Sonar and cymatics. The Reynolds number provides a scaling factor for viscosity and momentum( quantity of motion) in a material, both at the surface and within the body of the material Consequently it justifies treating air fir example like a solid plate at certain Reynolds numbers. In this case the momentum of small material points must be extremely high compared to the relaxation time for a given vuscous medium . In this regard the speed of light may be considered as a momentum velocity component . That momentum compared with the velocity of air or plasma gives a characteristic scaling factor that makes plasmas appear similar to metal or glass mediums. This means that magnetic behaviours are not at all local, but indeed may well be the cymatic disturbance of this magnetic medium. . Like a sonar signal returns with certin information a magnetic pulse as in radar returns with enough detail to form radar images . These are cymatic or sympathetic vibrational physics concepts that can be explored by applying the correct very high Reynolds number to the circumstance.

In a sense partivpcle physicists do this without necessarily giving it much thought and string theorists may well be guilty of the sme. Quantum Physics may gain insight by concentrating on these aspects rather than time warps !

The magnetic field does not rotate about its dipole axis Is the magnetic field Stationary? No but the axial dipole pattern is super symmetrical. Rotating around that axis is the same as not rotating. However, if the rotation can achieve the correct frequency and the rotating material can withstand that dynamic then an effect should become apparent. The intensification of the field should lead to stresses in the central disc.,,tribomagnetic effects that act in the axis direction rather than radially in the disk.

The above comment was for this video ! The MH curve is a measure of the NMR density. For iron it has a very long half life or relaxation time. The intensity against distance is an inverse square law , but the formula obscures that .

This full review of modern theory gives a useful comparator to the essential ideas in this thread.

The base in modern theory is charge, and it is called electric, and then when moving it is called current which is both electric and relativistic. The relativistic notion is essentially charge density variation. This is used to obscure arbitrary introduction of "magnetic " rules.

The highly mathematical symbolic notation dissuades much common sense assessment of the current electromagnetic theory.

This mathematical model obscures the two currents ( magnetic currents ) associated with an inductor/ conductor. So I represents the assumed " current " flow of charge. However there are two charges, the positive one being ignored. The supposed reason is that protons don't flow in a conductor! Well neither do electrons! What is dynamic is the magnetic currents, the effect of those magnetic currents is to support a positive and negative flow model! In older texts the positive flow is used, but more modern texts try to imposed just the negative flow.

Physically the magnetic currents appear to be slightly different. The two flows are CW and CCW in the same direction or CW in opposite directions( ie that is also CCW in opposite directions depending on the observers reference frame)

In this mathematical depiction, the vectors can take positive or negative values. If both are used one would expect a cancellation to zero. However this does not occur mathematically. The result is a doubling of the calculated result. This doubling is in fact scaled by half to give the desired result . Ivor Catt demonstrates how the current theory only uses half the power contained in the E x H TEM step surface . The magnetic energy is usually just ignored .

The interpretation if the model is as follows. The B vector us a circular vector. That represents the vortex around a conductor. It does take 2 values and thusvthev2 vortices are reduced to one obscuring symbol. Similarly the current, the force and the velocity.

The vector is physically an Equipotential surface. , but a circle wholly within the surface is depicted. Notice the for e acts perpendicularly to this surface and points to( or away from) the conductor surface. These force lines are n other contexts called electric force or electrostatic force lines! The velocity v is supposed to be the velocity of an imaginary electron . In fact it is physically the velocity of the magnetic current vortex as it establishes a steady state along the wire. . There are 2 velocities as the returning or reflected vortex travels back up the wire. This is the positive version of the electron, so by rights should be a positron! They are sometimes called holes in silicon wafer technology or confused with protons. It is easier to perceive these as a propagating vortex reflected at both ends. .

The resultant vector sum of zero used to make no sense, until Claes Johnson discovered that a vortex dynamic sums to zero! Thus the zero does not deny what we physically observe: dynamic interactions of vortices.

Many do not understand circular motion. I was amongst those until I realisedvNewton was using centrifugal and centripetal not as opposite forces, but alternative descriptions! Hayley in fact derived the centrifugal force equation for gravitational acceleration, Newton the centripetal one. So what that means is: for true circular motion radially balancing forces are required. A piece if string provides not only centripetal force for a rotating sling , but also an outward balancing component that travels from the hand out along the string to the object, . This keeps the string taut, but not by direct cancellation as in a rod, but by phase cancellation. The applied outward force promotes a velocity that occurs at a 90° phase to the sling. By resonance the circular motion is established. Lose that resonance and the string collapses.

