What is induction?

[ayeaye]

It is weird that in spite that induction is so basic, it is still not really entirely explained. Now i got some rough idea of how to explain it, it is just a rough idea, just to give some idea or suggestion. In no way does it explain exactly what happens. But i would like you to help me to develop such explanation. I'm not entirely sure that i put everything right, if not, i'm very interested to hear what mistakes i made, to then reconsider it and hopefully put it right. So thanks a lot for helping me.

The first drawing is about how a current in a wire induces magnetic field. At right is a magnetic dipole (hereafter "dipole"), which is an electron revolving around positively charged particle(s). So magnetic field is like a kind of rotating electrostatic field. This dipole is orientated so that the electron revolves on the plane of the drawing, this is why we see it like that. In the wire there are both electrons and positively charged particles, and normally an equal number of them, so that when there is no movement, the wire is neutral and causes no force, to anything outside.

Now consider that the dipole rotates in the same direction as the electrons in the wire move. Then the electron in the dipole is the most often near the electron in the wire. And this means that most of the time the positive particles in the wire and in the dipole attract each other, with no electrons in the middle. Consider it like that. When you walk in the same direction as the crowd walks, then you meet less people. But when you walk in the opposite direction than the crowd, then you meet much more people. Because with this orientation of the dipole as on that drawing, there is the most attraction, the current in the wire orientates dipoles that way. The induction of the magnetic field is thus also linear, and only depends on the speed of the electrons in the wire.

The second drawing is about inducing voltage, that is electromotive force, by a changing magnetic field. Because of simplicity, consider that the electron in the wire stands still, like the resistance in the circuit is so great that it cannot move much. In the reality its speed is likely much less than the speed of the electron in the dipole, so this is like a kind of approximation. Consider for a moment that the dipole is always at the same distance from the wire, and also its orientation doesn't change. Then the electron in the dipole is exactly the same amount of time below the electron in the wire, on the drawing, than it is above it. Thus the average force to the electron is zero, and an unchanging magnetic field induces no electromotive force.

Now consider that the dipole is far away from the wire, as on that drawing above. The force causing the electron to move up, is small, because the electron in the dipole is far away. Now consider that the dipole is close to the wire, as on that drawing below. The force causing the electron in the wire to move down, is greater, because the electron in the dipole is near. Now consider that the dipole moves towards the wire so that the electron in the dipole is towards the electron in the wire, and moves from below it, to above it, as shown above and below on that drawing. Then half of the time there is a force that makes the electron to move up, which is less. And half of the time there is a force that makes the electron to move down, which is greater. So in average there is a force which makes the electron to move down. Now when the dipole moves away from the wire, then it's the opposite, and the average force makes the electron to move up.

The Faraday's law of induction is this. I'm sorry for writing it with wrong letters, as there are no good ways to write equations here. e = - df / dt , where e is electromotive force, that is the induced voltage, f is the strength of the magnetic field, and t is time. d before f and t means change of the strength of the magnetic field, and difference in time. This is also one of the Maxwell's equations. As you see, it describes almost the same that was described above. Changing magnetic field causes force to electrons, qed, in a way.

The electromotive force generated by that described above, seems to be caused both by the movement of the dipole, and the rotation of the dipole. Thus there is a question whether orientating the dipoles takes less energy than the dipoles do work, but a part of the work done there seems to be done by the dipoles. But this is even not the most important.

By that said, how much voltage is induced, only depends on how fast the current increases, like in a coil. Because a fast changing current induces a fast changing magnetic field, and the induced electromotive force only depends on the speed with which the strength of the magnetic field changes, not on the strength of the magnetic field. By that the energy in can be less than the energy out. What should cause the output energy to be less, is that the induced electromotive force is directed against the current that caused it. Likely these energies are exactly equal when the signal is sine, but when we switch it very fast and we can make the initial current to be smaller than the output current, so that less energy goes to working against that current, then i see no reason why the output cannot be greater. Or do you? But likely the circuit has to be asymmetric, in the sense that more current goes in one direction, than in the other direction.

These magnetic dipoles, these are like wheels. And electrons, they can create photons, which is light. So this reminds me, this chariot moving on fire wheels, from the Hindu mythology. So maybe there is some meaning in it, these dipoles are like fire wheels, and may be very important, also in the reality.

Ok, so all my thoughts, two cents, or is it more, maybe even enough to buy a cup of coffee Now what your thoughts are?

[ayeaye]

When the dipole moves towards the wire, in every period of time, the force is stronger when the electron is revolved further in the direction in which it revolves. I think this provides asymmetry, asymmetry which isn't there when the dipole stands still. The same should happen when the dipole turns to orientate, which causes the force to become stronger.

I think such movement causes asymmetry of force, but i yet cannot show that mathematically. It is something very complex going on there. All i could do was just to give an idea of what the basic cause may be. The asymmetry which statistically provides more force in one direction. It would be a very complex mathematics, when it can be shown mathematically. But it even may not be possible, as mathematics is limited. It is certainly possible though to show it by a model in the computer.

But i think that there is only one field, electrostatic field. Which is the way how the charged particles interact with each other. And it is such that the movements of the charged particles and their interactions during these movements, provide the effects of magnetic field and also induction. That one field causes another field, this is just a mysterious explanation, like field exists by itself. I think all there is are particles, and they interact with each other by emitting something similar to the bolts of lightning. So that they can physically touch each other over large distances. Something influencing something else through nothing, this just cannot happen, there must be a way how things are connected.

