PopularFX
Home Help Search Login Register
Welcome,Guest. Please login or register.
2022-08-16, 15:12:06
News: A feature is available which provides a place all members can chat, either publicly or privately.
There is also a "Shout" feature on each page. Only available to members.

Pages: 1 2 [3] 4
Author Topic: Energy from electron spin  (Read 2650 times)
Group: Experimentalist
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 1020
...
But the photon is a mystery object having both particle and wave-like characteristic.  That mystery is easily explained by an aether theory.
...

The travelling photon is a pure electromagnetic wave. The corpuscular aspect only appears because of quantification, at emission or absorption in the photoelectric effect, for example.
I no longer see any sense in the notion of corpuscle. Everything is wave.


---------------------------
"Open your mind, but not like a trash bin"
   

Group: Moderator
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 1629
There is another way of looking at it. The field around each charge is always present, extends to infinity, it is an intrinsic part of the charge. And a charge is conserved. So you can never change the field of a charge, you can't take any energy from it or give it any energy.

Since positive and negative charges are equal in number in the universe, in the general case their fields cancel each other out.
You mention the universe, what do you consider to be the general case?  My general case is the universe as it is where there are plenty of regions where the fields do not cancel. 

Quote
To obtain a field, we must separate the positive charges from the negative charges, and therefore perform work, work that is reflected in the energy that can be withdrawn from the field. The fields of positive and negative charges are effectively superimposed, even when their resultant is zero, since the fields do not interact.
  Agreed, but I note you say that energy can be withdrawn from the field.  You later say that is incorrect and energy does not flow in that manner.

Quote
So when you say that by charging a sphere you generate a radial field, this is a partial way of looking at things. By charging a sphere, you shift the field of negative charges from that of positive charges in all the surrounding space, making a non-zero resultant appear. This shift is propagated from near to near at the speed c as you said.

When you get it back, you ask yourself: "How does the energy in areas away from the sphere travel backwards?"
The answer is simple, the energy doesn't travel, unlike the field. The energy of the field is only potential. Such and such a field in such and such a place allows you to recover energy, but the only physical reality is the field, not the energy.

OK, but that is for electric fields.  I assume you hold the same argument for magnetic fields where change of field energy between two static situations in a surrounding space (in our case surrounding a coil and a magnet) is totally accounted for by movement of charges in our local area.  I argue that my anomalous energy component does not come from energy considerations for the movement of charges in the coil.  Therefore it must come from energy considerations for the movement of charges within the magnet.  In movement of charges I consider electron spin as circular movement of charge which is the charge movement that creates the external magnetic field.  You have mentioned interference zones where field add or subtract which for our case are easily identified.  When we look at those zones we do not find that change of field energy there accounts for the anomalous term.  We do find that the change of potential energy at all the electron spins responsible for the magnetism does account for the anomalous term.  In any current loop that change of potential energy relates to whatever source is driving that current around the loop.  In the case of a current generator it sees a voltage during the period of change.  In the case of a motor spinning a charged sphere motor endures drag or acceleration torque.  I can see no reason why an electron should be considered differently.
     

Quote
PS - I may be a little less present in the next few days, I'm off on holiday to visit Cornwall and Wales  :). But I'm not giving up on this interesting discussion.

Enjoy your holiday but beware the coming heat wave. :)
   

Group: Moderator
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 1629
The travelling photon is a pure electromagnetic wave. The corpuscular aspect only appears because of quantification, at emission or absorption in the photoelectric effect, for example.
I no longer see any sense in the notion of corpuscle. Everything is wave.
Yet you recently said
Quote
But conversely, we have no assurance that an external macroscopic field will subdivide into an equal number of equal individual fluxes through the spins.
Challenging that subdivision is challenging your "everything is a wave". 
   

Group: Moderator
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 1629
F6 has challenged my presumption that an electron has size (diameter) that can intercept a quantity of flux based on its cross section area, and that this can account for energy changes in its external field.  This paper tells us otherwise.
Smudge
   

Group: Tinkerer
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 3540
tExB=qr
You mention conductive magnets in your last paper.
Coincidentally, you can attach a magnet to a copper disc to build a homopolar generator.
I don't know if anyone has bothered taking the next step of using a conductive magnet as the rotor in a homopolar generator.  Seems logical.

   

Group: Moderator
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 1629
@Grumpy,

There are youtube videos of NdFeB disc magnets sitting atop a battery terminal and being made to spin simply by connecting the other end of the battery to a brush touching the outer rim of the magnet.  A homopolar motor.  If the magnet spin were driven it becomes a homopolar generator.

