainly not to the aether. I'd rather it did not have, nor require, any frame of reference at all.

For what its worth, I also think this is related to the results of special relativity and the concept of an absolute speed of light, regardless of frame of reference.

When the conditions make ever less sense, it's time to do something else.

 

Well I have pretty much come to the conclusion that we have no idea exactly what a magnetic field is, lol.

Exactly? No. I'd have to agree with you. Not in the same way we can, macroscopically at least, say we know exactly what a chocolate bar is. This is science though, and science deals with hypotheses, theories and laws that explain some of the aspects, usually behaviour, of nature. It does not deal with exact proof or truth. Hypotheses are just ideas. Theories are formal hypotheses ‘proven’ by how well they predict the observable. Laws are theories that are overwhelmingly supported by observation. Exact is a term for engineers to use and truth is for philosophers and clergymen.

A common example is, Newton’s law of gravity. It started out as a hypothesis. Once it was mathematically formulated it was tested by experiment and became a theory. It has now been used extensively for hundreds of years without ever having been proven wrong, so we accept it as a natural law. However, while it will predict the fall of an apple, does it tell us why the apple falls? Does it tell us what makes up a gravitational field? No, but there are folks that have hypothesis that attempt to answer those questions.

Like I said originally, I do not think QM or QED will serve very well at explaining why a changing field will induce current in a loop. Not right now. However, the hypothesis you put forth, that magnetic fields are made up of virtual photons, is the current favourite and there are lots of folks working on putting a solid theory together (1) around this.

Don’t give up. This is a current an interesting area of study and there are lots of references you can research to help you (see below).

I am going to formulate a non-formal hypothesis around some of the stuff I’ve been blathering about and post it in another thread and let people beat it to hell. It’s an idea, and folks love to beat up on ideas. The ideas that survive are the ones that make it to being theories.



(1) Here ( http://arxiv.org/abs/1002.1813?context=hep-th ) is a paper you can download that goes into the hypothesis that magnetic and electric fields are composed of virtual photons. It cites many other great papers and books on the subject.

 

No doubt as to the arguments. The following is simply ripe for it:

When the conditions make ever less sense, it's time to do something else.

Why are you taking this approach? This is the 2nd time you've been intentionally abrasive. I'd normally put in a formal objection to the moderators about souch behaviour, but I can see that would be fruitless exercise.

I'm not changing the subject, merely pointing out there may be more to it than has been discussed so far. I stand behind what I have said. As i said before, I am not trying to prove anything (yet), just expressing and idea.

I was going to put together a new thread consisting of an informal hypothesis on this until I read your post, but now I'm thinking twice. This is obviously not a place for open discussion on anything considered new or different. I guess those wishing to move things forward need not apply here. Way too many closed minds and open mouths.

I'm not trying to break any established laws or accepted theories. I'm just putting forth an idea in an area that really has no accepted laws or theories.

I do not mind constructive discussion and argument, but all I see here is abrasive rhetoric and insults.

WTF!

 

I have to object to your view.

You have been changing the conditions as you go while expressing an "Im right, your wrong" style.

It has nothing to do with developing an idea.

One of your first replies was telling Kermit:

I think it may just be you on this one. How homopolar generators work is fairly well understood.

And then later agreeing saying that work needs to be done.

You combated everyone who replied just to end up changing your mind.

It has nothing to do with the website forum.

It has to do with your attitude.

What was the reason for saying:

Did I not answer this?

Again in post 20, you were responding to a post beenthere added.

He added it simply to add reference to the thread.

You responded:

Did someone say something different?

You are being combative.

Jumping in to tell people they are wrong when they are not.

You again end the thread by saying everyone else is the problem because the way you believe you are "developing" a new idea (Which you said was proof earlier in the thread).

I hate to tell you this, but typically when it appears that it is "everyone else" it is typically "you".

If you had such faith in your belief that this was a well known, proven, stamped-sealed-delivered science, and you called people out, just to be wrong.

This ruffles feathers.

You cant go from saying that this is well known science, to "it is unknown" and "there is work to be done" while being so un-open to the fact that you were wrong from the beginning.

That is what caused the negativity.

re-read the thread, beginning to end, knowing what you know now.

You were acting like you words were the end-all, and when others posted, they were spray-painting on your wall of knowledge.

You are the one that owes the apology.

 

I have to object to your view.

You have been changing the conditions as you go while expressing an "Im right, your wrong" style.

I do think people are wrong about the magnetic field being attached to the source. However, I do not think I changed the conditions. Perhaps you misunderstood me. If you let me know where I did this, maybe can probably explain better.

It has nothing to do with developing an idea.

Correct. I'm not trying to develop my idea in this thread. I was just presenting it as part of my responses.

