Thread split: Why learn physics by yourself/electric fields vs. magnetic fields

[Hawkeye]

Re: Why learn physics by yourself

Sure, but according to the spin theory, it should be extremely magnetic. It isn't.

In the hydrogen atom, a nucleus with a single positively charged proton, which remains stationary, is orbited by a single negatively charged electron. Such a configuration may give the impression that hydrogen has a powerful magnetic attraction, but this is not the case. Hydrogen gas is, in effect, only very weakly magnetic. The reason for this is that hydrogen atoms are not found in isolation. They are bonded together to form a molecule, which has a lower chemical energy than separate atoms. Within this molecule, the momentum of one electron travels in the opposite direction to that of its neighbor. Due to this phenomenon, the molecule is only weakly magnetic and is considered to lack a permanent magnetic moment.

Read more: http://www.ehow.com/list_7648446_magnetic-properties-hydrogen.html#ixzz2bkdKru7m

 

[spoirier]

Re: Why learn physics by yourself

I see the misunderstanding, sorry. Indeed what I wrote was prone to misinterpretation. I wrote that "there is no problem with the currently established theories of physics, which are perfectly correct."
This way I meant that they are the correct descriptions of things in their respective domains of approximation.
In the way I meant, we can also say that Newton's law of gravitation is correct too, in the sense that it is the correct explanation of gravity in our daily experience, together with the movement of planets. That the attractive force is indeed in 1/r2, and not 1/r or 1/r3.
All these main ideas remain true and the best way to understand things in practice in first approximation, even if in other more extreme cases, this turns out to be an approximation of the deeper description by general relativity, and corrections can be found.

When writing that "the currently established theories of physics... are perfectly correct", I meant that each of these theories was found to be the right description of its respective object. Not that the totality of the physical world is reducible to them.
But moreover, the "remaining cases" of phenomena still not well described by current theories, are quite extreme from an experimental viewpoint, requiring very expensive accelerators, or quite indirect deductions from astronomical observations.

For this reason, the expectation of being able to make simple experiments and practical applications of a new view of electromagnetism, is totally unrealistic, given what is already established.

And I'm not happy to see my thread hijacked in this way.

 

[just george]

Re: Why learn physics by yourself

In the hydrogen atom, a nucleus with a single positively charged proton, which remains stationary, is orbited by a single negatively charged electron. Such a configuration may give the impression that hydrogen has a powerful magnetic attraction, but this is not the case. Hydrogen gas is, in effect, only very weakly magnetic. The reason for this is that hydrogen atoms are not found in isolation. They are bonded together to form a molecule, which has a lower chemical energy than separate atoms. Within this molecule, the momentum of one electron travels in the opposite direction to that of its neighbor. Due to this phenomenon, the molecule is only weakly magnetic and is considered to lack a permanent magnetic moment.

Read more: http://www.ehow.com/list_7648446_magnetic-properties-hydrogen.html#ixzz2bkdKru7m

I know. Plus as a gas, they form an amorphous mass without any significant structure that would lend itself to the manifestation of a significant field.

As I (badly) explained, my main problem is that everything I have read about it talks about electron spin ratios as if it were the subatomic structure itself that led to the manifestation of what we call a magnetic field.

The way I think about atoms/matter, what we have is a bunch of spinning charged particles, that spin with each other. It is the synchronistic spin of charge relative to other stuff spinning differently that creates a field, which then means that a magnetic field actually depends on what is around whatever that magnetic thing is.

The other main thing that drives me mad is that most papers explain magnetic fields as if they're equal everywhere ie a magnet in space is the same as a magnet on earth is the same as a magnet in water. Then, they say that magnetic fields combine to form a new field.

It doesn't make sense. It makes more sense to view magnetism as a relationship between spinning charge, rather than a thing in and of itself.

 

[spoirier]

Re: Why learn physics by yourself

I brought up a hole in the theory, in that the idea that electron spin ratio determining magnetism is wrong.

The reasoning is simple - as atoms get bigger, the number of electrons increases, as does their proximity to the nucleus. Therefore, logically speaking, for that theory to be correct, the larger the atom, the more out of balance the whole would be, and therefore, there would be examples of very magnetic, very large atoms - which does not hold true, as iron, which is much smaller than atoms on the big end of the periodic table, is more magnetizable than they are.

Like all cranks, you are only demonstrating the absurdity of your own misinterpretation of current physics. You pretend that current physics must be deducing this or that... which it absolutely does not do.
You pretend to find errors in theories that you did not start to understand in the first place.
You try to explain what current physics should be predicting about the movement of electrons in atoms... without using any mathematics, and even less any quantum physics.

