What is Electric Current?

[Harvey]

What is Electric Current?

Really, when we use an ammeter to give us a value in Amperes, or we measure a voltage drop across a current sensing resistor and divide that by the resistance, what is the actual thing we are measuring?

At their base function, our measuring equipment is really giving us an after effect of the reality that occurs before hand. The d'Arsonval Movement common in analog ammeters and Galvanometers works on the principle of a motor. It converts electric current to a magnetic moment that exerts torque on the rotor as it works against an existing permanent magnet field present in the movement. So if the magnetic field produced around the inductor in the meter movement is an after effect, what causes it?

Most Digital Mulit-Meters (DMM's) do not use this magnetic conversion approach using permanent magnets and inductors. Instead, they use another approach which also is an after effect. They use the principle of Ohm's Law which states the voltage across a resistance is proportional to the current flowing in the resistance - E = I · R where E is electromotive force (aka voltage) I is intensity (aka current) and R is resistance. But again, if the voltage drop across the resistor is a secondary effect, what is the primary effect? What is the real physical thing that we are measuring as Amperes?

Well this is a question that was floating around some 149 years ago when James Clerk Maxwell wrote his paper "On Physical Lines Of Force" which introduced Displacement Current that was later incorporated into the equations presented in 1864 in the paper "A dynamical theory of the electromagnetic field" All together Maxwell had 20 equations with 20 variables. Oliver Heaviside really wanted to understand these equations. He did not have any training in Calculus at the time and set out on a self taught course to learn Calculus and comprehend what Maxwell had given the world.

In Heaviside's work found here: Electromagnetic effects of a moving charge - Wikisource
we find some interesting clues to what electrical current is.

. . . But the main subject of this communication is the electromagnetic effect of a moving charge. That a moving charge is equivalent to an electric current-element is undoubted, and to call it a convection-current. as Prof. S. P. Thompson does, seems reasonable. The true current has three components, thus,
, where H is the magnetic force, C the conduction-current, D the displacement, and ρ the volume-density of electrification moving with velocity u. The addition of the term ρ u is, I presume, the extension made by Prof. Fitzgerald to which Prof. S. P. Thompson refers. At any rate, I can at present see no other. page 493
There are several ways of arriving at the conclusion that a moving charge must be regarded as an electric current; but, when that is admitted, we are very far from knowing what its magnetic effect is. . . .

(Bold Mine)

So what is a moving charge? This is a very important question because how it is answered impacts the very foundations of all physics connected with electricity.

A moving charge is literally anything with an electric charge that displaces space during a time interval.

As you may imagine, this begs a frame of reference. After all, the battery sitting motionless here on my desk is electrically charged, and is involved in very complex motion as the earth rotates and revolves and the solar system moves and the galaxy moves etc. Are we to conclude that this 'moving' charge is considered to be an electrical current? And if so, relative to what? The definition therefore implies an observation point. One Ampere of current is that quantity of charge that moves past a given point of observation in one second and this would be equivalent to around 6.242 × 10^18 positrons or protons for a positive conventional electric current or electrons for a negative conventional electric current. This is true because positrons and protons have a +1 electric charge while electrons have a -1 electric charge.

Let us consider the electric current flow in a Cathode Ray Tube, well known these days as the older CRT monitors or CRT television screens. This device uses hot cathode emission from a heater element to produce an extremely high quantity of free electrons that are easily attracted to the anode some tens of centimeters away. My LG High Definition CRT anode is over 40 centimeters from the 'guns' (there are 3, one for each color) in the neck of the tube. Now, there are no wires connecting the gun to the anode inside the tube. Those electrons must travel through that emptiness in between with no conductor. Special electric rings in the gun and magnetic coils around the outside of the glass tube focus the stream of electrons into a tight single file beam that is moved across and down the screen drawing the image just one dot at a time. Those moving electrons inside that emptiness constitute an electric current.

It should be noted that this current is part of a closed loop and therefore subject to Kirchhoff's Current Law. Thus, the electric current moving through that emptiness must match the electric current flowing through the HV anode wire and can be measured with an ammeter.

Now, does this mean that all electric current is somehow tied to electrons in motion? No. The electrons themselves need not move for electric current to flow. Remember, current is a movement of charge and this could be positive. Therefore, Ion's can also serve as charge carriers for electric current. And they do in every lightning bolt and air-borne spark known to man. When it comes to electric current it is all about electric charge distribution and equalization.

