Faraday's Paradox experiment

[Rosemary Ainslie]

Hi Sandy,

I wonder if what you're calling a 'monopole' isn't perhaps just a 'single direction'.  Imagine an orbit - first clockwise - then anticlockwise - and, effectively, you've got a closed loop in both instances, but moving in opposing directions in space. 

Now.  Take your toroidal field in the mind's eye, from an inductive or somesuch coil - following Faraday's lines of force.  And then let's assume that the torus is constructed such that the fields move through the centre of the coil and exit the open ends, say from south to north and then circle the structure on the outside - from north to south.  But they're all moving in one direction.  One justification.  If so, then effectively the inner orbit from the south to the north - through the centre of that torus structure is consistent with the justification of the outer orbit.  And there's absolutely NO differentiation between the south and the north in those magnetic field lines.

But the thing is that it's the material of the winding which experiences the difference.  The material on the inside of the torus only experiences a justification from south to north.  The material on the outside of the torus only experiences a justification from the north to the south.  Effectively it's the material properties in the inductor/conductor - whatever, that is responding to a SINGLE justification.

Therefore it's the winding itself that has created a shield that holds the two halves of the magnetic lines of force apart.  They now appear to orbit in opposition.  And it's that apparent 'opposition' that is the source of the voltage imbalance - is my opinion.  In other words it is the material magnetic field induced from the the winding itself that now responds to an apparent monopolar magnetic field - a half orbit - from the magnetic lines of force.  As I see it - this apparent break in the lines of force is equivalent to a voltage imbalance - a broken symmetry - a half orbit from the magnetic field.  And this results in a spatial adjustment of the atoms inside that coil.  And that adjustment is our source of energy - be it current flow - or, on a broader macrocosmic level - gravity.  It's the same thing - the same spatial adjustment.

Regards,
Rosemary

[nul-points]

hi Rosemary

i think we're describing the same characteristics from different PoVs


my main point is that we 'muddy the waters' for ourselves by describing a magnet/ solenoid/ inductor, etc, as having two poles when it has none

we then all go off down a 'no-exit' road discussing the possibility of a creating a single-poled  object (magnetic monopole) when we didn't have two poles to start with


we know that around a single straight wire, carrying DC current, the magnetic field will circle the wire (no regular N or S 'pole' here) and it'll be CW or CCW depending on current flow direction

if we now loop that (still energised) wire into a single turn we have a very short solenoid/ inductor

the previously circulating magnetic field is now folded into a 'torus' following the loop - no discontinuities or reversals of fields anywhere

if the the field is directed 'up' outside a (horizontal) loop then the field will be directed 'down' inside the loop


our compass will 'appear' to show that the top of the loop is, say, North, and the underneath of the loop is 'South'

my point is that there is no 'North' pole at the top of the loop (or magnet, or multi-turn solenoid/inductor, etc) - nor is there one anywhere else

if we continue moving the compass through the loop it doesn't reverse, in the centre, to point back at the supposed 'North' pole it just 'passed' - it continues to point along the tangent to the circulating magnetic field (North-pointing end down, say, and South-pointing end up)

so, as the compass moves on, and just leaves the centre of the loop - and is just past where we 'say' the 'South' pole is - the 'South pointing' end of the compass is still directed back along the way from which it's just travelled (as it was when it approached the top of the loop)

standard convention now says that the compass is directed at the 'South pole' of the single loop solenoid - but we've just seen that nothing has changed, the compass is still directed according to the same direction of the field through the centre of its own 'torus' envelope


there IS a difference between the top of the loop and the underneath - and it is nothing to do with 'poles' - the difference is *only* that the field lines at the top of the 'torus' are, say CONverging into the loop, and the field lines at the bottom of the 'torus' are DIverging out of the loop



standard convention would describe the bringing togther of two magnets/ solenoids, 'N pole' to 'N pole' to say that the two 'poles' repel each other and oppose the attempted joining together 

but we've just found from our experiment, travelling through the 'torus' of field lines, that there are no 'poles'

in the situation just mentioned, we have two field 'tori' (sp?) with opposite field direction (so, either both diverging, or both converging) - there is no way of reconciling the opposite field directions into a single field

the fields may compress but they don't coalesce into a single field - the two sets of magnet/ solenoid/ etc fields physically resist any attempts to join the two


however. if we now present two field 'tori' where the underneath of the top field torus is , say, diverging and the top of the lower field 'torus' is converging, then the two fields are already aligned and they can join to form a longer field path around the two magnets/ solenoids, etc

if fact, there is a positive attraction between the two fields to join in such a way and we experience a physical 'pull' or attraction forcing the two together

magnets attract physically, not because they present unlike 'poles' to each other, but because their two separate fields can merge into one field - and the nature of the field is that for 'some reason' it attempts to reduce its own path length to the minimum possible distance


i think this is where the RA thesis of 'Zipon strings' seeks to describe a possible underlying 'mechanism' at the micro level which would explain fundamental behaviour/ characteristics/ forces which we observe when we're dealing with the magnetic phenomena - ie., to explain the 'some reason' i just mentioned above


woohoo - my meds are definitely wearing off - i need a drink with my old pal, Maxwell's Demon!

