Howdy, Stranger!
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Powered by leedskalnin.com & buzzdev.net
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Comments
My expectation is that we will not get the magnetic field predicted by the theory based on the notion of drifting charges. Let's say that a real experiment, as I have outlined it, shows conclusively that no magnetic field can be generated by rotating shell(s) of charge. What would that mean then? That would mean that the whole concept of electric current as a moving charge is a bogus one. In other words, that would show that Ampere's electrodynamics, despite its phenomenal success in doing calculations, is built on house of cards from the conceptual point of view. Charging the shells with different types of electricity is the easiest part of the experiment - the process is no different from that of charging capacitor plates.
As of how the electric "field" of charged conductor radiates, it might look something like that depicted in the attached image (click on the image to enlarge it). This image might be way off, but at least it shows that "radiating" must necessarily be of the nature of two-way traffic - otherwise the conservation of aether matter will be violated.
See also my model of electric charge; what you see here is nothing but an illustration to the model - it should not be taken literally or too seriously.
In fact I'm working these days on a different setting of experiment that aimed to show
exactly what your experiment should do. My prediction is identical to yours, though the
results are the judge here.
I think in your setting the outer shell will cause the inner shell to join it's rotation but
not because of a magnetic field but because two other reasons :
1. If the inner shell is charged w/ the opposite charge then attracted to the outer and join
it's rotation.
2. If the inner shell is neutral it will also be attracted to the outer shell but in a lesser force
than the charged one and it will also join the outer shell rotation.
So I maybe missed how you want to show that the so-called electric charge movement
does not cause a magnetic field ? maybe you can elaborate on that.
Why don't you pass a charged object by a coil of copper wire and connect the coil to
a voltmeter to see if any electric current was produced ?
About your drawing of the suspected electrostatic field I have some reservations, since
you are showing two way movement but no orbiting and no poles at the hearts of the
exchange. I'm not suggesting this field should be independent from it's surrounding, but
I do think that the reason for it's existence is first of all "down on the ground" of the charged
object and there maybe also an exchange of particles w/ it's surrounding.
But that's only my opinion.
In the case of shells with opposite charges, the picture is a bit different. Nevertheless, as long as the shells remain concentric (which is not difficult to enforce), there will be no net electrical attraction between the shells whether the shell(s) is(are) rotating or not.
If the shells are not kept concentric, redistribution of charges on both shells will take place and the shells will be attracted by electric force.
But, after all, we can do the experiment with one shell only involved, simplifying thereby the experiment significantly. The idea is very simple: rotate a charged shell made of non-magnetic but conductive material like copper, and measure the magnetic field inside the shell. When we do that, we will, of course, detect a magnetic field there - earth's magnetic field. The question is: will the rotating shell cause a change in the magnitude of the magnetic field we detect inside the shell? If we detect no change, then we know that charged rotating shell generates no magnetic field in addition to earth's.
And that would invalidate Ampere's simplistic conception that magnetism is an effect caused by the net drift of electric charges.
What is the level of magnetometer resolution required for our experiment? That's the question I have tried to answer by estimating the magnitude of magnetic field predicted by classical electrodynamics. The magnitude of earth's magnetic field at the surface is in the range 25 - 65 microtesla, depending on the location, while the magnitude of magnetic field we could hope to generate by rotating a charged shell (provided that it is indeed generated) is about a dozen, or so, nanotesla.
So, we need a pretty good magnetometer to be able to experimentally prove that the theoretically predicted magnetic field does not follow. Magnetometers of the required sensitivity and accuracy are readily available today in the market: Magnetometer Datasheets.
coil, 500 turns, which a voltmeter connected to ? There will be a reading or not ?
BTW, showing "what not is not" is not enough (even though no one will believe you and
quick explanations will emerge like mushrooms after the rain to your experiment.....).
You would have also to show "what's Yes" and in order to do so I think we don't need the
traditional +σ or –σ but only one charged object since you already have both North & South
pole magnets in it (or in your view : some type of + and -).
