From Jean de Climont:As a consequence of the Rowland effect in a rotating conductor, the motion of electrons can not be the cause of magnetic fields and the intrinsic magnetic field of electrons is not a dipole but have a rotational structure. As electron motion plays no part in magnetic field, there is no problem of relativity within electromagnetic phenomena.
DeutschThe Maxwell-Ampere equation is false. There is not any vector relationship between the magnetic field of the electrons in an electric field, so in translation, and the current vector J. There is only a formal coincidence. The magnetic field of the current is proportional to the average magnetic intrinsic magnetic field of electrons itself proportional to the electric field in the conductor.
Visit Mr. de Climont's site to see more of his publications:
The effect is of interest because Argand noticed it in relation to a rotating brass disc, and Maxwell was intrigued to know the explanation!
Modern sensors use the effect in hall sensors and again the polarity lines of a u shaped magnet are relied upon .
It is hard to accept the illusory nature of materiality!. Or to put it another way we delude ourselves about fact and myth. In this light I frame no hypothesis! But rather I build models that must be useful. There usefulness is a measure of my expertise!
One thing stands out : the importance of Rotation . Once that sinks in to ones perception the fluid paradigm becomes the only useful theoretical/ philosophical basis in my opinion.
The use of straight lines has fooled everyone below a certain level of common sense! When Argand Fresnel And Young provided a theoretical mathematical description of waves for light behaviour the matter was never settled! Eventually Rayleigh provided some insight into where wave Mechanics and wave theory was going wrong! Unfortunately very few listened or understood. In the meantime the mathematical development of Fourier analysis and synthesis expspecially by computational devices provided a practical technique for applying trochoidal rotations to real behaviours and forms.
What has been missing is the sound basis for all of this measurement analysis. For me the sound basis is rotation of and in some fluid substance .
I believe Örsted and Ampere demonstrated that rotational behaviour is descriptive of magnetic behaviour.
When Gilbert decided upon a corpuscle or atom called by ome a magnetron , a unipolar entity that is either a south magnetron or a north magnetron he knew only that the behaviour of the poles of a bar magnet was the important behaviour to isolate. Of course he knew of lodestone with its many poles, and this is why he isolated the magnetrons to explain how lodestone could have many poles !
Dipoles are artefacts of materials with coherent structures of the magnetic behaviours . It takes a while to understand how we have mixed 2 behaviours into a complex mess and then supported it by arcane mathematics on measured quanties to establish magnitudes in space!
I am preparing to explore Cotes and Eulers contribution to measuring and labelling circular arc segments. They are protoi Atithmoi in their own right and do not need to be straightened out! We need to curve with them!!
This is not necessarily a response to your post, however does provide additional corollary details.
@Magnetic_Universe thank you for this important link xxx
This was. Fractal structure derived by induction. No resolution of cause is posited beyond the causality between different scales of the same circuits.
The need for a causal power is supersceeded by the rotation effected. Thus simply to posit a rotational force in material space is sufficient to develop a combinatorial description of observed effects. We cannot give absolute causality we can only develop a fractal causality.
The positing of an electron does not explain the cause of rotation! It merely acts as a mathematical lable to hang certain behaviours upon, the chief behaviour being rotation
however this explanation can be restated by replacing the electron with the magnetron . The very same conclusions may be drawn. But additionally the magnetron, by Ampère theory may assume an inherent circuit Rotation which is described by magnetic behaviour!
The magnetic current is the flux of these types of magnetrons in the larger scale circuit!
Electrons are pretty handy for circuit analysis and engineerable systems in my experience. That is to say, engineerable systems require a reference point. So understanding some phenomenon as fractal, for example, is to understand its nature but what can we practically do with it? To understand its nature as one of spin, what does that mean with respect to a simple linear voltage regulator? Assigning units of charge and velocity to the situation gives us some very practical system to control the phenomenon. This doesn't necessarily contract the phenomenon's true nature, the fractal in this case. Just gives a way of considering it.
Nevertheless your philosophical musing is intriguing, as if its closer to my sense of intuition than the electron theory. But doesn't assigning a name or quality like 'magnetic current' attempt to resolve to a cause which at first you say is not possible?
