Short answer without the theory: We need to align the electron's where both their spins are aligned and their rotations are in sync with each other, in order for both their electric and magnetic fields to be additive.
The long answer with the theory:
In a metal, the electron's spins are randomly aligned to have a different spin, thus it has a zero net magnetic field on average. In a magnet, the electron's are aligned to have the same spin, thus a net magnetic field. We know the magnetic field is 90 degrees to the electric field. We know a moving charge induces a magnetic field. We know a changing magnetic field induces a moving charge.
When the electron's are aligned to have the same spin, this does not mean the electron's magnetic and electric fields are in sync with each other. Let's say electron A and electron B have the same spin. Electron A will have an electric field at the 12 and 6 o'clock positions and will have a magnetic field at the 9 and 3 o'clock positions, while Electron B will be electric at the 9 and 3 o'clock positions and be magnetic at the 12 and 6 o'clock positions. When one electron is electric then the other electron will be magnetic 180 degrees to it. In this example it is easy to see how the magnetic fields are additive to each other, thus increasing the net magnetic fields.
If you have 3 electron's that are aligned with the same spin, then their electric and magnetic fields will be 120 degrees to each other. 4 electron's would be 90 degrees, 5 = 72, 6 = 60, to infinity. The electron's electric and magnetic fields being out of sync with each other causes the magnetic field lines to have a return path that is on the other side of the magnet.
We need to align the electron's where both their spins are aligned and in sync with each other. This will give us a monopole magnet since their would be no return path to the other side. Since their would be no return path, the electric fields would be additive also. The monopole magnet is both a gravity and an anti-gravity magnet that will react not only to metals and other magnets, but to all materials. When the electron's spins are CW and rotations are in sync with each other, then this may be a gravity magnet, it will attract mass. A CCW spin and rotation in sync, would then be an anti-gravity magnet, it will repel mass.
If this theory is good, then the next question is how to get their electric and magnetic fields to be in sync with each other?
Thanks,
GB
Hi,
Perhaps by creating a suitablely oriented static electric field around this woud-be monopole magnet? Or making DC current flow inside in it? Or both? lol
Gyula
Quote from: gyulasun on July 30, 2009, 03:34:43 PM
Hi,
Perhaps by creating a suitablely oriented static electric field around this woud-be monopole magnet? Or making DC current flow inside in it? Or both? lol
Gyula
I've been thinking about your idea. An external magnetic field is used to align the spins of the electrons as the molten metal slowly cools. An internal static electric field may align the electrons rotation where they are in sync with each other as the molten metal slowly cools. This is interesting.
Thanks,
Gb
Quote from: gravityblock on July 31, 2009, 04:24:26 AM
I've been thinking about your idea. An external magnetic field is used to align the spins of the electrons as the molten metal slowly cools. An internal static electric field may align the electrons rotation where they are in sync with each other as the molten metal slowly cools. This is interesting.
Thanks,
Gb
I believe it was Keely who done this very thing but he subjected the hot metal to vibrations and cooled them slowly in sand.
although there may be a theoretical monopole that has never been observed there are ways to produce 'virtual' monopole effects.
if you take a magnet and spin it in 4 planes of angular momentum it would act as a single magnetic field shell at very high velocities of both X,Y,Z,N planes.
I don't know if you can picture it but the magnet would be spinning so fast in XYZN planes that it would become very difficult to see except the very center of the magnets spin axis.
although this does not solve the monopole mystery it would give you something to play around with until it is found.
Jerry ;)
Hi GB,
Monopole... My thought on possible DIY construction is this; make two hemispherical cup magnets, one pole on the inner surface and one on the outer. Then bond them together with iron powder loaded epoxy trying to get the interface join as narrow and true as possible, maybe grind the hemisphere edges on a flat glass plate using cutting compound. Now you have a hollow sphere magnet, one pole within and one pole without, with minimal reconnection loops.
if it is impossible to magnetise the hemispheres so that fields are constrained to each surface then a pseudosphere could be made using flat plate magnets (pole on each flat side) ground into pentagons using lots of water cooling to prevent degausing. Then these are assembled like soccer ball panels again using iron loaded epoxy. The edge grinding would need 3D joining consideration.
P.S.
Of course a true atomicly based monopole would be more exotic.
What about this. As the metal is cooling, spin the metal on what will be it's magnetic axis through the stationary external magnetic field at a high speed. The homopolar generator suggests that when a magnet is spinning on it's axis, the magnetic field is stationary and does not spin with the magnet.