One of your first replies was telling Kermit:[

And then later agreeing saying that work needs to be done.

I think the two remarks are being taken out of context. Yes, homopolar generators are well understood. Yes, more work needs to be done to define the magnetic field. The two remarks are not inconsistent with each other.

You combated everyone who replied just to end up changing your mind.

Yes, I defended my idea (that magnetic fields are not attached to their sources) and as I pointed out above, I did not and have not changed my mind. Regardless, and this is just a general statement, there is nothing wrong with one changing their mind. This is the whole reason for presenting a new idea and the ensuing debate and discussion.

It has nothing to do with the website forum.[

It has to do with your attitude.

Forgive me, but I do not believe you know what my attitude is. Maybe I need to use more smiley faces to get that across better.

What was the reason for saying:

Wes had asked a question to open the thread that I thought I had answered. It appeared to me as though he asked the same question again. I had thought my first response answered he question, that is why I asked that question. I think people might be trying to read too much between the lines.

Again in post 20, you were responding to a post beenthere added.

He added it simply to add reference to the thread.

You responded:


You are being combative.

Not intentionally. My query was in earnest. I was unsure if beenthere had been trying to make another point or possibly misunderstood your post or mine.

Jumping in to tell people they are wrong when they are not.

I'm not sure I understand you here. Where were others not wrong? Or more possibly more to the point, if the rest of you are right (and I am perfectly willing to discuss that) where was I wrong?

You again end the thread by saying everyone else is the problem because the way you believe you are "developing" a new idea

Well, I am, but as I said already in this post, I am not developing it in this thread.

(Which you said was proof earlier in the thread).

Really? Where did I say it was proven?

I hate to tell you this, but typically when it appears that it is "everyone else" it is typically "you".

Hmmm, okay, I can agree with this, but I do not think it applies in this case.

Twice beenthere made abrasive remarks and Kermit2 out-right insulted me. I may indeed have misunderstood kermit2's comments, but my responses to him were not intended to be combative. However, I did not get personal, but he did. If my not understanding what he wrote offended him in some way he should have told me. I would have apologized. Instead, he insulted me.

If you had such faith in your belief that this was a well known, proven, stamped-sealed-delivered science, and you called people out, just to be wrong.

I am not sure I understand this comment. I do believe strongly in my idea (that magnetic fields are not attached to their source), but I know it is not yet proven. In fact, as far as I am ware, it has not yet been tested.

This ruffles feathers.

What, that someone has a new idea and that they stick to it?

You cant go from saying that this is well known science, to "it is unknown" and "there is work to be done" while being so un-open to the fact that you were wrong from the beginning.

Again, I think you are combining several things. I am not sure which of the several ideas discussed you are talking about, but let me give it a guess.

1) Yes, how homopolar generators works is understood. You can look this up on wikipedia if you like. The article there explains things quite well but also references some excellent sources that go into the science a lot deeper.

2) There are a lot of things about the nature of magnetic fields that are not understood. One thing that is not well understood is what actually makes up the field. Wes presented one of the more popular hypothesis under study today. That it is made up of virtual photons. He was told several times he was flat out wrong even though there are dozens of prominent scientists currently supporting that concept and making it the focus of their research. If you care to look, there are literally hundreds of papers and longer works dedicated to the subject.

3) Yes, generally speaking, there is much opportunity for research into magnetism.

That is what caused the negativity.

No, I do not agree. With one exception, no one discussed anything with me, nor asked me to address any specifics. The one exception was beenthere. He made a couple of points, which I addressed. He did not seem to like my response, but rather than provide a reasonable argument to it, he got abrasive. Or at least it appeared that way to me. I was going to address them further and give a more complete account of my hypothesis and where it stands in a new thread but I have decided this is probably not the best place for that.

re-read the thread, beginning to end, knowing what you know now.

I did do just that on this advice and my responses are herein.

You were acting like you words were the end-all, and when others posted, they were spray-painting on your wall of knowledge.

Well, I am sorry if it came across that way. I still do not think I have said anything wrong, unless of course that my hypothesis is wrong. It may very well be, but I've not seen anything yet to lead me to doubt it yet.

The only new idea I have brought to this discussion is my hypothesis (I'll state it again, that magnetic fields are not attached to their source). Again, I admit it is just a hypothesis, like I did several times in this thread. So, what else have I said that you can reasonably argue is wrong?

You are the one that owes the apology.

First, I do not think I asked for one. Second, to whom do I owe an apology? Finally, I gave one herein.

 

Wow, this thread turned from What is a magnetic field to YOUR WRONG, NO YOUR WRONG Argument, lol. Anyways I wanted to say thanks to BillO for the article, it was interesting. Also thanks to everyone else for all your input's, again it was interesting and informative.