However for celestial object a magnetic force acts between bodies to provide both electrostatic ( so called) attraction and repulsion ( the two forces of attraction and repulsion) at the body in question . Thus it is equivalent to a centripetal force or a centrifugal force keeping the cel actual body in orbit. I must also add that the body, moving through a plasma medium will also experience mechanical / hydrostatic forces that will act on the motion mitigated by the planetary objects own local rotation.

While they may be thought of as different forces, at a deeper fractal level it is possible to make the case for one fundamental force and that is rotational or as I say magnetic.

Rubbish explanation of origin of magnetic field lines but gorgeous images of the magneto dynamics of the sun

Magnetic field lines ares are a misleading depiction agnetic surfaces of Equipotential are what even Maxwell depicted in his theory! These surfacesb form filamentary structures of vorticular magnetic current. Carried within these tubular filaments plasma is travelling in both directions. The 2 currents are clearly visible. But they are not always dynamically equal like we see in a battery driven circuit . The emf and the back emf lead a merry dance , that is the 2 magnetic currents are not e es scarily in a stable dynamic , more like a reciprocating harmonic rotational oscillation The bar magnet fild is so misleading. It allows us to understand dipole directional dynamics of magnetic structures but not general trochoidal surface behaviour . A lodestone with multiple poles or even the dynamics of the sun give a better depiction of the general trochoidal surface dynamics we call magnetic behaviour

The covering of these behaviours is what we see in a sunspot image . A coronal hole is where the frequency and amplitude or power dynamics are huge but structurally dynamic so not coherent enough to exhibit sunspot like structure. Ben Davidson makes a case for sunspots to be vorticular storm structures in the heliosphere of the sum they are MASED structures ( that is explainable by he theory of MASING ) and magnetic currents in space on a galactic scale make better sense of the structures we observe. And their dynamics

From the magnetic force equation I can sketch a gravitational force equation. F = MdH/dx The H will be the intensity of the Interplanetary Magnetic Field ( IMF) of the sun

This actually decreases by an inverse square law it seems , so the dH will be effectively be some measure over the distance from the sun squared say h/ r^2 The dx is the displacement between the 2 measurements . As I assumed this was relatively small compared with the distance from the sun it is included In the measure r

The magnetisation of the earth is dependent on the magnetisation of the sun and the magnetization of the earth will be some proportion of that quantity? The field intensity H will also depend on the suns magnetization so it will be some proportion of that So F = me x mf x Ms^2/r^2 The me magnetic coefficient for the earth in the suns field will me a measure of the NMR density of the earth volume , while the mf the magnetic coefficient for the field will be the NMR density for that volume of space between the sun and the earth. Both of these coefficients will be proportional to a measurement we call mass. The solar mass is large but finite. The volume of the sphere around the sun at these distances will be huge so we can not measure the NMR directly but rather we would use a estimate based on sampling volumes in space.

We know that the NMR has 2 states slim up and pin down.

Using thesebw can estimate the balance of push and pull force acting on a magnetizable body in orbit around the sun.

This is a sketch only, but it anticipates that the gravitational force will be like the B field atound a bar magnet , not a lodestone, because current measurement schemes are based on this kind of set up. Also the set up clearly shows no universal application of the gravitational force, but rather it is dependent on local magnetization measures for each magnetic centre. Thus the sun, or another star or binary system is subject to an external magnetic field inducting its volume to an effective level where it's own field dominates in a local region.

This is of course excluding the concomitant cymatic effect of rotation in the magnetic field.

In electrostatics classical physics defined the behaviour as monopolar, which led directly to the incorrect idea of a monopolar electron. In fact Franklin carefully defined the behaviour as a double entry book kerping model thus monopolar meant excess or deficiency of a specified currency .