This may cause the electron's spins to be in sync with each other after the metal cools to room temperatures. Just throwing out ideas.
GB
An electron must rotate 720 degrees in order to see it's same face. I believe this is the reason for magnets having a dipole, because each electron inside the magnet is not showing it's same relative face at any moment in time, thus they are not in sync with each other and have a return path to the other side. When their same relative faces are all in sync with each other and showing their same faces at any moment in time, then there will be no return path to the other side of the magnet, thus giving the affects of a monopole magnet. Just a thought.
GB
Drugs are not good for you.
Quote from: brian334 on July 31, 2009, 02:48:47 PM
Drugs are not good for you.
Drugs may do you some good. You're statement is a total distraction to the current discussion.
Methinks Stefan is of old soccer hooligan stock, such is his aversion to common sense moderation of his forum. Imagine what must populate his living room on any given day....
brian 33 going on 4....go play outside for awhile, get some fresh air.
TS
Expanding on the theory that you must rotate an electron 720 degrees in order to see it's same face. This means you must rotate the electron twice in order to see it's same face or same side in our reference frame.
Let's say one side of the electron has the electric field (back face), and the other side of the electron has the magnetic field (front face). The electric and magnetic fields are 180 degrees to each other in an electron's reference frame, but is 90 degrees to each other in our reference frame.
If we're looking at the magnetic field's face (front face), and we rotate the electron 180 degrees in our frame of reference, then we will see the magnetic field to be 90 degrees to the electric field in our frame of reference. We're not actually seeing it's front or back face. We are looking at the electron's side, where it's front and back face meet. If we rotate the electron another 180 degrees in our frame, then we will see the electron's electric field's face (back side). We will not see the magnetic field, since the magnetic field is on the opposite side. Rotate the electron another 180 degrees in our frame, then we will see it's other side. We will see the magnetic and electric fields to be 90 degrees to each other in our reference frame. Rotate it another 180 degrees in our frame, then we will see it's magnetic field's face or front side. We will not see the electric field, since the electric field is on the opposite side. This completes the 720 degrees of rotation in our frame of reference and completes the 360 degrees of rotation in the electron's own frame of reference.
This may be theoretical proof that an electron is a monopole with a static charge in it's own frame of reference. Could it be that the elementary particles in our frame of reference are actually monopoles with static charges in their own frame of reference. This suggests that the electrons are in a different space-time than us. If not, then why does rotating an electron 720 degrees in our frame of reference equals 360 degrees of rotation in the electron's own frame.
In order for us to create a monopole in our frame of reference, we have to not only align the spin of the electrons, but we must also align their faces where they will be rotating in sync. This will get rid of the return path in our frame. This will cause a magnet in our frame of reference to behave as if it was actually in the same frame of reference as the electrons themselves. One side of the magnet will be a monopole while the other side of the magnet will have a static charge. The magnet itself may then exist in a different space-time, and that different space-time would be contained within our space-time.
If the magnet is in a different space-time, then it may attract to another mass or repel from a mass that is in another space-time than itself, depending on if the electrons spins are aligned CW or CCW. In addition to attracting or repelling another mass that is in a different space-time, it may lead to different time-lines according to its speed of travel, it's own spin, and if it's a repeller or an attractor according to if the electrons have a CW or CCW spin. This is all half baked while trying to stay inline with the currently accepted theories of physics. Please kick it around a little. At least entertain the idea. Time for more drugs. ;)
Thanks,
GB
Quote from: gravityblock on July 31, 2009, 02:17:26 PM
What about this. As the metal is cooling, spin the metal on what will be it's magnetic axis through the stationary external magnetic field at a high speed...
This reminds me of the proces to make of electrets
http://rimstar.org/materials/electrets/
... a crucial difference being that the electret mixture is non conductive.
Dear Gravity,
I am having trouble understanding what space/time is.
Will you make us a drawing of space/time so we can
better understand it?
What color is space/time?
What is the density of space/time?
deleted doublepost. I´ll make it to 1000 posts if it´s the last thing i do lol! ;D
Quote from: brian334 on August 01, 2009, 03:33:04 PM
I am having trouble understanding what space/time is.
Will you make us a drawing of space/time so we can
better understand it?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spacetime
Quote from: brian334 on August 01, 2009, 03:33:04 PM
What color is space/time?
Whatever color you choose to graph it in.
Quote from: brian334 on August 01, 2009, 03:33:04 PM
What is the density of space/time?
Zero, it is just a math tool, a 4D coordinate system to help model spatial events in the temporal domain.