"The reasoning is simple". Warf. While it takes supercomputers to calculate the predictions of quantum theory for systems of a few particles with a couple of decimals of accuracy. Well some approximations techniques are also available, but they still need care to be done correctly.

Further, if the idea that electron spin ratio producing magnetism were true, wouldn't that mean that hydrogen would be an extremely magnetic atom? After all, it is only supposed to have one electron. That means that it is 100% spinning in one direction.

No. The "movement" of the electron in an isolated hydrogen atom, is directionless. The Heisenberg inequalities do not let its movement having any definite orientation, since its position is so confined.
Still, if I'm not making a mistake, the isolated hydrogen atom (i.e. when it does not form a H2 molecule) has a significant magnetic momentum given by the intrinsic magnetic momentum of the electron (independent of its orbit around the nucleus)

Or how about lithium? 3 electrons. How do you balance the spin of 3 electrons? You can't. There would be severe imbalances in the direction of electron spin, and therefore a high degree of magnetic activity. Is there? No.

Among these 3 electrons, 2 form a pair. In a pair of electrons, both intrinsic spins, and thus the magnetic momenta from them, exactly cancel each other.
And more precisely, in lithium, this pair is on the lowest orbital, and therefore has no magnetic momentum from the orbital movement either.

It is clear that you have no clue about quantum physics.

Now that's enough, I won't bother reading this shit any further.

 

[Hawkeye]

Re: Why learn physics by yourself

I'm doing a terrible job at articulating it today, but magnetism as we interact with it does not happen on a sub atomic level. It happens on a crystalline or molecular level and up.

CRT TVs, Microwaves and everything else with an electron gun automatically disproves this.

The other main thing that drives me mad is that most papers explain magnetic fields as if they're equal everywhere ie a magnet in space is the same as a magnet on earth is the same as a magnet in water. Then, they say that magnetic fields combine to form a new field.

I seem to see a common thing in your posts which has been pointed out by others. Your problem is that you simply haven't grasped the concepts of EM theory. You say that you have, but that you totally disagree with them. However, you then continue to make false claims regarding EM theory and seemed confused about explanations like the one in your comment above.

Basically:

• Magnetic fields interact with each other; this is why objects attract and repel each other.
• A bar magnet works exactly the same underwater as it does in space; this has been tried and tested.

The way I think about atoms/matter, what we have is a bunch of spinning charged particles, that spin with each other. It is the synchronistic spin of charge relative to other stuff spinning differently that creates a field, which then means that a magnetic field actually depends on what is around whatever that magnetic thing is.

reworded

The way I think about atoms/matter, what we have is a bunch of spinning charged electrons, that spin with each other. It is the combined spin of these electrons that creates a field, which then means that a magnetic field actually depends on what is around whatever that magnetic thing is.

 

[just george]

Re: Why learn physics by yourself

CRT TVs, Microwaves and everything else with an electron gun automatically disproves this.



I seem to see a common thing in your posts which has been pointed out by others. Your problem is that you simply haven't grasped the concepts of EM theory. You say that you have, but that you totally disagree with them. However, you then continue to make false claims regarding EM theory and seemed confused about explanations like the one in your comment above.

Basically:

• Magnetic fields interact with each other; this is why objects attract and repel each other.
• A bar magnet works exactly the same underwater as it does in space; this has been tried and tested.

reworded

Your rewording is incorrect. I said particles, not electrons. Electrons are not the only spinning particles that count.

Magnetic fields do not act the same in different media, because a field is a relationship.

Magnetic fields do not interact with one another. A new relationship is formed that other people call a combined field. It is not a combined field. It is a new subjective relationship.

 

[Polaris]

Thread split and moved as requested by Spoirier.

Carry on, Gentlemen.

 

[Hawkeye]

Re: Why learn physics by yourself

Your rewording is incorrect. I said particles, not electrons. Electrons are not the only spinning particles that count.

I too said that electrons were not the only cause for magnetism, but they are the dominant cause. The magnetic momentum of nuclear spin is far weaker than that of electron orbital motion and spin.

Magnetic fields do not act the same in different media, because a field is a relationship.

You've changed the argument. Initially it was that magnets did not work the same in different medium; they do. Irrespective of that, magnetic fields work the same way too.

The magnetic strength varies based on permeability. Air and vacuum are practically the same to a magnet.

Magnetic fields do not interact with one another. A new relationship is formed that other people call a combined field. It is not a combined field. It is a new subjective relationship.

You appear to be arguing semantics albeit incorrectly as a combined field by definition is the result of interaction.

If the fields did not interact, no so called subjective relationship could form.

 

[Ex-User (5841)]

Hmmm... Obligatory shoutout:

http://theflatearthsociety.org/cms/