The status was thus bipolar or a dipole with one pole exceeding the other in potency. It is and always has been possible to create bar magnets with this behavioural,structure. In fact zed points to this effect in his homemade bar magnets ascribing it to latitudinal differences! . In charging a Leyden jar we are able to discharge some of this excess . The mechanism is not understood and do a monopole charge is taught as moving across to the other charge reservoir. In fact according to the balanced bookkeeping scenario, the adjustment I'd more a levelling out in a bigger resetvoir. Thus no monolar charge is necessary and the excess is distributed more widely, when the reservoir is suddenly reduced( the contact broken) the new level is still not equal to the original status . This is not a monopolar excess or diminution but a dipole imbalance .

This is important to understand because magnets can be created with exactly the same behaviour.

Depending on the magnetic permeability and the half life of the relaxation time ( NMR relaxation time) is how long a equal polar balance may be restored.

A magnetic current is thus entirely sound under current denotations.

However, in the light that "a current " is really a model hypothesised by Ampère a magnetic current is less preferable to a pair of standing vortices with contra rotations, and rotational progression in opposing motions

These propagations within a standing vortex are more apprehend able as phase change propagations and frequency change propagations which enjoy all the penetrative, reflective, refractive and diffractive properties

Magnetic monopoles—theorized particles with only one magnetic pole—might possibly be created by wave-wave collisions.

Magnetic monopoles are hypothesized particles that have a magnetic, rather than electric, charge. Despite a long history of nondetections, monopoles continue to be a topic of study because of their possible role in the unification of the fundamental forces. In new theoretical work, Tanmay Vachaspati from Arizona State University, Tempe, considered whether monopoles could be generated through the scattering of waves. The results suggest one might detect monopoles in collisions between high-intensity, circularly polarized light waves.

Monopoles were originally proposed in 1931 by the physicist Paul Dirac, who found they could explain why electric charge is discrete rather than continuous. Later on, theorists discovered that monopoles appeared naturally in so-called grand unified theories (GUTs), which connect electromagnetic and nuclear forces. Many experiments have looked for evidence of magnetic monopoles in high-energy collisions at particle accelerators, but nothing yet has shown up.

Instead of colliding two particles, as in an accelerator, Vachaspati asked what would happen if two waves collided? The waves in this case consist of many force-carrying particles, such as photons and W W bosons, that move coherently together. To describe these waves, Vachaspati used a GUT-like model that describes force-carrying particles in terms of fields. In his numerical simulations, two circularly polarized waves in these fields collide head-on. In the wake of these collisions, Vachaspati observed monopoles as cratered peaks in the energy density, and around the peaks the magnetic field was that of an isolated north or south pole. Vachaspati speculates that one might see signals of monopoles in the collisions of high-intensity laser beams, where photon-photon interactions are predicted to occur.

This research is published in Physical Review Letters.

–Michael Schirber

Michael Schirber is a Corresponding Editor for Physics in Lyon, France.

Diracvwas severely censured by his peers. He believed many things they did not and was forced to comply with his elders nd betters. Those in Academia are so easy to manipulate!

Later he was proved right in so many of his thn private musings nd the full extent of his quantum mechanics was restored., but misunderstood. It was supersceeded by Quantum theory . That he proposed the magnetic monopole was being true to his assumptions. That he did not subvert the prevailing electron paradigm is due to the intransigence of his peers, and their lack of understanding. You see the electron and the magnetic monopole are mathematical abstract definitions. The behaviour they characterise is plain as day but vulgarly described. We say pole because we grasp the poles in the earths topology , but what that behaviour is we can only describe by words and demonstrations , we can not know in ny other sense than how a thing behaves.

If you want to ascribe magical or spiritual entitic powers as causative, you in fact get no nearer to what is an infinity of truth! So what is mechanically useful? In classical days particles were. Alchemists modified these particles into morphble corpuscles. Atomists in physics morphed them back into billiard balls with charge, Einstein morphed them into energy balls with topological curvature and Bohr morphed them back into probabilistic fluid corpuscles . Modern physics kind of does not know what to depict them as beyond the mathematical symbols for them, and their topological environment in strings on membranes and in complexly interlocking surfaces.

The pragmatic engineer only needs the barest of descriptions as long as they reliably work. In my opinion fluid dynamics, fluents fluxions and fluxes are naturally better at describing real world behaviours. From these it is as easy to define the monopole magnet as it is to define the electron, but pragmatically magnetism is demonstrably prior to electricism.

