about the Ferrocell (ferrolens)

[dyetalon]

Ok, since everyone is having trouble with understanding what we are seeing in the cell, here are a couple of cartoons showing magnetic equipotential of a dipole:

from wiki: "An equipotential region of a scalar potential in three-dimensional space is often an equipotential surface, but it can also be a three-dimensional region in space"

(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equipotential)



and this one has cute little arrows indicating direction...



Same thing, different view and values

[Markoul]

Timm,

For an electric point charge, field lines are straight lines therefore the isolines since there must be perpendicular to the force lines all the time are closed lines, circles. For an electric dipole the isolines are the ones you show in your cartoon diagram (purple).


However, since there is not yet the magnetic charge particle discovered there are no isolines for magnetic fields.

To say that ferrocell is not showing the magnetic flux but isolines is not true.

Magnetic dipole fields are curved space force fields and therefore can not have isolines.

On the other hand electric dipole fields are straight line interacting monopole force fields.

The fact that the isofield of an electric dipole matches the flux field of a magnetic field (dipole) is just another strong indication in nature that Electrism is actually the inverse of magnetism.




EM

[dyetalon]

Timm,

For an electric point charge, field lines are straight lines therefore the isolines since there must be perpendicular to the force lines all the time are closed lines, circles. For an electric dipole the isolines are the ones you show in your cartoon diagram (purple).


However, since there is not yet the magnetic charge particle discovered there are no isolines for magnetic fields.

To say that ferrocell is not showing the magnetic flux but isolines is not true.

Magnetic dipole fields are curved space force fields and therefore can not have isolines.

On the other hand electric dipole fields are straight line interacting monopole force fields.

The fact that the isofield of an electric dipole matches the flux field of a magnetic field (dipole) is just another strong indication in nature that Electrism is actually the inverse of magnetism.




EM

I'm struggling to understand your first paragraph.
There are no straight lines in 3-D space. I'm talking about curved space, like a magnetic field.

An iso-line can be curved. It's called a contour line and Michael Snyder wrote a couple of papers on the subject using his Ferrocells.

I can give you references, if you like.

And, how will you explain the appearance of the Bloch region (null) without potential difference?

[Markoul]

Timm,

Here is an electric charge in normal space.


fig.1

Arrows are the open srtaight force lines. Circles are the isolines (equipotential).

Here below is the same diagram for an electric dipole with opposite charges in normal space. Force lines (arrows) may curve but are still open lines start to end. Isolines are indicated again by circles except the straight line in the middle of the field. Isolines must be always perpendicular the to electric force lines.


fig.2

Also notice that force vectors by definition are always a straight arrow (vector) pointing to a single direction and therfere can not be curved in space. Therefore a force line is different than a force vector and therefore we say that in every point of a force line there is a force vector tangent to this point which is the dfinition actually of a force line.

Contour lines or surfaces are isolines or issurfaces to indicate same amplitute or altitude and are more used in geosciences.

The thing is, taking the classic image of the force lines on a magnetic field, magnetic fields are different, they don't have open force lines (since there is no monopole magnetic field) all the force lines are closed forced lines by definition and therefore you can not draw isolines in a an already closed circle. In a nutshell there is no equipotential diagram for magnetic fields.


fig.3

Search the literature if you don't believe me. Electric dipole flux is different than magnetic dipole flux, compare fig.2 and fig.3 This is because electric flux is essential caused by monopole charges whereas there is no monopole magnetic charge.

EM

[Markoul]

@Timm

And, how will you explain the appearance of the Bloch region (null) without potential difference?

The net potential difference of the two toroidal pole fields back to back are responsible for the Bloch region showing up in the ferrocell.

You can not really see the real Bloch line since it is zero and will not light up in the ferrocell, only the neighboring lines.

Although Brian Kerr used a trick and made the line visible here I believe:

[VIDEO]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t6YeT_CxEJ8[/VIDEO]

[bistander]

Magnetic vector potential

... In a nutshell there is no equipotential diagram for magnetic fields.
...

Isn't this an example?

A 2D Square Magnet plot 3.png
Now, we will make a colorful filled contour plot of the vector potential, and plot it underneath the box, but on top of boring gray scale plot we made. We will also include a colorbar.

Now, let's plot white magnetic field vectors on top of the vector potential plot. We will also make sure that the longest arrow length is the grid spacing.

Ref.
https://casaguides.nrao.edu/index.php/PlotBasics

[dyetalon]

Isn't this an example?










Ref.
https://casaguides.nrao.edu/index.php/PlotBasics

Thank you.

As I said before- same thing, different view.
You can not have a zero without two opposite potentials.

[bistander]

Nanorods

Hey dyetalon,

Stumbled upon this.




https://www.comsol.com/blogs/gaussia...rray-nanorods/

Regards,

bi

[Markoul]

Isn't this an example?










Ref.
https://casaguides.nrao.edu/index.php/PlotBasics

I don't know where you found this and what the guy who did that was trying to do but this is dead wrong.