Smudge
   
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 2224
Quote
I don't know if anyone has bothered taking the next step of using a conductive magnet as the rotor in a homopolar generator.  Seems logical.

I have used N52 neo magnets in homopolar motor/generators, as quenched spark gap conductors and many conduction applications.

I never found any anomalies with these setups and the action was predictable. This may relate to the fact the magnetic field is a property of space and not the source material itself. For example, a magnetic field does not rotate with the source. Logically, any field bound to the source should rotate with it but none do thus they must be a property of space. Keep in mind what we call tangible matter is 1% particles in motion and 99% vacuum filled with EM waves.

This goes towards the notion of a medium being present such as the Aether or Dark Energy/matter.

The common arguments against a medium are problematic because by definition we cannot have a wave without a wave carrier. It's like saying we can have an ocean wave without water which is absurd. So either we acknowledge a medium or we stop calling all field propagation and radiation "waves". Otherwise were left with the notion that something has acted on itself or nothing which is an obvious contradiction.

An obvious solution is to recognize the primary fields as a disturbance in the surrounding space/medium. This would explain a lack of field rotation with the source and a constant field velocity irrespective of the source. All the facts suggest this is the case and I find it impossible to rationalize how a supposed "wave" could propagate through nothing. It is completely counterintuitive and we find no real world examples of a wave without a wave carrier in nature.

Regards
AC



---------------------------
Comprehend and Copy Nature... Viktor Schauberger

“Progress is impossible without change, and those who cannot change their minds cannot change anything.” George Bernard Shaw
   
Group: Experimentalist
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 1020
...
Enjoy your holiday but beware the coming heat wave. :)

I am back. The heat wave was limited to 23°C in Wales, I survived :). Nice people, beautiful landscapes all along the coast and in the small mountains around the Snowdon, cultural interests like the wool museum in Llandysul or the old locomotives of the 19th century exposed in Penrhyn Castle. I enjoyed it. The only problem was the food in the restaurants and lounge bars. A terrible ordeal. Not sure I would have survived another week :).


Quote
You mention the universe, what do you consider to be the general case?

By "general case" I mean the macroscopic view of the world that we have in everyday life: the objects we handle and use are generally electrically neutral. But the charges are always separated and therefore there are exploitable electric fields between them.

The energy that can be removed from the field is not the energy of the field of the charge, i.e. if we had only one charge in the universe, we could not remove any energy from its field. This field is an intrinsic part of the charge.
On the other hand, if we have several charges, then we can draw energy from their relative position, when they approach or move away from each other, by virtue of F = K.q.q'/r², which we write F=q.E by introducing for convenience the electric field E, a local property in space, induced by the charges.

The electric field is E=F/q by definition. It is defined from the force to which a charge is subjected in space. It is therefore necessary to have at least 2 charges, the test charge and the charge of the source of the field, in order to speak concretely of field, force and work, thus of energy. The energy can only be recovered from the energy potential represented by two separate charges. The "energy density of the field" has no meaning outside this context.

Quote
Quote
Such and such a field in such and such a place allows you to recover energy, but the only physical reality is the field, not the energy.
OK, but that is for electric fields.  I assume you hold the same argument for magnetic fields where change of field energy between two static situations in a surrounding space (in our case surrounding a coil and a magnet) is totally accounted for by movement of charges in our local area.  I argue that my anomalous energy component does not come from energy considerations for the movement of charges in the coil.

The magnetic field is the electric field seen by an observer in motion relative to the source of the field. The magnetic field is the electric field distorted (it is no longer isotropic) when seen by a moving charge. The relativistic transforms allow to pass from one to the other, there is no difference in nature. The considerations of energy, electric or magnetic, can only come from the relative movements of the charges.

Quote
F6 has challenged my presumption that an electron has size (diameter) that can intercept a quantity of flux based on its cross section area

This is not a challenge but an objection. I think that in science it is by eliminating one by one the objections that we end up finding in what remains, the reality. In this case, this objection is removed. Indeed, macroscopic flux and the sum of the fluxes of a multitude of current loops are equivalent, each one being able to create the other, simply the reciprocity of electromagnetic effects imposes it, I should have thought of it earlier.

Quote
In the case of a motor spinning a charged sphere motor endures drag or acceleration torque.  I can see no reason why an electron should be considered differently.

One of the reasons may be that the electron is a quantum object and that quantum objects do not behave like classical objects, e.g. their location in space and time is fuzzy. A spin is not the real rotation of a charge, and this pseudo-rotation is quantized. Quantization introduces thresholds in the effects, unlike a current loop where charges can be sensitive to arbitrarily small effects.