A lot of people's fortunes and careers depended on putting the electron out there as prior. Dirac was forced to give electron and thus positron explanations of the physical behaviours Inthe wold, and of course he did. But he could equally and more directly explain our reality by magnetrons or monopolar magnets. But they shut him down ! http://www.pearl-hifi.com/11_Spirited_Growth/01_Alt_Physics/Diracs_Sea_of_Neg_Energy.pdf

Diracvwas severely censured by his peers. He believed many things they did not and was forced to comply with his elders nd betters. Those in Academia are so easy to manipulate!

Later he was proved right in so many of his thn private musings nd the full extent of his quantum mechanics was restored., but misunderstood. It was supersceeded by Quantum theory . That he proposed the magnetic monopole was being true to his assumptions. That he did not subvert the prevailing electron paradigm is due to the intransigence of his peers, and their lack of understanding. You see the electron and the magnetic monopole are mathematical abstract definitions. The behaviour they characterise is plain as day but vulgarly described. We say pole because we grasp the poles in the earths topology , but what that behaviour is we can only describe by words and demonstrations , we can not know in ny other sense than how a thing behaves.

If you want to ascribe magical or spiritual entitic powers as causative, you in fact get no nearer to what is an infinity of truth! So what is mechanically useful? In classical days particles were. Alchemists modified these particles into morphble corpuscles. Atomists in physics morphed them back into billiard balls with charge, Einstein morphed them into energy balls with topological curvature and Bohr morphed them back into probabilistic fluid corpuscles . Modern physics kind of does not know what to depict them as beyond the mathematical symbols for them, and their topological environment in strings on membranes and in complexly interlocking surfaces. Susskind uses an elastic corpuscle spring coupled model

The pragmatic engineer only needs the barest of descriptions as long as they reliably work. In my opinion fluid dynamics, fluents fluxions and fluxes are naturally better at describing real world behaviours. From these it is as easy to define the monopole magnet as it is to define the electron, but pragmatically magnetism is demonstrably prior to electricism.

A lot of people's fortunes and careers depended on putting the electron out there as prior. Dirac was forced to give electron and thus positron explanations of the physical behaviours In the world, and of course he did. But he could equally and more directly explain our reality by magnetrons or monopolar magnets. But they shut him down ! http://www.pearl-hifi.com/11_Spirited_Growth/01_Alt_Physics/Diracs_Sea_of_Neg_Energy.pdf

The magnetic field does not rotate about its dipole axis Is the magnetic field Stationary? No but the axial dipole pattern is super symmetrical. Rotating around that axis is the same as not rotating. However, if the rotation can achieve the correct frequency and the rotating material can withstand that dynamic then an effect should become apparent. The intensification of the field should lead to stresses in the central disc.,,tribomagnetic effects that act in the axis direction rather than radially in the disk.

Not sure I am following you on this. If one moves a bar magnet from one room to another, its magnetic field is obviously moves with it - no matter whether the filed is axisymmetric or not. If we tilt a bit the axis of the magnet, the field still moves. So why would you think that the magnetic field would not rotate about its dipole axis when we rotate the magnet, if that's what you mean.

If one moves his head, his hairs always move with it - no matter what type of movement that was: nodding, falling, spinning, rotating, etc. Why should it be any different with a bar of magnet?

@Barau_R_Tour I know it is not clear, so let me try again Observed by some the pattern of the cross section of a bar magnetic field about its dipole axis does not appear to change .

I claim it does, but it dies so symmetrically like a circle cut into sectors.

My current thought is that rotating a magnet at different frequencies will demonstrate that the field does rotate with the bar magnets axial rotation. M. Climont demonstrates a change in the magnetic field of a rotating conductor and that to me is evidence of a winding up of the vorticular field ! Since I posit two vorticular field dynamics the effect should be independent of battery attachment and dipole direction change if rotational direction remains the same.

Observed by some the pattern of the cross section of a bar magnetic field about its dipole axis does not appear to change . I claim it does, but it dies so symmetrically like a circle cut into sectors.

I take it as an acknowledgment that magnetic field indeed rotates with the magnet - just as the hairs do with the spinning head. So we are in agreement here.

My current thought is that rotating a magnet at different frequencies will demonstrate that the field does rotate with the bar magnets axial rotation.

First, I think the rotation of the field with the magnet is so obvious that it does not require any experimental proof. But if you still do, imagine a cylindrical bar of magnet with a perfectly axisymmetric field around it. Now, let us make a tiny hole in the bar off its axis, i.e. let us spoil the perfect symmetry of the field just a tiny bit. Do you have any doubt that we can easily detect the rotation of this minute field "defect" when we rotate the bar? I don't.