First of all looking at his code these plots are not product of any measurements or simulated (theoretical calculated values) he just draws graphics to demonstrate the software. He probably has mistakenly took electric fields as magnetic fields. If this was correct the internet would be bursting with equipotential plots of magnetic fields.

From Maxwell's equations we know that an curled isoline (closing at itself) in a magnetic field would immediately mean zero magnetic field ∇ ⋅ B = 0.

In other words all magnetic fields are divergence free meaning all force lines must return to the poles and therefore can not have isolines (this is not the case of electric fields). He also states that this is a vector potential field (whatever he means by that?) and never says that these are isolines.

You can see that this are not isolines and thus equipotential field because he then draws vectors!! Equipotential fields are scalar fields and don't have vectors.

I think this guy has not a glue of what he is doing although by ignorance he draw the magnetic flux of a magnet as shown by the ferrocell I admit



Who the **** is this guy?

EM

p.s. and yes by saying that a magnetic dipole field has no isolines this means that there are no two points in a magnetic field which have the same vector potential as it is defined mathematically except the Bloch domain wall.

Magnetic Vector Potential

[bistander]

Magnetic vector potential

I don't know where you found this and what the guy who did that was trying to do but this is dead wrong.

First of all looking at his code these plots are not product of any measurements or simulated (theoretical calculated values) he just draws graphics to demonstrate the software. He probably has mistakenly took electric fields as magnetic fields. If this was correct the internet would be bursting with equipotential plots of magnetic fields.

From Maxwell's equations we know that an curled isoline (closing at itself) in a magnetic field would immediately mean zero magnetic field ∇ ⋅ B = 0.

In other words all magnetic fields are divergence free meaning all force lines must return to the poles and therefore can not have isolines (this is not the case of electric fields). He also states that this is a vector potential field (whatever he means by that?) and never says that these are isolines.

You can see that this are not isolines and thus equipotential field because he then draws vectors!! Equipotential fields are scalar fields and don't have vectors.

I think this guy has not a glue of what he is doing although by ignorance he draw the magnetic flux of a magnet as shown by the ferrocell I admit



Who the **** is this guy?

EM

p.s. and yes by saying that a magnetic dipole field has no isolines this means that there are no two points in a magnetic field which have the same vector potential as it is defined mathematically except the Bloch domain wall.

Magnetic Vector Potential

Magnetic vector potential
The magnetic vector potential A is a vector field, defined along with the electric potential ϕ (a scalar field) by the equations:[2]

{\displaystyle \mathbf {B} =\nabla \times \mathbf {A} \,,\quad \mathbf {E} =-\nabla \phi -{\frac {\partial \mathbf {A} }{\partial t}}\,,} {\displaystyle \mathbf {B} =\nabla \times \mathbf {A} \,,\quad \mathbf {E} =-\nabla \phi -{\frac {\partial \mathbf {A} }{\partial t}}\,,}

Obviously the equation didn't copy and paste so well. It said that the magnetic field vector B is equal to the curl of the magnetic vector potential A

From wikipedia

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magnetic_potential

Edit:

The magnetic scalar potential ψ is sometimes used to specify the magnetic H-field in cases when there are no free currents, in a manner analogous to using the electric potential to determine the electric field in electrostatics. One important use of ψ is to determine the magnetic field due to permanent magnets when their magnetization is known.

Also from the referenced Wikipedia.

[dyetalon]

Obviously the equation didn't copy and paste so well. It said that the magnetic field vector B is equal to the curl of the magnetic vector potential A

From wikipedia

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magnetic_potential

Edit:

Also from the referenced Wikipedia.

And let me add a little more here:
Iron filings will not respond the same way as nanoparticles do to a magnetic field.

For one thing, the iron filings are ferromagnetic and the nanoparticles are paramagnetic (actually, superparamagnetic) and can not maintain magnetization after the applied field is removed.

WE ARE AFFECTING THE MAGNETITE AT THE ATOMIC LEVEL !
I propose we are kicking out electrons to a higher energy state and that's why we are seeing potential difference with a null between.
Iron filings are not capable of such an action or response.

Folks, I will prove this 100% before I die


"The basis for magnetism can be explained at the atomic level. Electrons have both an electrical charge and a spin, it can be called a charge in motion. Any moving charge gives rise to a magnetic field. The spin of an electron can be oriented in one of two directions, either up or down. When electrons pair up in an energy level they will have opposite spins and their magnetic fields will cancel. In some atoms there can be more electrons with spins in one direction than the other because they are not all paired up (Pauli Exclusion Principle). The result is that there is a net magnetic field for the atom. This is a paramagnetic material. When placed in a magnetic field the atoms in a paramagnetic material will tend to align their fields with the external one, i.e., the North Pole of each atom will align with the North Pole of the applied magnetic field."

https://lecturedemos.chem.umass.edu/...ucture9_6.html

[Markoul]

The above figure describes essentially all quantum mechanics today.

it is a deuterium isotope hydrogen atom consisting of one proton one neutron and one electron

Photon is the carrier of the EM force holding holding the electron in to the atom.