It's funny that instead of going forward and make experiments more sophisticated and
complex you need to cut it back all the way to it's roots, in order to eliminate as many as
side effects from the pure phenomena.
Unfortunately science route of investigation passing through "The path of least resistance".
In other words : it was much too difficult (in the 1700's - 1900's) to detect / observe / conduct /
separate / find the base unit of Magnetism than Electricity. That's why the Electricity got the
upper hand and the Magnetism as of today consider a pure electric phenomena.
The Electric charge, the electron, the Protons and the Neutrons are in fact "Mathematical-
Constants" which "ensouled" by "sold game experiments" in which by indirect observation,
"Mother Math" gave birth to these constants.
That's why I suggest to peal off as many unnecessary players in experiments.
Please give us your realistic estimates, like I did with my experiment. When you get down to the calculations, you will find them rather complicated, in fact, so complicated that you will have hard time convincing anyone that your calculations are reliable. Then, what if your calculations show that you have to shoot off your charged rubber bullet with the velocity Gagarin circled the earth?
Give us your estimates, please. That is true: even if we show that no detectable magnetic field is generated, there will be no shortage of "classical" explanations as of why we failed to detect the magnetic field, the absence of which will be denied vehemently. I fail to understand though: how the experiment you have suggested is different from mine in this regard? Again, I do not expect that your experiment will show "what's Yes"; if it shows "what's Yes", then you simply confirm that the notion of electric current as a drifting charge is correct after all. Is that what you want to show? If that was the purpose of my experiment, I would also expect to show "what's Yes" - the magnetic field.
Besides, haven't you read the part of my comment where I say that we need only one shell with one type of charge only, positive or negative, to run the experiment?
in the law where they can provide their clients an escape route...... Same with Ampere's law,
since according to you it works both in a current carry conductor and on a moving charged
object. So correct me if I'm wrong, but where have you seen or heard about a serious
experiment where someone accelerated a charged object which passed by a coil that
generated electricity ?
I know what Ampere law predict for a moving charge, but if I'm not wrong this tests was
done on two parallel electric carrying wires which assumed that electric charges runs inside
them and responsible for the magnetic field around them. So even if the experiment I
suggested was done, I think it needs to be done in such a way that will prove above any
doubt that the moving charge is not the cause for the magnetic field. I point out a direction
of many experiments that can be.
Ed never dare to confront orthodox electricity in their "Home Court" where the electric charge
is their building block, so to speak. Instead he preferred to stay around "Magnetic Currents"
where it was for him much easier to come up with good tests and explanations.... smart but
not incredibly courageous for someone who present such a revolutionary approach and theory....
So there should be a series of experiments, definitely not only one and before getting
down to math, we should find the smoking gun (where lawyers find the breaks in the law).
And this neglected field of static electricity and magnetism which you can find very little
about it in Google - could be a good ground base to start with.
And one very important thing : Ampere's law is heavily based on Gauss's law which claim
that magnetic monopols can not exists because for every virtual South monopole that
leaves the Gaussian closed surface there will be a virtual North monopole that will enter
and replace it, so they cancel each other and that's why they cannot exists.......BUT what
if this virtual magnetic line start to move towards our copper coil and cut through it in 90
degrees ??? That's why Gauss's Law is good for a static setting of undisturbed magnetic
field, but not to one in motion !!! So we have the "What's no" and the "What's Yes".
All is needed are real life experiments and some math.
According to me, Ampere's law will not work in the case of a moving charged object - like that in your flying charged rubber bullet experiment, for example, or in my rotating charged shell experiment. Why? Because the conception of electric current as moving charge is, in my opinion, a simplistic and erroneous conception to begin with.
It may sound preposterous and audacious to some, but my goal is to prove that Ampere's conception of electric current is not consistent with reality and logic. How can we possibly prove that? By reductio ad absurdum: disproof of a proposition by showing that it leads to absurd or untenable conclusions. I do not believe that Ampere's law will work in the case of flying charged rubber bullet or rotating charged shell, but I assume that it will, and proceed from there in the hope that the conclusion that follows from such an assumption (namely, generation of magnetic field inside the shell - in my case, or a current in the coil - in your case) can be experimentally proved to be wrong.