However, I highly doubt that by rotating the axisymmetric field faster and faster you can experimentally detect any change in the field. Your suggestion sounds logical if we take it theoretically. Indeed, in terms of the head-hair analogy, we would be able to prove experimentally that the hair rotates with the head: if the head spin rate is constant, the long hairs will be rotating with the head all oriented perfectly radially (to the axis not to the head, of course) - no matter how high the spin rate is - but if the spin rate is increasing, then the instant angular velocity of the head, on one hand, and that of any part of the hair filament, on the other, will differ because the hair filament would be "winding up", as you put it. But with the magnetic "hairs" the effect of "winding up" must be so miniscule that there is, probably, no hope of detecting it experimentally.

Since I posit two vorticular field dynamics the effect should be independent of battery attachment and dipole direction change if rotational direction remains the same.

You lost me again. It is interesting to note, though, that Faraday's unipolar generator/motor can be explained equally well, no matter what position one takes ( the magnetic field rotates with the magnet vs. the magnetic field does not rotate with the magnet).

## Comments

A modern version of a gas chamber detector. Again,mcymatic forms may be depicted as neutrino particles!

The Reynolds number provides a scaling factor for viscosity and momentum( quantity of motion) in a material, both at the surface and within the body of the material

Consequently it justifies treating air fir example like a solid plate at certain Reynolds numbers.

In this case the momentum of small material points must be extremely high compared to the relaxation time for a given vuscous medium . In this regard the speed of light may be considered as a momentum velocity component . That momentum compared with the velocity of air or plasma gives a characteristic scaling factor that makes plasmas appear similar to metal or glass mediums.

This means that magnetic behaviours are not at all local, but indeed may well be the cymatic disturbance of this magnetic medium. .

Like a sonar signal returns with certin information a magnetic pulse as in radar returns with enough detail to form radar images . These are cymatic or sympathetic vibrational physics concepts that can be explored by applying the correct very high Reynolds number to the circumstance.

In a sense partivpcle physicists do this without necessarily giving it much thought and string theorists may well be guilty of the sme.

Quantum Physics may gain insight by concentrating on these aspects rather than time warps !

The magnetic field does not rotate about its dipole axis

Is the magnetic field Stationary?

No but the axial dipole pattern is super symmetrical. Rotating around that axis is the same as not rotating. However, if the rotation can achieve the correct frequency and the rotating material can withstand that dynamic then an effect should become apparent.

The intensification of the field should lead to stresses in the central disc.,,tribomagnetic effects that act in the axis direction rather than radially in the disk.

The force equation uses a measure called magnetisation,,and changes rather than NMR density . This obscures the inverse square-like approximation.

The above comment was for this video !

The MH curve is a measure of the NMR density. For iron it has a very long half life or relaxation time.

The intensity against distance is an inverse square law , but the formula obscures that .

Physically the magnetic currents appear to be slightly different. The two flows are CW and CCW in the same direction or CW in opposite directions( ie that is also CCW in opposite directions depending on the observers reference frame)

In this mathematical depiction, the vectors can take positive or negative values. If both are used one would expect a cancellation to zero. However this does not occur mathematically. The result is a doubling of the calculated result. This doubling is in fact scaled by half to give the desired result . Ivor Catt demonstrates how the current theory only uses half the power contained in the E x H TEM step surface . The magnetic energy is usually just ignored .

The interpretation if the model is as follows. The B vector us a circular vector. That represents the vortex around a conductor. It does take 2 values and thusvthev2 vortices are reduced to one obscuring symbol. Similarly the current, the force and the velocity.

The vector is physically an Equipotential surface. , but a circle wholly within the surface is depicted. Notice the for e acts perpendicularly to this surface and points to( or away from) the conductor surface. These force lines are n other contexts called electric force or electrostatic force lines!

The velocity v is supposed to be the velocity of an imaginary electron . In fact it is physically the velocity of the magnetic current vortex as it establishes a steady state along the wire. . There are 2 velocities as the returning or reflected vortex travels back up the wire. This is the positive version of the electron, so by rights should be a positron! They are sometimes called holes in silicon wafer technology or confused with protons.