To the question: "when we see the spin as a current loop, why does the current in this loop remain constant despite the effect of a variable external flux?", the answer you propose, as I understand it, is that an unknown generator provides compensation energy.
But a superconducting LC circuit wound around a ferromagnetic core consumes no energy to maintain an oscillation, except for losses in the material. So a spin seen as a current generator does not need to supply energy either.

Have you considered more conventional alternatives?




---------------------------
"Open your mind, but not like a trash bin"
   

Group: Moderator
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 1629
........The energy that can be removed from the field is not the energy of the field of the charge, i.e. if we had only one charge in the universe, we could not remove any energy from its field. This field is an intrinsic part of the charge.
I agree with respect to its electric field.  But we are talking about the magnetic field from the spin of the electron.  If we had only one electron we can remove its magnetic field by placing it inside an electron sized coil and passing current through the coil so as to negate the electron's magnetic field.  We have to supply energy to do this, so where has the original field energy gone?   OK we can't do it with a single electron because of its fuzzy nature, but we can do it with a large number of electrons, those that create the field from a PM.   

Quote
The magnetic field is the electric field seen by an observer in motion relative to the source of the field. The magnetic field is the electric field distorted (it is no longer isotropic) when seen by a moving charge. The relativistic transforms allow to pass from one to the other, there is no difference in nature. The considerations of energy, electric or magnetic, can only come from the relative movements of the charges.
So what is the relative motion that determined the field from a PM?  If that field comes from electron orbits you would have to argue that it is the electron motion around that orbit.  But some of the PM's field comes from electron spin, where is the relative motion there?

Quote
One of the reasons may be that the electron is a quantum object and that quantum objects do not behave like classical objects, e.g. their location in space and time is fuzzy.

And some of that fuzziness is removed in a PM.  Fuzzy has different meanings to different people.  To me fuzzy just means a probability distribution.  Take spatial position.  A probability distribution does not mean that the electron has lost its point-like  property and actually is a fuzzy sort of vapor occupying all space within that distribution.  It just means that it is jumping about at such speed that we can't know exactly where it is.  The field from a PM is not fuzzy.
 
Quote
To the question: "when we see the spin as a current loop, why does the current in this loop remain constant despite the effect of a variable external flux?", the answer you propose, as I understand it, is that an unknown generator provides compensation energy.

Not an unknown generator but the active aether as the source.
 
Quote
But a superconducting LC circuit wound around a ferromagnetic core consumes no energy to maintain an oscillation, except for losses in the material. So a spin seen as a current generator does not need to supply energy either.

But if you extract energy into a load you need a source for that energy, in the case of your superconducting coil it could be a series voltage generator or a parallel current generator. 

Quote
Have you considered more conventional alternatives?

Convention says it can't be done so I am not interested in convention.

Smudge
   
Group: Experimentalist
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 1020
I agree with respect to its electric field.  But we are talking about the magnetic field from the spin of the electron.  If we had only one electron we can remove its magnetic field by placing it inside an electron sized coil and passing current through the coil so as to negate the electron's magnetic field.

You couldn't do it perfectly. Electric and magnetic fields are exactly the same physical reality, the difference only appears in the observer's point of view. This is proven, for example, by the Lorentz force: the observer with a velocity V in relation to the source of the magnetic field B, sees an electric field E=VxB.
Since charges always have a non-zero electric field around them, they always have a non-zero magnetic field when the observer sees them moving. To cancel the magnetic field, the charges would have to follow exactly the same path in the opposite direction, which is impossible in a conductor, and even more so for spins.

Granted, you can cancel the field in a certain area, and certainly, this cancellation might be sufficient for your purpose.

But have you tried to cancel the field of small coils carrying a constant current and spaced from each other by 1 million times their diameter (the order of magnitude of separation of electrons in relation to their size, in a material), by placing them in a single large coil fed by an opposite current? I wish you courage...  By assimilating the spins to current loops, this simulation would however answer what you propose. This does not seem realistic to me.

Quote
We have to supply energy to do this, so where has the original field energy gone?   OK we can't do it with a single electron because of its fuzzy nature, but we can do it with a large number of electrons, those that create the field from a PM.

The energy you provide is the mechanical work to move charges that attract or repel each other. By reducing the field, you reduce its potential to provide energy. Again, there is no energy in a field, the field only has the potential to provide energy, which is measured by its energy density, a formula not to be taken literally since energy is relative to the observer, not to the field. It is the same as if one spoke of kinetic "energy density" in the velocity field of an object in motion relative to you. The object carries no energy. You only have the possibility to get some if you can see this "velocity field". If you move at the speed of the object, the "velocity field" becomes zero and you cannot draw any energy, which proves that the energy was not in the field because it remains the same relative to an observer who would have remained at rest.