It is semantics. The labels we use are important as handles or ways of handling notions. Your engineering point is spot on. However if you had been taught to call this unit a magnetron you would be in precisely the same technological position. But you would have one benefit: a consistent model based on one behaviour varied by amplitude and frequency and combinatorial structure.
Then your engineering expertise would in fact increase your personal philosophical expertise. You would by force of engineering become an adept Natural Philosopher and instead of being intrigued by my ideas I would in fact be sat at your feet listening to your expertise in these matters!!
The fact of the matter is men are in the business of creating opportunities for themselves to be monetarily or socially rewarded. Defining the field of electromagnetism on a theoretical
/ philosophical notion called an electron had national and international significance for certain " scientists" and Academics who required funding to continue their researches.
Just like Eddington, those first in any field who can work out how to technically implement a notion stand to gain financially Beyond belief!
Eric Dollard gives the history of how these behaviours were made engineerable Before the electron was " discovered" .
Ed simply questions the interpretation of JJ Thomsons experiment, and experimental set up. Ken Wheeler definitely explains the experimental behaviours differently . In fact the contribution of electrons to the engineering expertise is a minimal illusory metaphor which runs into trouble when tested in advanced experiments. The engineering is founded more on the experimental apparatus than on the mythology of how it is working
His mathematical analysis demonstrates that only a shell is necessary and sufficient to account for mass " laws" as commonly ascribed to Newtonian Physics.
Because of his overly mathematical approach he misses out on the unifying notion of trochoidal rotation .
How did I come to this view of things ? That is a long story.
What he does demonstrate is how rotation and rotational topologies can be consistently used to structure measuring systems for these observable behaviours.
The bound form which he calls a particle can be described as Fourier transforms which are combinatorial rotational topological forms I called twistors ( quaternion Fourier Transforms)
Currently I am exploring Finite Element modelling to structure these QFTs Combinatorially in spatial forms.
This is a lovely lie. It illustrates how theoretical descriptors and measurement procedures become expressed as "Cause/Causative" .
In reality we cannot discover cause because of the fractal nature of our perception , but we can and do assign or define cause to a certain set of behaviours/ circumstances , and for an engineer the most trustwothy assignments lead to practical devices that work as expected within design limits.
Note particularly that rotation is topologically fundamental, but what is charge? It is in fact an undefined behaviour inherent in space measured by the force effect on bound test spaces. The force is magnetic in behaviour but observed to act orthogonally to a defined magnetic "polarity " or dipole .
This distinction is not necessary when Spherical rotations about a point not an axis are utilised. The distinction between the "moving charged particles " then becomes moot!! ( ponderables as no longer clear!,)
These "Maxwell laws" are in fact a redaction due to an eccentric engineer called Oliver Heaviside and Hertz . Hertz in particular was directed by Helmholtz who with Kelvin developed. Vortex Kinematics which was erroneous in fact but very influential. Claes Johnson has recently corrected the theory based on observations modelled by computational fluid Dynamics .
Note also how the gyroscopic behaviours of rotation are essential to the explanations. Charge is invoked to " quiet " the cause question , but is not necessary . The cause question actually promotes further investigation and meditation, not all of it utilitarian. However focussing on rotation as descriptive we can Combinatorially design rotating trochoidal dynamics to suit.
Steinmetz was a master of this type of engineering design work using mathematical models based on quaternion like topologies.
The electromagnetic wave description has been falsified by the Wakefield experiment as Ivor Catt points out .
We are left with Rotation at varying frequencies and amplitudes of a sutle fluid caled space !
A seemeioon is an indicator. Thus rotation itself defines a point as an indicated centre . That centre is generally motile and rotating.
Axes of measurement are similarly indicated, and motile.
What is conceived by classical theory as electric versus magnetic does not need to delimit the general behaviour of space
I suspect it generates them by cutting the magnetic vortex of the dipole at one end by means of the rotation of the pipe - sort of like "unwinding" the vortex at one end.
These electric currents are naturally spherical and rotational about points and axes. How it is interpreted does not much matter except when you want to extend the model .
For me the magnetic behaviour is rotational and this is the soundest base
Laithwaite, especially his gyroscope wok, Howard Johnson and many others try to address rotational behaviour in the current paradigm. It becomes very misleading. But if you found everything on rotation, thus on magnetic behaviour, it ll becomes harmoniously connected!