It is easier to perceive these as a propagating vortex reflected at both ends. .

The resultant vector sum of zero used to make no sense, until Claes Johnson discovered that a vortex dynamic sums to zero! Thus the zero does not deny what we physically observe: dynamic interactions of vortices.

Many do not understand circular motion. I was amongst those until I realisedvNewton was using centrifugal and centripetal not as opposite forces, but alternative descriptions! Hayley in fact derived the centrifugal force equation for gravitational acceleration, Newton the centripetal one.

So what that means is: for true circular motion radially balancing forces are required. A piece if string provides not only centripetal force for a rotating sling , but also an outward balancing component that travels from the hand out along the string to the object, . This keeps the string taut, but not by direct cancellation as in a rod, but by phase cancellation. The applied outward force promotes a velocity that occurs at a 90° phase to the sling. By resonance the circular motion is established. Lose that resonance and the string collapses.

However for celestial object a magnetic force acts between bodies to provide both electrostatic ( so called) attraction and repulsion ( the two forces of attraction and repulsion) at the body in question . Thus it is equivalent to a centripetal force or a centrifugal force keeping the cel actual body in orbit.

I must also add that the body, moving through a plasma medium will also experience mechanical / hydrostatic forces that will act on the motion mitigated by the planetary objects own local rotation.

While they may be thought of as different forces, at a deeper fractal level it is possible to make the case for one fundamental force and that is rotational or as I say magnetic.

Rubbish explanation of origin of magnetic field lines but gorgeous images of the magneto dynamics of the sun

Magnetic field lines ares are a misleading depiction agnetic surfaces of Equipotential are what even Maxwell depicted in his theory! These surfacesb form filamentary structures of vorticular magnetic current. Carried within these tubular filaments plasma is travelling in both directions. The 2 currents are clearly visible. But they are not always dynamically equal like we see in a battery driven circuit . The emf and the back emf lead a merry dance , that is the 2 magnetic currents are not e es scarily in a stable dynamic , more like a reciprocating harmonic rotational oscillation

The bar magnet fild is so misleading. It allows us to understand dipole directional dynamics of magnetic structures but not general trochoidal surface behaviour . A lodestone with multiple poles or even the dynamics of the sun give a better depiction of the general trochoidal surface dynamics we call magnetic behaviour

The covering of these behaviours is what we see in a sunspot image . A coronal hole is where the frequency and amplitude or power dynamics are huge but structurally dynamic so not coherent enough to exhibit sunspot like structure.

Ben Davidson makes a case for sunspots to be vorticular storm structures in the heliosphere of the sum they are MASED structures ( that is explainable by he theory of MASING ) and magnetic currents in space on a galactic scale make better sense of the structures we observe. And their dynamics

F = MdH/dx

The H will be the intensity of the Interplanetary Magnetic Field ( IMF) of the sun

This actually decreases by an inverse square law it seems , so the dH will be effectively be some measure over the distance from the sun squared say h/ r^2

The dx is the displacement between the 2 measurements . As I assumed this was relatively small compared with the distance from the sun it is included In the measure r

The magnetisation of the earth is dependent on the magnetisation of the sun and the magnetization of the earth will be some proportion of that quantity?

The field intensity H will also depend on the suns magnetization so it will be some proportion of that

So

F = me x mf x Ms^2/r^2

The me magnetic coefficient for the earth in the suns field will me a measure of the NMR density of the earth volume , while the mf the magnetic coefficient for the field will be the NMR density for that volume of space between the sun and the earth.

Both of these coefficients will be proportional to a measurement we call mass. The solar mass is large but finite. The volume of the sphere around the sun at these distances will be huge so we can not measure the NMR directly but rather we would use a estimate based on sampling volumes in space.

We know that the NMR has 2 states slim up and pin down.

Using thesebw can estimate the balance of push and pull force acting on a magnetizable body in orbit around the sun.

This is a sketch only, but it anticipates that the gravitational force will be like the B field atound a bar magnet , not a lodestone, because current measurement schemes are based on this kind of set up.

Also the set up clearly shows no universal application of the gravitational force, but rather it is dependent on local magnetization measures for each magnetic centre. Thus the sun, or another star or binary system is subject to an external magnetic field inducting its volume to an effective level where it's own field dominates in a local region.

This is of course excluding the concomitant cymatic effect of rotation in the magnetic field.