Gluons are the strong nuclear force carries holding the quarks inside the protons and neutrons of the nuclei of an atom.

W ans Z bosons are the carriers of the weak nuclear force holding the protons and neutrons together inside the atom. Sometimes (radioactivity) an up quark is transformed to a downquark and the nuclei breaks, proton radiation. At the same time a neutrino is released.

The influence of gravity on a single atom is minuscule compared to the other acting forces described.

The whole atom is moving inside the Higgs field which is defining the rest mass of the atom.

In order to produce electron current out of the superparamagnetic dielectric magnetite nanoparticles you must knock off electrons out of the atoms. You can do that either via radiation with a specific frequency and above of EM E=hf depending the material. For Fe3 and O4 I believe this must be in the γ rays range.

or through a very strong applied electric field through the field emission phenomenon which will excite the Fe3 metal in the magnetite.

Reference https://www.physicsforums.com/thread...n-atom.875191/

or possible via a strong dynamic external magnetic field which will produce actually and Electric field and and thus EM

but ionizing the paramagnetic magnetite by just applying a strong static magnetic field i find it very difficult, the reason is although it will act uppon their magnetic moment of the electrons inside the magnetite atoms trying to pull them out, at the same time due to the electric charge of the electron it will squeeze them to tighter orbits around the nuclei.

https://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/...ugh_to_ionize/

But again mainstream could prove wrong once again!

...so keep trying... and please don't die!


EM

[TheoriaApophasis]

Too many peeps here smoking PARTICLE FANTASIES



No branch of modern "science" (bullshyt religion inhabited by mathematicians) has defined the term FIELD.

Not a single one


Fields have NO QUANTITY, that the realm of PHYSICS has co-opted the definition of Fields is an absurdity. The QUANTIFIED effects of cause and effect interactions measured, in either Joules, or Watts, or Amperes is DENOTATIVE and DESCRIPTIVE…….none of which EXPLAINS what A FIELD IS, nor magnetism

Quantum mechanics has UTTERLY co-opted the definition of magnetism along with the source of quantums religion, that being light. But quantum is Atomistic. Its very foundation is built upon “wave particle dualities” of which light is NOT a particle, and a WAVE is not a thing, but what a thing DOES!

“The magnetic field between magnetic dipoles. It is caused by the exchange of virtual photons.” - Insane position of GR & QM

“This medium of propagation, the Ether must exist. This medium must be a prominent thought in our investigations” Treatise on Electricity and Magnetism – J.C. Maxwell

When you remove the ether you MUST necessitatively replace it with particle fantasies and “messenger particles”. These absurd fantasies are not the inputs or outputs of ANY experiment ever done.

HERES AN INSANE DEFINITION: “Such skyrmions are quasiparticles—they do not exist in the absence of a magnetic field.” ----The mathematical concept of the skyrmion was invented over fifty years ago by high-energy physicist Tony Skyrme

“Nothing is more fantastical and a travesty of how nature works than is quantum theory. Its very basis has no relationship to reality.” – W. Russell

Most so-called scientists today are NOT scientists rather mathematicians….and fundamentally if it cant be quantified and counted by a mathematician, then it doesn’t really exist in their eyes.

“All literature on this subject (Relativity & and curved ‘space-time’) is futile and destined to oblivion” - N. Tesla

“A virtual particle is an abstraction, which facilitates in calculations and understanding, the term is very vague and loosely defined, they never appear as inputs or outputs of experiments, their existence is questionable at best,…however they are very useful in rendering concepts and making equations balance out”. QED FEYNMAN

“Where common sense and intuition failed, we (the insane relativists) had to create a new form of intuition based upon abstract (unreal) mathematics. When common sense fails, we must create uncommon sense.” -Leonard Susskind, professor theoretical physics, and priest of the cult of Quantum

“The scientists of today think deeply instead of clearly. One must be SANE to think clearly, …..but one can think deeply and be quite insane.” TESLA

[Markoul]

@Ken

I know all these are distortions and different manifestations of the aether field (or dark energy as I call) as well different densities of light manifested as matter.

However, balls is just a model, mere representations, (if you ask an scientist they know that these are nothing like balls) and the mainstream accepted linguistic terminology and and vocabulary in order to communicate with each other.

If this linguistic approach is hindering now to see things clear and to find the truth is a big subject for debate.

As I have said in the past , modern science reached a crossroad and had to choose between One Stone and Tesla...unfortunately she took the wrong turn ...or choose the wrong hole!...stupid *****!

So, I admit I don't have your background and can not talk about these things other than with the balls language.

How you would describe the above picture with your words?

...But then with whom I could exhange ideas? You and a couple more guys??

You see what the problem is?

EM

[bistander]

Analogy

Imagine, if you will, an intelligent person who is blind from birth. Now explain, in common and in scientific terms, what light is to that person.

Now imagine doing that when you are also blind from birth.

Can you realize the difficulty? Is this not like the problem with discussion on magnetism?

Regards,

bi