Quote
So what is the relative motion that determined the field from a PM?  If that field comes from electron orbits you would have to argue that it is the electron motion around that orbit.  But some of the PM's field comes from electron spin, where is the relative motion there?

Spin has a magnetic moment, so we don't need a notion of speed to talk about a magnetic field. But if we see spin as a loop of current, then in a PM the relative velocity is that of the charges of this current with respect to the observer.

But does the macroscopic view of a PM allow us to assert that spin is equivalent to a simple current loop? Certainly not. One of the proofs is that if we can start from the movement of a charge to know the magnetic field, we cannot start from a magnetic field to know the movement of charges because the solutions are not unique.
Another is the experiment of Stern and Gerlach which demonstrates that the electron is not a simple loop of current, reason for which one introduced the concept of spin!

Quote
And some of that fuzziness is removed in a PM.  Fuzzy has different meanings to different people.  To me fuzzy just means a probability distribution.

For me too. (Almost) nothing is fuzzy in the macroscopic world. In the quantum world, everything is. When you talk about spin, you're talking about quantum mechanics, because that's where the definition comes from. So when you talk about a current loop for spin, when no angular velocity of charge is known or knowable, you are no longer in the non-fuzzy of a PM.

Quote
Not an unknown generator but the active aether as the source.

You can call it whatever you want, it's still a magic wand effect.
 
Quote
But if you extract energy into a load you need a source for that energy, in the case of your superconducting coil it could be a series voltage generator or a parallel current generator. 
Convention says it can't be done so I am not interested in convention.

Of course you are, you're interested in what's conventional. 99% of what you tell us is conventional, and that's good. You talk about electron, spin, magnetic field, energy, flux etc etc. All these notions, you did not define them but recovered them from conventional science. But this conventional science is internally consistent. If you take only what suits you, reject the rest, and add notions like the ether, not precisely defined and even more vague than the position in QM of an electron from its wave function, you destroy the coherence.
In this case you have to propose an experiment whose result cannot be explained by conventional science.

This is what you have indirectly done by suggesting that Coler's device might have something to do with electron spin. I think this is a good idea, which is why I intervened in this thread. But now we have to find a way to use this idea to duplicate his device. I have just started to study spin currents, maybe that will help.



---------------------------
"Open your mind, but not like a trash bin"
   
Jr. Member
**

Posts: 89
@F6FLT I highly encourage you to look into Distinti's work:

https://www.patreon.com/EtherealMechanics/posts
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCHvRotcJ0RiCI1ypnQ0L_gg

In his work he describes an electron as 2 "preton" particles spinning around each other at the speed of light. Mass or better yet inertia can be deduced from this model rather trivially. This actually corelates well with what Smudge is saying about the electron. If you go beyond the electron there is one caveat, you need an ether. It's ironic how far physicists have went to ignore the possibility of an ether as this would imply that 100 year long physics was all wrong. Nature is right in your face, it doesn't matter how complex we would like to describe it or how big fancy equations we can write, nature is still nature.

Quantum mechanics describes HOW electrons and light behave but not why. It can never explain why Planck's constant and the fine structure constants have the values they do. This is also its ultimate limitation and hence why QM will never lead to new discoveries in physics. The biggest success of Quantum Mechanics was being able to describe the position of the electron around an atom. These orbitals could lead to better understanding of chemical interactions. Beyond this the current quantum mechanics model will keep physicist stuck on a merry go around as you cannot "explain the thing using the thing" because this is circular logic. It's beyond arrogant to put self imposed limitations on your current knowledge like "the electron is a point particle with virtual spin" now you completely shut off any other model to describe the electron which leads to all the results we see.
Even the Stern and Gerlach experiment you mentioned. This can be fully explained by seeing the electron as a tiny current loop which is essentially a magnet. If you throw a magnet between two bigger magnets, depending on the orientation it will either align or anti align with the field thus a binary quantity. This is exactly how the Silver atom behaved, so this experiment can be interpreted either way.

It's clear that modern physics has hit a brick with things like dark energy, dark matter and the standard model. We need new models from the ground up that explain these disconnects or else physics will keep on stagnating and we will suffocate on this planet due to still relying on fire to drive our intellectual evolution.
   
Jr. Member
**

Posts: 89
I would also like to add that I like the concept put forth here a lot and it definitely needs to be followed up by an experiment.
   