The status was thus bipolar or a dipole with one pole exceeding the other in potency.

It is and always has been possible to create bar magnets with this behavioural,structure. In fact zed points to this effect in his homemade bar magnets ascribing it to latitudinal differences! .

In charging a Leyden jar we are able to discharge some of this excess . The mechanism is not understood and do a monopole charge is taught as moving across to the other charge reservoir. In fact according to the balanced bookkeeping scenario, the adjustment I'd more a levelling out in a bigger resetvoir. Thus no monolar charge is necessary and the excess is distributed more widely, when the reservoir is suddenly reduced( the contact broken) the new level is still not equal to the original status . This is not a monopolar excess or diminution but a dipole imbalance .

This is important to understand because magnets can be created with exactly the same behaviour.

Depending on the magnetic permeability and the half life of the relaxation time ( NMR relaxation time) is how long a equal polar balance may be restored.

A magnetic current is thus entirely sound under current denotations.

However, in the light that "a current " is really a model hypothesised by Ampère a magnetic current is less preferable to a pair of standing vortices with contra rotations, and rotational progression in opposing motions

These propagations within a standing vortex are more apprehend able as phase change propagations and frequency change propagations which enjoy all the penetrative, reflective, refractive and diffractive properties

J

Magnetic monopoles are hypothesized particles that have a magnetic, rather than electric, charge. Despite a long history of nondetections, monopoles continue to be a topic of study because of their possible role in the unification of the fundamental forces. In new theoretical work, Tanmay Vachaspati from Arizona State University, Tempe, considered whether monopoles could be generated through the scattering of waves. The results suggest one might detect monopoles in collisions between high-intensity, circularly polarized light waves.

Monopoles were originally proposed in 1931 by the physicist Paul Dirac, who found they could explain why electric charge is discrete rather than continuous. Later on, theorists discovered that monopoles appeared naturally in so-called grand unified theories (GUTs), which connect electromagnetic and nuclear forces. Many experiments have looked for evidence of magnetic monopoles in high-energy collisions at particle accelerators, but nothing yet has shown up.

Instead of colliding two particles, as in an accelerator, Vachaspati asked what would happen if two waves collided? The waves in this case consist of many force-carrying particles, such as photons and

W

W

bosons, that move coherently together. To describe these waves, Vachaspati used a GUT-like model that describes force-carrying particles in terms of fields. In his numerical simulations, two circularly polarized waves in these fields collide head-on. In the wake of these collisions, Vachaspati observed monopoles as cratered peaks in the energy density, and around the peaks the magnetic field was that of an isolated north or south pole. Vachaspati speculates that one might see signals of monopoles in the collisions of high-intensity laser beams, where photon-photon interactions are predicted to occur.

This research is published in Physical Review Letters.

–Michael Schirber

Michael Schirber is a Corresponding Editor for Physics in Lyon, France.

http://physics.aps.org/synopsis-for/10.1103/PhysRevLett.117.181601

Later he was proved right in so many of his thn private musings nd the full extent of his quantum mechanics was restored., but misunderstood. It was supersceeded by Quantum theory .

That he proposed the magnetic monopole was being true to his assumptions. That he did not subvert the prevailing electron paradigm is due to the intransigence of his peers, and their lack of understanding.

You see the electron and the magnetic monopole are mathematical abstract definitions. The behaviour they characterise is plain as day but vulgarly described. We say pole because we grasp the poles in the earths topology , but what that behaviour is we can only describe by words and demonstrations , we can not know in ny other sense than how a thing behaves.

If you want to ascribe magical or spiritual entitic powers as causative, you in fact get no nearer to what is an infinity of truth!

So what is mechanically useful? In classical days particles were. Alchemists modified these particles into morphble corpuscles. Atomists in physics morphed them back into billiard balls with charge, Einstein morphed them into energy balls with topological curvature and Bohr morphed them back into probabilistic fluid corpuscles .

Modern physics kind of does not know what to depict them as beyond the mathematical symbols for them, and their topological environment in strings on membranes and in complexly interlocking surfaces.

The pragmatic engineer only needs the barest of descriptions as long as they reliably work.

In my opinion fluid dynamics, fluents fluxions and fluxes are naturally better at describing real world behaviours. From these it is as easy to define the monopole magnet as it is to define the electron, but pragmatically magnetism is demonstrably prior to electricism.