P.S. If I have an idea for a Coil and it's actually an improvement on existing coil designs by a lot, then is it patentable? It doesn't really help much for our timescales but for like Nanoseconds and under, it helps tremendously with cutting rise times and fall times.

I kind of don't think you can just because well it's a coil, while it's not one you would normally think of, it's not exactly hard to make.

I am going to call a patent attorney but it's late and I am out of town so, maybe some of you might know until I get around to calling them?

 

Happy thanksgiving to all.

Billo, there is no wrong place to express a new idea. If it is correct, you will prove the nay sayers wrong.

Stand up for what you believe.
Just make sure it is correct before asking it to stand up to scrutiny.

Scrutiny is what you have to deal with when challenging the norm.

If you have convinced yourself completely, you should have no problem holding out while convincing others.

The only people who complain about others responses are people who have no proof.

After all, proof CAN'T be shown to be wrong.

 

Wow, this thread turned from What is a magnetic field to YOUR WRONG, NO YOUR WRONG Argument, lol.

Yeah (lol), strange, and sad, how that happens.

Anyways I wanted to say thanks to BillO for the article, it was interesting.

You're welcome.

Also thanks to everyone else for all your input's, again it was interesting and informative.


P.S. If I have an idea for a Coil and it's actually an improvement on existing coil designs by a lot, then is it patentable? It doesn't really help much for our timescales but for like Nanoseconds and under, it helps tremendously with cutting rise times and fall times.

I kind of don't think you can just because well it's a coil, while it's not one you would normally think of, it's not exactly hard to make.

I am going to call a patent attorney but it's late and I am out of town so, maybe some of you might know until I get around to calling them?

If its benefits are clear and unclaimed and the steps to make it/design are not already in use (a genuinely new approach), regardless of how easy it is, you should be able to patent it. One difficulty I see with this is that a similar coil might have been used for something else. So the patent search might be tough. As an example, you might be trying to get a patent on just the coil for fast rise time, whilst someone else used it for another property as a component in a larger device. This is where a good patent lawyer earns their pay. I owned a patent (sold, expired, and now no longer required) on a small magnetic device, the prototype of which was built out of combining two existing devices but is was awarded by merit of exploiting the technology in a way that was never envisioned by the owners of the other patents. Make sure that you attribute as many purposes/properties to your new coil as you can. If any of those conflicts with another patent, they can be removed from the final application. Good luck with it.

 

Happy thanksgiving to all.

Happy thanksgiving. If your traveling, don't let them touch your junk!

Billo, there is no wrong place to express a new idea. If it is correct, you will prove the nay sayers wrong.

Stand up for what you believe.
Just make sure it is correct before asking it to stand up to scrutiny.

Scrutiny is what you have to deal with when challenging the norm.

If you have convinced yourself completely, you should have no problem holding out while convincing others.

The only people who complain about others responses are people who have no proof.

It would be difficult for me to provide proof at this point. I would just be ble to provide supporting argument by example. There's no sources I can reference (not even on Wikipedia ) because the subject has not really been broached. There was that one reference against the hypothesis that beenthere came up with, but it was supposition on the part of the folks that performed the experiment. Just something they noticed along the way and not the subject of the experiment. Kind of like "We saw 'this' and conclude it was probably caused be 'that'". Unfortunately 'this' did not uniquely imply 'that' as 'this' could have had other causes.

After all, proof CAN'T be shown to be wrong.

Most physical theories and laws have no absolute proof in any case, so they can always be disputed. Some easier than others. It would be nice to be able to come up with a theory that had a mathematical proof.

 

well I haven't done a patent search yet but I will, I'll find out if it's patentable sometime after thanksgiving.


Happy Thanksgiving everyone and I will let them touch my junk, I will, lmao, jk

 

HAHAAHHA. I have started a thread about the interesting points of traveling.

"Excuse me sir, where do we pay to have our junk touched?"

BTW: dont say that in an airport. They get mad.

Billo, I agree completely about the lack of proof in many if not most laws.

Thing is, this is why it often takes years for them to be adopted.

New scientists are berated, called insane, and "excommunicated" from places due to varying beliefs.

That is what it boils down to.

When there is not solid proof, there must be faith.

Like religion, you must expect a rough road when developing. Most folks do not want to hear it. BUT, if you have SEEN a miracle, then your faith should be strong enough to convince the nay-sayers.

It is human nature. It is not All-About-Circuits nature.

As for wikipedia, the great thing about it is anyone can start a page and post whatever they want.

So feel free to start a wiki page regarding your material.

See what happens. Maybe others with the same faith and others with strong experimental references will add to it and make things happen.

Cant make an omelet without breaking a few eggs.