ciao bella
sandy

[Rosemary Ainslie]

Sandy - hi again.  I think you're right.  I think that the justification - or as you describe it - the diverging/converging lines determine the justification of the field.  It only determines the 'direction of the orbiting fields rather than creating a north or a south.  But here's the thing.  Imagine that the lines of force comprise magnetic dipoles and literally put a north diverging field against another north diverging and - if there ARE particles there then they're only obeying the laws of charge.  They're repelling each other at 180 degrees - or a straight line.  The only thing missing in this picture is that particle.  And if it's only missing because it's too fast and too small to be detected - then maybe there is such a particle?

What's actually contrary to classical thinking is that particles could make a field.  But again one doesn't need more than Faraday's lines of force and those magnetic dipoles and it's reasonably logical to develop a field from that.  It's not as if they're 'like charges' - which then may be argued in terms of Pauli's exclusion principle.  If they're intrisically bipolar - then a field structure is a logical consequence.  Magnets join up.  Why not magnetic particles?

Anyway.  I agree.  We're not arguing.   

Regards,
Rosemary

[gravityblock]

When two magnets are placed in close proximity to each other, they will try to find an equilibrium by aligning their fields to point in the same direction.  Rotating one magnet on it's magnetic axis, does not change the direction of their fields, thus there will be no force on the other magnet to cause it to rotate also. 

Scotty's test at the beginning of this thread does not prove the magnetic field remains stationary when the magnet is rotating.  Scotty's test shows the magnets are in equilibrium with each other by having their fields pointing in the same direction.  Harvey's test with the computer monitor, also shows the direction of the magnet's field does not change when the magnet is rotated.  If the direction of the field changed, then there would have been a corresponding change detected on the computer monitor.

If I give you a rope to hold in your hands, and I pull on the rope, then you will experience a force and will be attracted to me.  If I rotate myself while you're holding the rope and the tension of the rope remains the same, will you rotate also?  Of course not, because you won't experience any force.

GB

[Rosemary Ainslie]

When two magnets are placed in close proximity to each other, they will try to find an equilibrium by aligning their fields to point in the same direction.  Rotating one magnet on it's magnetic axis, does not change the direction of their fields, thus there will be no force on the other magnet to cause it to rotate also.

Agreed.

Scotty's test at the beginning of this thread does not prove the magnetic field remains stationary when the magnet is rotating.  Scotty's test shows the magnets are in equilibrium with each other by having their fields pointing in the same direction.

Not sure that this is right.  He doesn't actually say which direction the magnet is pointing.  Frankly I think it's immaterial.  They could be opposing or not.  It would not change the effect. 

Harvey's test with the computer monitor, also shows the direction of the magnet's field does not change when the magnet is rotated.  If the direction of the field changed, then there would have been a corresponding change detected on the computer monitor.

Agreed.  But the 'paradox' is begged when one assumes that the field will rotate with the magnet.  If the magnetic field is the consequence of an electromagnetic interaction as we're taught, - then one would expect there to be some variation to the lines of force as the field is rotated at 90 degrees to the magnetic field.  We're taught that it's a magnetic field - changing in time - that induces and electric field.  And an electric field changing in time induces a magnetic field.  Where is there any evidence of an electric field and a consequent changing magnetic field?  What we're actually seeing is a magnetic field standing 'still' and a magnet moving at 90 degrees to that field.  And it's not effecting the magnetic lines of force at all.  Unless we ignore the laws of induction and decide that magnetic field can manifest without an applied electric field.  Then that's fine.  It's just not classical. Classical assumption requires a continual electromagnetic interaction even in permanent magnets. 

I've actually asked a certain Professor Lyndsay this exact question.  He assured me that there was some electric interaction within the material itself that produced the magnetic field.  I argued that a permanent magnet defies this assumption.  I still claim it.

If I give you a rope to hold in your hands, and I pull on the rope, then you will experience a force and will be attracted to me.  If I rotate myself while you're holding the rope and the tension of the rope remains the same, will you rotate also?  Of course not, because you won't experience any force.

That might work with rope because it's got a torque from the way it's constructed.  But if I was holding the end of a pipe and you were rotating that pipe then I'd definitely feel that force. 

Rosemary

What I'm trying to point to is that one can have a magnet on magnet interaction and that interaction is energetic - but it does NOT result in an induced electric field.  And I think this 'faraday's paradox' is precisely the evidence that the field exists independently of the material of the magnet itself.  It's 'extraneous' to the magnet - but it also belongs to the magnet.