Jr. Member
**

Posts: 76
I would also like to add that I like the concept put forth here a lot and it definitely needs to be followed up by an experiment.

Agreed.  One good experiment is worth a thousand of hours of debate.
There are probably even some papers available today that deal at least tangentially with the Electron spin model in asymmetric energy exchange.
   
Group: Experimentalist
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 1020
@broli

I looked closely at Distinti's papers a few years ago. I liked what concerns electromagnetism, his sets of equations seemed to me perfectly coherent, it is quite close to the works of pioneers like Ampère.
Then I saw his extensions concerning gravity, and there I am very sceptical. In his work, there is to take and to leave.

Concerning the rest of your comment, I have the impression that you consider the goal of science as much more than what it is. Science only serves to explain what we observe. It explains the HOW (how it works) and never the why (which would imply a finality for the universe).
So it is simple: if what is observed is correctly modeled by the equations, science has done its job. If an observation is unexplained, then only a new theory is needed.

This does not prevent the protesters of this science from proposing other theories, but for what purpose? If they are unable to provide the slightest experiment whose results, predicted by their theories, would be different from what conventional science predicts, these people are useless. Science is knowledge. Research only becomes knowledge, and therefore science, when its predictions have been verified by measurements and a consensus has been reached.

I agree with you that current science seems to struggle to progress.
But these difficulties are perfectly understood by the scientists themselves, who know their weak points, like the question of dark matter or the incompatibility of QM with general relativity. They are constantly questioning their own theories, and this is even what they are looking for and they say so, a new physics. So they are not at all in a circular logic but open and curious. It is simply that the easiest things have been done, because we started from almost zero at the time of Galileo, and now the questions are much more complex. I even think that we will have to wait for the development of artificial intelligence for significant progress.

Science is not complete and it is unlikely that it will ever be. But only conventional science has allowed a working technology. If alternative sciences existed, then where would be the alternative technologies they would enable it and thus prove its veracity? There is only one science.
Scientists consider the electron as a point charge or as a spin depending on the context of use, they are not so stupid as to believe that these two notions would be compatible or that the electron would be reduced to a point. To criticize conventional science and its method without having anything concrete to show is where I see ridiculous arrogance.

Concerning the spin, obviously the experiment of Stern and Gerlach is incompatible with simple current loops, since the projection of the spin on an axis does not take continuous values. This does not mean that electrons cannot in some cases be considered as current loops, as in the case of the PM seen macroscopically, it means that they do not reduce to this and that only experiments will be able to confirm whether the hypothesis of current loops is relevant or not in the case considered.

I appreciate Smudge's work, because he builds on the known to discover and test the unknown. This is the only method that has proven successful so far: standing on the shoulders of giants to move forward, rather than by useless alternative theories, trying constantly and vainly, to reinvent the wheel.
« Last Edit: 2022-08-01, 14:31:28 by F6FLT »


---------------------------
"Open your mind, but not like a trash bin"
   
Group: Experimentalist
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 1020
Agreed.  One good experiment is worth a thousand of hours of debate.
...

I also agree. All our efforts should be directed towards obtaining anomalous results in experiments, which could be an indication of phenomena beyond the present science, from which, perhaps, we could obtain free energy.

This implies, however, to exploit ideas that have a chance to succeed, therefore theoretical concepts, and not to confuse, by ignorance of physics, banal experimental results with extraordinary new effects, which is what we see constantly in youtubers talking about free energy without even knowing how energy is defined.


---------------------------
"Open your mind, but not like a trash bin"
   
Jr. Member
**

Posts: 89
Anyone with the necessary equipment up for to run an Experiment of Smudge's idea? We can crowd source or fund the materials needed together if need be. It doesn't seem like a complex thing to set up.
   