Yucca,
Are you saying space/time is not real?
I am proposing that the elementary particles including the electrons and photons are in a different space-time than us or their 4D coordinate system is at a different scale than our 4D coordinate system. Their 4D coordinate system that is at a different scale than ours is contained or trapped within our 4D coordinate system.
The 4D coordinate system is the length, width, height, and time of a system. A 4D coordinate system that is at a 2:1 scale would mean the L,W,H, and T are all at a 2:1 scale. An object that is 6 inches in length in one coordinate system would be equivalent to 3 inches in the other coordinate system.
The electrons in their 4D coordinate system is a monopole magnet with a static charge. In our 4D system, the electrons have a changing electric and magnetic fields. The affects between the systems are responsible for electromagnetism in our 4D system. Relativity becomes an issue when things are at a different scale.
GB
Quote from: brian334 on August 01, 2009, 05:46:35 PM
Yucca,
Are you saying space/time is not real?
Hi brian,
Well space is real, and time could be said to be "real". But spacetime itself is as far as I understand it just a concept linking the two into one coordinate system to aid math modelling. I suppose the closest thing to a "real" manifestation of spacetime is what is often termed the "aether" as it is said by some to support both spatial and temporal displacement (or oscillation).
Gravity,
Will you draw us a picture of space/time?
Quote from: brian334 on August 01, 2009, 06:33:34 PM
Gravity,
Will you draw us a picture of space/time?
Below is a picture of space-time. Here's a video that illustrates space-time much better than I could ever do in a picture, http://www.metacafe.com/watch/1201649/time_travel_einsteins_big_idea_theory_of_relativity/ After looking at the picture and video, let's do an experiment that is based on space-time. The experiment will be a race between you and light.
First, lets set some parameters for simplicity sake. Both will have an instantaneous speed. The speed for light will be 100 miles per second (mps). Your speed will be 50 mps. The race will be 400 miles in distance.
Let the race begin. At the 1st second, we will do a calculation to see how we are doing in the race.
At the 1st second:
Light is at the 100 mile marker. You are at the 50 mile marker. Light calculate it's speed to be 100 mps according to the mile marker and how much time as passed. It knows it has 300 miles left to the finish line and calculates in 3 seconds it will cross the finish line. You calculate your speed to be 50 mps. You have 350 miles left in the race. You calculate in 7 seconds you will travel 350 miles and be at the finish line. You calculate light to be moving 2 times faster than you and will reach the finish line in 3.5 seconds. Your calculations are wrong! Light will reach the finish line in 3 seconds and not in 3.5 seconds according to your calculations and an outside observer at the finish line will confirm this.
Let's reverse the process and do a calculation at 100 miles. Light has a speed of 100 mps, you 50 mps.
At 100 miles, you calculate 2 seconds has passed. You calculate your speed to be 50 mps. You notice light is at the 200 mile marker and an outside observer at the 200 mile marker confirms this. You calculate light to have a speed of 100 mps or two times faster than you. There's 300 miles left in the race for you. If you're speed is 50 mps, then it will take you 6 seconds to travel 300 miles to the finish line. Since light is moving 2 times faster than you, you calculate light to reach the finish line in 3 seconds. Your calculations are wrong! Light will reach the finish line in 2 seconds and not in 3 seconds according to your calculations. At the 200 mile marker, light calculates 2 seconds has passed and calculates it's speed to be 100 mps. If light's speed is 100 mps and there is 200 miles left in the race, then it will take light 2 seconds to reach the finish line and not 3 seconds according to your calculations and an outside observer at the finish line will confirm this.
I hope you can see the discrepancies in time between you and light. Both are calculating the other racer to reach the finish line in different amounts of time, regardless of the method used in the calculations.
This is all mathematics and does not actually prove time is ticking at a different rate for each racer. It only proves that you can not use your own measurements in your own frame of reference to determine another frame of reference.
In the real world, the atoms oscillate or tick at different rates according to the energy in that system. The faster you travel, the slower the atom will oscillate or tick. When you increase your speed, you are also increasing your energy and relative mass, which affects the rate at which time ticks for all things in that system. They have to constantly adjust the clocks on the GPS Satellites that are in space on a daily basis to be in sync with the clocks here on earth due to time ticking at different rates. Also, no matter what your speed is, you will always calculate light to have the same speed of C or 186,000 mps as shown in the video. Try to wrap your mind around this, then it is easy to understand space-time. Time is just as real as space, thus space-time in Einsteins theory of relativity.
Take care,
GB