Perhaps our next question should be "What is Electric Charge?"

[boguslaw]

What about magnetic current ?

Electricity is pair of magnetic currents flowing against each other and when they balance dipole has to be replenished .
Magnetic wave looks like longitudinal electric field.Both polarities exists but have opposite spin.Negative part has harder work because electrons tend to consume it and rebrocast , but that difference allow us to convert that energy into other kind, because once both waves balance energy cannot be converted.

[Harvey]

What about magnetic current ?

Electricity is pair of magnetic currents flowing against each other and when they balance dipole has to be replenished .
Magnetic wave looks like longitudinal electric field.Both polarities exists but have opposite spin.Negative part has harder work because electrons tend to consume it and rebrocast , but that difference allow us to convert that energy into other kind, because once both waves balance energy cannot be converted.

Magnetic Current?

You raise an interesting question which ties into the matter of relativity. Consider a single particle in deep space. It can be a Proton or a Positron or an Electron, it is not important what it is as long as it has a single charge. This is an electric monopole. Now, if that charge is moving it is said that a magnetic field is created around that charge. That magnetic field will be a magnetic dipole. But what constitutes movement? If we, as an observer, position ourselves alongside the moving charge and move with it at a matched velocity (which is a vector, where speed is a scalar), then will we observe the magnetic field? Since we are in deep space and there is nothing else to use as a reference, how can we say the charge is moving? We cannot. Therefore, as a matter of relativity, the creation of the magnetic field seems to be dependent upon a difference in velocity between the observer and the moving particle. Could this really be the case? Or is it possible, that after all of this, an Ether does exist and the magnetic field is only created when the particle is in motion relative to the Ether. This was the part of the question partially answered by Gravity Probe B. It relates to whether or not Space-Time is able to be dragged along (known as frame dragging) by a gravitational field and it goes to the heart of how things work at the most basic electromagnetic level.

A single hydrogen Ion is simply a Proton. But when we balance that positive electrical charge with an electron, we get the Hydrogen Atom. Now what is interesting about this two part entity we call an atom (which is really comprised of even smaller parts) is that it comes in nature in two varieties. One is called Parahydrogen and the other is called Orthohydrogen and these are called spin isomers. How do we know which way a Proton is spinning? Because when it spins, it creates a magnetic field and the polarity of the field is dependent on the spin direction. Now that is interesting isn't it? Just the surface motion of the particle can produce a magnetic field as it spins?

This means that any spinning charged particle can be a magnetic dipole. But what happens if we cause the electron to lose velocity and allow the orbit to decay to the point of joining the Proton? This assembly, a single Proton and a single non-orbiting electron result in a neutral electric charge. We call this a Neutron. So the question arises, does a spinning Neutron have a magnetic field? Yes! It is called the Neutron Magnetic Moment and tells us something about the Asymmetric geometry of the assembly. While the unit itself is electrically neutral as a whole, it is not electrically neutral relative to space and time in a symmetrical way. Essentially, it has a bump on it that is negatively charged and that bump sweeps space-time as the Neutron spins. Why do you think the bump does not stay on the spin axis?

Now if we have enough atomic magnetic dipoles all aligned persistently, then we would have a permanent magnet. And that material also would be a magnetic dipole. However, the material would be magnetically neutral because its outer surface is considered to be a closed surface. Maxwell's equation commonly known as Gauss's Law states that the magnetic flux through a closed surface will net to zero. Therefore, any flux that exits the surface at one point, must re-enter the surface at another point. This was determined by empirical observation, not by theoretical application. Theory states that a magnetic monopole could exist, but empirically none have been found.

What path does this flux take when it leaves the surface of a magnet? Close to the magnet it is often determined by the magnets geometry, but at some distance it tends to normalize into an overall spherical shape. Notice this diagram which I constructed some time back when working on the WhiPMag Project. You will notice that there is a point where the flux is orthogonal to the magnetic axis - I have named this region the magnetic Event Horizon. Whether you are inside or outside this catenoid region circumscribed by the Event Horizon determines which direction the magnetic moment occurs. You will also note, that any given flux path is not spherical, nor is it truly toroidal. This is because the length of the magnet alters this symmetry and would need to be zero to be a true circular minor radius of a toroid. However, the outside curvature of both halves of the flux path do conform to a spherical shape in the vacuum of space. This is largely due to the vacuum permeability and the natural stresses induced by the magnetic field in that medium. If the permeability were much higher, like say 200,000 like that of a nanoperm core, then the flux path would be much different.