Group: Moderator
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 1629
Electric and magnetic fields are exactly the same physical reality, the difference only appears in the observer's point of view. This is proven, for example, by the Lorentz force: the observer with a velocity V in relation to the source of the magnetic field B, sees an electric field E=VxB.
Since charges always have a non-zero electric field around them, they always have a non-zero magnetic field when the observer sees them moving. To cancel the magnetic field, the charges would have to follow exactly the same path in the opposite direction, which is impossible in a conductor, and even more so for spins.
You said earlier “The magnetic field is the electric field distorted (it is no longer isotropic) when seen by a moving charge”.  You used the word “is” but our concept of a magnetic field is different to that of an electric field, so you can’t say “is” as they are two different things.  I think what you are saying is that the distorted E field can be considered as equivalent to a combination of an undistorted electric field plus a magnetic field.  I would not argue with that, but it tells me that there is a deeper layer of math that describes some sort of overall interaction.  In the general case we have for a force field F, F = F1(E) + F2(M).  In practice we never deal with individual charges, and in our magnetic world we usually have the situation where the sum of all the electric F1 fields is zero leaving only the sum of some of the magnetic F2 fields.  That then brings into question as to what actually emanates from any charge to arrive in a region of space where its effect gets cancelled?  Note that it is the effect that gets cancelled, as you have repeatably pointed out there can be other regions pf space where fields appear to sum and not negate so that emanation can travel through the cancellation region and out the other side.  But our vision of an effect (a force on a charge) is a field hence we talk about field cancellation.  But if whatever travels at velocity c from a charge is something that cannot be changed, then that is the deeper level that I am looking for.  And that brings in the aether.
Quote
But have you tried to cancel the field of small coils carrying a constant current and spaced from each other by 1 million times their diameter (the order of magnitude of separation of electrons in relation to their size, in a material), by placing them in a single large coil fed by an opposite current?
Not here where we are talking about an electron sized coil around an electron.  But I can simulate an array of tiny coils in FEMM to see how they produce a field external to the array and how that compares to the field of a PM both internally and externally.   The first thing to note is that there is no negative H inside the array as required by our conventional science.  Everywhere B and H are contiguous and obey B = μ0H, and that includes the fields that pass through the current loops.  I can place a larger coil around the array to see how the fields change when that coil carries current.   And I can look at each tiny current loop to see how its flux changes when the outer coil carries current.  I can analyse the whole thing to see what energy each tiny current source supplies or receives.  I can move the tiny loops about in some fuzzy way to see whether the total energies from the current sources agree with the field energies.  (OK I haven’t really done all this to any great extent but you see where I am coming from).   The simulations show that the tiny current sources supply energy when the outer coil adds to the external field, and they receive energy when the outer coil negates the external field.  But you vehemently deny that an array of electron spins in a PM can be a source or a sink of energy.
 
Quote
I wish you courage...  By assimilating the spins to current loops, this simulation would however answer what you propose. This does not seem realistic to me.
Of course I can’t simulate down to electron sizes and separations but as I make each loop smaller I have to increase its current to simulate a known PM.  The energy flows remain the same no matter what tiny coil size I choose.
Quote
Spin has a magnetic moment, so we don't need a notion of speed to talk about a magnetic field.
A magnetic moment creates a magnetic field and you have said that a magnetic field requires relative motion.  Now you are saying the magnetic field from electron spin doesn’t require motion.  You can’t have it both ways. 
Quote
But if we see spin as a loop of current, then in a PM the relative velocity is that of the charges of this current with respect to the observer.
Agreed and the notion of a spinning spherical charge fits this bill
Quote
But does the macroscopic view of a PM allow us to assert that spin is equivalent to a simple current loop? Certainly not. One of the proofs is that if we can start from the movement of a charge to know the magnetic field, we cannot start from a magnetic field to know the movement of charges because the solutions are not unique.
I don’t see that as proof at all.  We are talking about a single electron having a magnetic moment hence creating a magnetic field.  Your “not unique” solution is for multiple charges.   
Quote
Another is the experiment of Stern and Gerlach which demonstrates that the electron is not a simple loop of current, reason for which one introduced the concept of spin!
And introduced the concept of spin having both angular momentum and magnetic moment.
Quote
….. So when you talk about a current loop for spin, when no angular velocity of charge is known or knowable, you are no longer in the non-fuzzy of a PM.
Really!!! I thought the angular velocity of spin was well known in terms of Planck’s constant.
Quote
In this case you have to propose an experiment whose result cannot be explained by conventional science.
This is what you have indirectly done by suggesting that Coler's device might have something to do with electron spin. I think this is a good idea, which is why I intervened in this thread. But now we have to find a way to use this idea to duplicate his device. I have just started to study spin currents, maybe that will help.
Irrespective of our different viewpoints I think we agree that a bunch of electrons in a region of space (like an electrode surface) having their spins aligned will create a magnetic field.  And if the number quantity of those electrons changes then so does the field.  And that change could induce voltage into a coil through which some of the field passes which in turn can pass through a load resistance to deliver power.  Since the driving force changing the electron quantity is dominantly electric (like charging a capacitor) CoE demands that the electric drive should supply that power.  But the feed back from the load current is magnetic, and examination of that field indicates that its electric inducement into the capacitor charging circuit is not of the correct phase to account for that electrical loading effect.  As you say it needs an experiment to find out.  Unfortunately doing various sums around this problem I think the experiment needs electrolytic super capacitor technology to get anywhere.  The capacities associated with the Coler Fe rods are not enough to account for the results there.