I believe your assumption to be correct that no one ever conducted an experiment "where someone accelerated a charged object which passed by a coil that generated electricity". You may say: "Ok, then, let us just run my experiment and see whether any current is generated in the coil or not." But if we detect no current in the coil in your experiment, what conclusion we can draw from it? There are two equally legitimate conclusions to be drawn: (a) there is no current there to detect in the first place, therefore, Ampere is wrong; or (b) Ampere is right, but the current is so minuscule that we just failed to detect it. No matter how good and sensitive our equipment is, the doubt will linger ... unless we have an estimate (based on Amperes theory, of course) of the magnitude of the current we are trying to detect. That's the logic. Isn't that obvious?
But how can we tell which conclusion is right, and which is wrong? That's why we need to do the math on the assumption that Ampere is right in order to get an idea how strong the current (which we are trying to detect with a provisional assumption that it does indeed exist) would be.
Without these calculations, there is no way you can draw any unambiguous conclusion as of what the voltmeter in your experiment not showing any reading really means.
So, I repeat, give us your calculations, please. I ask for the calculations not because I want to play hard ball with you, but because these calculations are imperative. Without more or less reliable numerical estimate of the hypothetical current in question, it is not possible to draw a solid conclusion from your experiment.
Please take a look at the following paper, which was brought to my attention by Prof. Assis: Experimental demonstration of the equivalence of a mechanically oscillated electrostatic charge to an alternating current by Tolman, Richard C. and McRae, Daniel B. (1929)
As a matter of fact, the set-up in Tolman-McRae experiment is a variation on the idea you have suggested earlier. I urge you to pay special attention to section III Elimination of Accidental Effects to truly appreciate the meaning of the adage the devil is in the detail.
Now, the really interesting question is: Does the Tolman-McRae experiment prove the equivalence of convection current (moving static charge) and regular conduction electric current? Your call?
In my opinion it does not; or, at least, not more than atomic bomb combined with Einstein's formula E = M*C^2 prove the equivalence of matter and energy, or not more than Michelson-Morley experiments prove non-existence of aether.
And I have much more to say about the real physical meaning of E = M*C^2.
I understand your concern about missing the results of my test due to not calculating them
prior to the test, but I would prefer to use the math after the test is done because during the
experiment I can facilitate the setting or observe anomalies which where not predicted and
chiefly - keep my mind free to Directly Observe the test itself. I definitely think that the math is
inevitable and will help me to express my findings or as you suggested : will find if I missed
something during the test.
I'm not sure whether you are familiar with the controversy about Coulomb torsion balance
results ? But many claiming (including great Maxwell) that Coulomb "diverted" his results to
meet the calcs he did prior and knew exactly what he was after :
http://philsci-archive.pitt.edu/11048/1/The_Material_Intricacies_of_Coulomb's_1785_Electric_Torsion_Balance_Experiment_(EV).pdf
I'm not suggesting that it could happen in our case and the math is an integral part of the
experiment, but in my opinion should come after. In any case we can "solve" the experiment
mathematically just for the fun of it if you wish.
I have in my agenda more experiments that could determine whether a moving charge will
produce a magnetic field around it. For instance you can drop two rubber balls inside a 1 meter
long copper tube, while one ball is charged and the other is not. If the charged ball will produce
a magnetic field it suppose to oppose the force that created it (Lenz's law) and therefor will hit
the bottom of the tube after the uncharged ball. Even if it will touch the tube inside walls and
discharge or will share 1/2 the charge with the tube, it will suppose to produce a magnetic field.
I saw the experiment by Tolman..... I had a hard time to understand the setting. My fear is
that the more equipment, the more sophisticated and the more complex is the experiment,
then the more they based their setting on an unknown ground. In my opinion something went
wrong when the ancient Greeks rubbed the Amber and found the positive and the negative
instead of focusing on why the hell it attract grains of sand !!! from there and on everything
diverted away from the North and South pole magnets that did not need any positive or
negative in order to attract grains of sand. So our scale of view is very different.