A lot of people's fortunes and careers depended on putting the electron out there as prior.

Dirac was forced to give electron and thus positron explanations of the physical behaviours Inthe wold, and of course he did. But he could equally and more directly explain our reality by magnetrons or monopolar magnets. But they shut him down !

http://www.pearl-hifi.com/11_Spirited_Growth/01_Alt_Physics/Diracs_Sea_of_Neg_Energy.pdf

http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.620.3343&rep=rep1&type=pdf

Later he was proved right in so many of his thn private musings nd the full extent of his quantum mechanics was restored., but misunderstood. It was supersceeded by Quantum theory .

That he proposed the magnetic monopole was being true to his assumptions. That he did not subvert the prevailing electron paradigm is due to the intransigence of his peers, and their lack of understanding.

You see the electron and the magnetic monopole are mathematical abstract definitions. The behaviour they characterise is plain as day but vulgarly described. We say pole because we grasp the poles in the earths topology , but what that behaviour is we can only describe by words and demonstrations , we can not know in ny other sense than how a thing behaves.

If you want to ascribe magical or spiritual entitic powers as causative, you in fact get no nearer to what is an infinity of truth!

So what is mechanically useful? In classical days particles were. Alchemists modified these particles into morphble corpuscles. Atomists in physics morphed them back into billiard balls with charge, Einstein morphed them into energy balls with topological curvature and Bohr morphed them back into probabilistic fluid corpuscles .

Modern physics kind of does not know what to depict them as beyond the mathematical symbols for them, and their topological environment in strings on membranes and in complexly interlocking surfaces. Susskind uses an elastic corpuscle spring coupled model

The pragmatic engineer only needs the barest of descriptions as long as they reliably work.

In my opinion fluid dynamics, fluents fluxions and fluxes are naturally better at describing real world behaviours. From these it is as easy to define the monopole magnet as it is to define the electron, but pragmatically magnetism is demonstrably prior to electricism.

A lot of people's fortunes and careers depended on putting the electron out there as prior.

Dirac was forced to give electron and thus positron explanations of the physical behaviours In the world, and of course he did. But he could equally and more directly explain our reality by magnetrons or monopolar magnets. But they shut him down !

http://www.pearl-hifi.com/11_Spirited_Growth/01_Alt_Physics/Diracs_Sea_of_Neg_Energy.pdf

http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.620.3343&rep=rep1&type=pdf

Google D L Hotson if you have problems fining the articles.

If one moves his head, his hairs

alwaysmove with it - no matter what type of movement that was: nodding, falling, spinning, rotating, etc. Why should it be any different with a bar of magnet?I know it is not clear, so let me try again

Observed by some the pattern of the cross section of a bar magnetic field about its dipole axis does not appear to change .

I claim it does, but it dies so symmetrically like a circle cut into sectors.

My current thought is that rotating a magnet at different frequencies will demonstrate that the field does rotate with the bar magnets axial rotation.

M. Climont demonstrates a change in the magnetic field of a rotating conductor and that to me is evidence of a winding up of the vorticular field ! Since I posit two vorticular field dynamics the effect should be independent of battery attachment and dipole direction change if rotational direction remains the same.

However, I highly doubt that by rotating the axisymmetric field faster and faster you can

experimentallydetect any change in the field. Your suggestion sounds logical if we take it theoretically. Indeed, in terms of the head-hair analogy, we would be able to prove experimentally that the hair rotates with the head: if the head spin rate is constant, the long hairs will be rotating with the head all oriented perfectly radially (to the axis not to the head, of course) - no matter how high the spin rate is - but if the spin rate is increasing, then the instant angular velocity of the head, on one hand, and that of any part of the hair filament, on the other, will differ because the hair filament would be "winding up", as you put it. But with the magnetic "hairs" the effect of "winding up" must be so miniscule that there is, probably, no hope of detecting it experimentally. I doubt it. Links to the experiment? You lost me again. It is interesting to note, though, that Faraday's unipolar generator/motor can be explained equally well, no matter what position one takes ( the magnetic fieldrotateswith the magnet vs. the magnetic fielddoes not rotatewith the magnet).For details see the following YouTube video with some real experiments: Faraday paradox unipolar dynamo demo Part1

I have some thoughts on what exactly is going on here.