Smudge


   

Group: Tinkerer
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 3540
tExB=qr
Why can't we rotate the aether instead of the electrons?
   
Group: Experimentalist
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 1020
You said earlier “The magnetic field is the electric field distorted (it is no longer isotropic) when seen by a moving charge”.  You used the word “is” but our concept of a magnetic field is different to that of an electric field

Our concepts of electric and magnetic field are different, wrongly, for historical and also practical reasons. But they are exactly the same thing, and this is demonstrated by relativity :

"the sources that create the field are at rest with respect to one of the reference frames. Given the electric field in the frame where the sources are at rest, one can ask: what is the electric field in some other frame?
Knowing the electric field at some point (in space and time) in the rest frame of the sources, and knowing the relative velocity of the two frames provided all the information needed to calculate the electric field at the same point in the other frame. In other words, the electric field in the other frame does not depend on the particular distribution of the source charges, only on the local value of the electric field in the first frame at that point. Thus, the electric field is a complete representation of the influence of the far-away charges. [...] That is, the magnetic field is simply the electric field, as seen in a moving coordinate system.
"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relativistic_electromagnetism

For more information and examples, see chapter 14-8 page 231 of Paul Bickerstaff's course, especially § 14-8-1 where he finds by relativity the forces on parallel wires carrying currents.

Quote
But if whatever travels at velocity c from a charge is something that cannot be changed, then that is the deeper level that I am looking for.  And that brings in the aether.

The idea of ether comes from the fact that we are talking about electromagnetic waves and that a wave needs a propagation medium, which determines its speed.
Is the limiting speed c related to this ether? As this speed is a limit to everything, including the transmission of information or gravity, I think that it goes far beyond electromagnetic waves, which removes one of the reasons for wanting an ether for the propagation of electromagnetic waves.
If I send in space, at any speed, a spring with an oscillating mass at each end, I observe an oscillation, I can define a wavelength and thus see it as a wave, and yet this object which looks like a wave is not one. A photon traveling in space could be of this model, thus not requiring an ether.
I am not closed to the idea of ether, we know that the quantum vacuum is not really empty, but I do not see any convincing demonstration of its necessity for a field.


Quote
Not here where we are talking about an electron sized coil around an electron.  But I can simulate an array of tiny coils in FEMM to see how they produce a field external...

I do not doubt that the simulation gives consistent results. What worries me is the order of magnitude of the current in the small coils.
Have you calculated the current in a loop of the electron radius, capable of generating the same magnetic moment as the spin? The result could invalidate the loop hypothesis, for example if the speed of the charge were to be greater than the speed of light.

Quote
A magnetic moment creates a magnetic field and you have said that a magnetic field requires relative motion.  Now you are saying the magnetic field from electron spin doesn’t require motion.  You can’t have it both ways.

The magnetic moment does not create anything, it characterizes the intensity of the magnetic field.
And I have already answered: these notions depend on the context.
If we talk about spin as a quantum object, we do not talk about the speed of rotation of a charge, a spin is not a classical rotation although it has a magnetic moment.
If we talk about current loops, then by definition of what a current is, there is motion.
Why would you want an element of reality to be represented by only one model, the classical model?

Quote
We are talking about a single electron having a magnetic moment hence creating a magnetic field.  Your “not unique” solution is for multiple charges.

The "not unique" solution is not specific to multiple charges. In the case of the magnetic field, it implies only the currents; that is to say that the knowledge of a magnetic or electric field in space does not allow, in a unique way, to calculate the intensity nor the configuration of the charges or currents which could give rise to it, thus even less the charge or the chargeS at the origin of the current. There are theoretically an infinite number of possible paths and current intensities to create any magnetic field, including the spin field.

Quote
I thought the angular velocity of spin was well known in terms of Planck’s constant.

A spin is not a classical rotation. If it is, please tell us which charge is rotating at which angular velocity and on which trajectory.

Quote
Irrespective of our different viewpoints I think we agree that a bunch of electrons in a region of space (like an electrode surface) having their spins aligned will create a magnetic field.  And if the number quantity of those electrons changes then so does the field.  And that change could induce voltage into a coil through which some of the field passes which in turn can pass through a load resistance to deliver power.  Since the driving force changing the electron quantity is dominantly electric (like charging a capacitor) CoE demands that the electric drive should supply that power.