There is a tricky issue here : I think both Ampere and Biot-Savart laws are about a moving
electric charge inside a conductor causing a magnetic field. So the question is how to show
an electric charge motion out of a conductor that exhibit or does not exhibit a magnetic field ?
Maybe you can answer that.
Interested to hear what you have to say about E = M C^2 or Michelson-Morley experiment.
I also have a lot to say. Maybe we should open a new topic for that ?
so many contradictions, so many youtube videos / books / PDF's that give different explanations
to different aspect of electricity and magnetism, that sometimes you don't even know who is the
responsible adult in the room..... while you are dealing with a "nine heads dragon", so to speak.
For instance : in an electric current (DC) the electrons that move from atom to atom
at 0.74 mm / second - very very slow (the drift velocity), while the electric energy (the charges)
are coming from the positive (the other side) at the speed of light....... In AC, the electrons are
just vibrating from side to side between the atoms and the positive energy of charges is coming
from the other side which change at 50-60 Hz.
So the electrons run against the electric field. And then you ask yourself : but electrons carry
the elementary charge (negative), so if it's a two lanes road why in one lane there is a traffic
of Negative Snails and in the opposite direction runs Positive Energy in the form of Waves ???
If this two road was made for snail why they don't run in both directions ? Same with the energy?
elusive belief system ? I think human underestimate the simplicity and elegance of nature.
Also we live in a young civilization 3,000 - 4,000 years old, which draw it's influence mainly from
the past 2,000 years. And as a young children have to go through stages of recognition and
validation of the world which he lives in, so does our civilization.
The ancient Greeks were the one of the first in this civilization, they found both electricity and
magnetism, did not know much what to make of them up to Galileo and William Gilbert times
where they come back on the scene under two forces. When the mechanical revolution started
the goal of science split to exploration of nature and engineering, which gave rise to the usage
of electricity, magnetism NO MATTER WHAT - IN THE NAME OF TECHNOLOGY. That was
and still the name of the race.
The allowance to bend and twist nature was given, as long as it works was the modern notion.
So actually we really don't need to know what stand at the heart of matter, energy and life
anymore, we only need to get familiar with their characteristics, be able to calculate it, predict
the results and finally give a name to it which was the stamp of "we got it" and let's move on.
So was the case with electricity and magnetism - once they where found, human could not
make them one entity, same fate was for the atom and the 35 elementary particles that compos
it or the 4 fundamental forces, restriction by the speed of light and the new science which call
itself Quantum Mechanic which shrouded itself with complicated math mantle that only a group
of "selected physicists" able to decipher this encryption of nature.
WELCOME TO OUR WORLD.
Ken demonstrates why on his YouTube site. An in coming magnetic radiation instantly flips an established magnetic field which is in a stronger magnetic field.
Nothing has changed since then; even today we can repeat after Weber and Kohlrausch:
So the “drift” is not an experimental fact – it is nothing but a device for carrying out calculations.
Hence the experiment I have suggested earlier. Since we cannot prove the physical reality of the “drift”, let us turn things around: (a) make the "drift" a reality, (b) do calculations based on that drift, (c) then see whether the predictions of drift-based theory of electrodynamics correspond to the actual experimental observations.
This important point goes deeper. In the 18th century it was known and understood that all units or dimensions were in fact ratios. Time, length , mass, basic units Are all ratios. They were not confused, we are. We have been told that these terms are existent things rather than labels for measures.
Newton was aware of this confusion with his measures. He warned specifically aainst it. This is why he framed no hypothesis about so called gravity. Unfortunately many of his contemporaries were not so scrupulous.
As it was part of the scientific way people gradually left off explaining this point. Careful observers always explain the difference between the formal devices for representation and the phenomena themselves. However big money for technological results , social acclaim, make these distinctions seem unimportant.
We just have to admit our limitations and live in a pragmatic approximate modelling of how things actually behave. Being in your right mind certainly helps.