Faraday couldn't explain it in that way, as electrons were yet not discovered by then. So he came up with magnetic field, thinking that the field lines made by iron filings, are really physical. So he explained everything by field lines. Which likely are not physical, and only show the vector paths. Btw, Faraday also was religious, very religious, and likely a kind of creationist. So sorry for my criticism of creationists, in spite i don't believe it, evidently it didn't prevent some people from making great discoveries.

I just say that when the field lines are physical, and electrostatic field and magnetic field are separate, then there is something even much more complex going on than what i tried to explain. Which is complex already.

But what do you think? I wanted the opinions of the people about all that, not pushing through any of my particular idea. This was rather meant to provoke, but apparently it even failed to provoke, like no one jumping here and saying how can you think so wrong.

The first drawing shows the induction of voltage in a single coil. Faraday discovered induction using two coils winded around an iron ring, something like a toroid transformer. It had two coils, but it doesn't matter, the induction is caused by changing magnetic field, and the input coil creates magnetic field (flux) in the whole core. The experiment was simply connecting a Volta battery to the input coil, and measuring the current in the output coil, using a galvanometer. As there were no ammeters or voltage meters then, the galvanometer was just a winded wire, and a compass needle near it. The needle changed its direction momentarily, when the battery was connected, and again momentarily, when the battery was disconnected.

The next picture shows electrons actually physically touching each other

[ayeaye]

It appears that it really is how i said, but the reason is slightly different, it's caused by the Lorentz factor. In a way my intuition was right, though. Thanks to the folks in the freenode ##math channel, they gave me a link, this one http://physics.weber.edu/schroeder/mrr/MRRtalk.html . Explained by Edward M. Purcell, see there "A Charge Moving Perpendicular to a Wire". From that, it takes some derivation to apply it to the dipole, but the result will be that there is a force making the electrons to move in one direction. The electromotive force.

So magnetic field is a dynamic electrostatic field. Please write what do you think about all that.

[ayeaye]

The Lorentz factor, well, it's relativity. I accept relativity when it is about how things appear from a certain place, but not that it really changes the physical properties of anything. This is just a way to take the speed into account. Like, the charges appear weaker from our side when they move perpendicular to us. The other way to interpret it, is that these charges affect us for a shorter time, and therefore the forces are less. Lorentz relativity was there before the Einstein's relativity.

So it certainly can be explained in another way, but without the Lorentz factor, it cannot be expressed well in a mathematical form.

I would try to explain it in a simple way, when this paper is maybe a bit difficult to read for you. Say the electron in the dipole moves from left to right, which it does for half of the orbit. Look at it from the frame of reference of that electron. Now when the dipole does not move, it's like the electrons in the wire move perpendicularly to us from right to left. By the Lorentz factor, their forces are therefore greater at the sides, but the forces between them and the electron at our frame, are symmetric.

But when the dipole moves towards the wire, all the electrons move diagonally in our direction. Thus the forces are greater at the sides of the charges which are towards us (the longer sides of the "ellipses" of the forces), and thus the forces between them and the electron at our frame of reference, are such that for the electrons there is a force to the right. So the movement of the dipole towards the wire, provides the asymmetry, which creates force to the electrons in one direction. The electromotive force.

I would like to explain it even more simply to you, but i may not be able to, because what happens there is not very simple.

This thing appeared to be too difficult for me, so i'm tired.

[ayeaye]

Again i don't believe in Lorentz relativity, i don't think that things actually shrink, when they move. But this was the only explanation of induction through charges only, so i provided it.

I think Lorentz relativity may be a useful mathematical construct though, to describe things. Especially the ratio of the distortion of the forces on two axis, changing the shape of things, not things changing by the absolute value of the relative speed.

I think this may provide results somewhat close to correct, they didn't create these methods without reason. Yet it may describe the reason why the things appear the way they do, wrongly.

Now this is in essence the idea that i got at first, as shown on the drawing below. Consider that an electron approaches a wire diagonally. First there is no force to the electron in the wire, and its speed is 0. Now when the approaching electron comes closer, being still behind the electron in the wire, there will be force to that electron, and it gets speed 1. Next when the approaching electron comes even closer, it passes the electron in the wire. The force is much stronger now, because the approaching electron is closer. Thus the electron in the wire gets two time the speed it got before. But because this speed is in the opposite direction, as a result of this electron being passed by the approaching electron, it gets the speed 1 in the *opposite* direction to the direction of the approaching electron. And so it happens with every electron in the wire, which the approaching electron passes.

Now you may check by yourself, how much this explanation corresponds to the explanation using the Lorentz factor. This was a very rough approximation. Yet i think no one can say for certain that an electron approaching a wire, would not provide any asymmetry, causing a force to the electrons in the wire in one direction.

The direction of the induced current by that explanation, corresponds to the Fleming's right hand rule. The Fleming's rules are about conventional current, which is positive to negative, that is opposite to the movement of the electrons. Say that at first the electrons in the wire move up, that is the conventional current is down. Then by the Fleming's right hand rule, the magnetic field is towards us. Now when this field moves to the right, then by the Fleming's right hand rule, the conventional current which that movement induces, will be up. And this is exactly the direction of the induced current by my explanation. So what concerns the Fleming's rules, it is correct.

I think this was the last of my desperate attempts to describe how induction can be explained by charges only. Because how it exactly happens is not even that important, it is important that it can be explained in that way. To give an idea of what induction really is. The things remain how they are, and the Ampere's and Faraday's equations can be used to describe the induction.

Maybe some of you would help to make this explanation better, as explaining how the things are is not my personal interest, and i should not be the only one who should go against the odds, in trying to understand all that. So thanks to anyone who has anything to say about all that, and would post in this thread.