I agree

Quote
  But the feed back from the load current is magnetic, and examination of that field indicates that its electric inducement into the capacitor charging circuit is not of the correct phase to account for that electrical loading effect.  As you say it needs an experiment to find out.  Unfortunately doing various sums around this problem I think the experiment needs electrolytic super capacitor technology to get anywhere.  The capacities associated with the Coler Fe rods are not enough to account for the results there.

Whether the feed back is magnetic or electric makes no difference, it is electric in all cases for the reason of relativity said above. Consequently between source and load, all the effects of voltages and currents are always reciprocal.
Imho if free energy were to emerge from classical electromagnetic setups, no matter how they are twisted, it would have been done long ago. I am therefore researching where it is less explored, at least in the field of energy, with spin currents. They can be produced at the interface of ferromagnetic/non-ferromagnetic metals, as we have at Coler, and spin currents can create forces on conduction electrons. All this is complex and I am just starting out.




---------------------------
"Open your mind, but not like a trash bin"
   
Jr. Member
**

Posts: 89
A spin is not a classical rotation. If it is, please tell us which charge is rotating at which angular velocity and on which trajectory.

Again, you should look into Distinti's latest work. I'll even attach his most recent paper.

If I may use his terms. 2 inertialess "pretons" spinning at the speed of light each having half a charge of an electron are what make up an electron. This is deduced from his model of induction which was experimentally fitted using a search algorithm many years ago. Expanding on this model of induction it can be shown that these pretons spinning about each other also cause a force to emerge that is equivalent to what is now known as the mass of an electron leading to the fact that mass or better yet inertia is not an intrinsic property of fundamental particles.
   
Group: Experimentalist
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 1020
@broli

Alternative physics theories, mostly incompatible with each other, can be found by the hundreds on the WEB. Even if we spent all our life, we could not validate or invalidate them all.

Fortunately, most of these theories either do not predict anything more than the established theories, so we do not need them, or they are not scientific. We can therefore limit ourselves to those that show us that they are scientific.
To be scientific, they must be refutable, and therefore contain in themselves the means to refute them, notably by a confrontation with facts and observations in relation to what they predict.

To avoid wasting my time, I therefore have a demand, with theorists, that they accompany any new theory with descriptions of experiments allowing to obtain new effects that the already established theories would fail to predict.

Is this the case with Distinti, concerning his "pretons"?


---------------------------
"Open your mind, but not like a trash bin"
   

Jr. Member
**

Posts: 76
To avoid wasting my time, I therefore have a demand, with theorists, that they accompany any new theory with descriptions of experiments allowing to obtain new effects that the already established theories would fail to predict.

An expert's participation would be better spent helping to devise falsifiable experiments based on a novel concept rather than demanding it of others.

Like Oliver Heaviside, turning Maxwell's nearly-incomprehensible quaternions into simple formulas and relations that engineers could more easily use and apply.
« Last Edit: 2022-08-03, 15:36:15 by Hakasays »
   
Jr. Member
**

Posts: 89
Have been doing some more research into spintronics and it's quite fascinating especially spin orbit currents.

This talk is very interesting and includes many gold nuggets: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kN1M2_jxSfg

What is most amazing to me is the fact where he starts talking about how angular momentum can be taken out of the lattice and transferred to the electron spin due to the conservation of angular momentum. This is quite amazing. As transferring angular momentum from a high mass object to a low mass object essentially increases its energy state. Like a figure skater pulling their arms in.

Here's another mention of this:

https://youtu.be/XClsXAqU6ZM?t=466
   
Group: Experimentalist
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 1020
@broli

Thanks for the links, I will look at this carefully.


---------------------------
"Open your mind, but not like a trash bin"
   
Group: Experimentalist
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 1020
An expert's participation would be better spent helping to devise falsifiable experiments based on a novel concept rather than demanding it of others.

Like Oliver Heaviside, turning Maxwell's...

And how can the one who provides the new concept know that it is a new concept, if he has not made the effort to design an experiment, even a thought experiment, that could demonstrate it?
Perhaps this is simply bullshit. The notion of refutability is paramount in science, my demand should be self-evident.

Heaviside did not introduce new physical concepts, like pretons. His concepts are in math. He only proposed new tools for dealing with conventional electromagnetism, so of course it was refutable since it was enough to apply them to the classical experiments already known.


---------------------------
"Open your mind, but not like a trash bin"
   
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4
« previous next »


 

Home Help Search Login Register
Theme © PopularFX | Based on PFX Ideas! | Scripts from iScript4u 2022-08-16, 15:12:06