This is what would constitute a magnetic current per se - the routing of flux through a high permeability pathway. There is a length of the pathway that would match the vacuum permeability and when this is exceeded the flux will not follow that path, but instead will simply take the natural path through the vacuum. Unlike electric current, magnetic circuits do not have a 'flow' characteristic because motion is not present. Particle physicists and Zipnot enthusiasts may imagine virtual particles flowing along that pathway but that is simply for imaginary comprehension, no real particles actually flow as magnetic flux.

[boguslaw]

Magnetic Current?

You raise an interesting question which ties into the matter of relativity. Consider a single particle in deep space. It can be a Proton or a Positron or an Electron, it is not important what it is as long as it has a single charge. This is an electric monopole. Now, if that charge is moving it is said that a magnetic field is created around that charge. That magnetic field will be a magnetic dipole. But what constitutes movement? If we, as an observer, position ourselves alongside the moving charge and move with it at a matched velocity (which is a vector, where speed is a scalar), then will we observe the magnetic field? Since we are in deep space and there is nothing else to use as a reference, how can we say the charge is moving? We cannot. Therefore, as a matter of relativity, the creation of the magnetic field seems to be dependent upon a difference in velocity between the observer and the moving particle. Could this really be the case? Or is it possible, that after all of this, an Ether does exist and the magnetic field is only created when the particle is in motion relative to the Ether. This was the part of the question partially answered by Gravity Probe B. It relates to whether or not Space-Time is able to be dragged along (known as frame dragging) by a gravitational field and it goes to the heart of how things work at the most basic electromagnetic level.

A single hydrogen Ion is simply a Proton. But when we balance that positive electrical charge with an electron, we get the Hydrogen Atom. Now what is interesting about this two part entity we call an atom (which is really comprised of even smaller parts) is that it comes in nature in two varieties. One is called Parahydrogen and the other is called Orthohydrogen and these are called spin isomers. How do we know which way a Proton is spinning? Because when it spins, it creates a magnetic field and the polarity of the field is dependent on the spin direction. Now that is interesting isn't it? Just the surface motion of the particle can produce a magnetic field as it spins?

This means that any spinning charged particle can be a magnetic dipole. But what happens if we cause the electron to lose velocity and allow the orbit to decay to the point of joining the Proton? This assembly, a single Proton and a single non-orbiting electron result in a neutral electric charge. We call this a Neutron. So the question arises, does a spinning Neutron have a magnetic field? Yes! It is called the Neutron Magnetic Moment and tells us something about the Asymmetric geometry of the assembly. While the unit itself is electrically neutral as a whole, it is not electrically neutral relative to space and time in a symmetrical way. Essentially, it has a bump on it that is negatively charged and that bump sweeps space-time as the Neutron spins. Why do you think the bump does not stay on the spin axis?

Now if we have enough atomic magnetic dipoles all aligned persistently, then we would have a permanent magnet. And that material also would be a magnetic dipole. However, the material would be magnetically neutral because its outer surface is considered to be a closed surface. Maxwell's equation commonly known as Gauss's Law states that the magnetic flux through a closed surface will net to zero. Therefore, any flux that exits the surface at one point, must re-enter the surface at another point. This was determined by empirical observation, not by theoretical application. Theory states that a magnetic monopole could exist, but empirically none have been found.

What path does this flux take when it leaves the surface of a magnet? Close to the magnet it is often determined by the magnets geometry, but at some distance it tends to normalize into an overall spherical shape. Notice this diagram which I constructed some time back when working on the WhiPMag Project. You will notice that there is a point where the flux is orthogonal to the magnetic axis - I have named this region the magnetic Event Horizon. Whether you are inside or outside this catenoid region circumscribed by the Event Horizon determines which direction the magnetic moment occurs. You will also note, that any given flux path is not spherical, nor is it truly toroidal. This is because the length of the magnet alters this symmetry and would need to be zero to be a true circular minor radius of a toroid. However, the outside curvature of both halves of the flux path do conform to a spherical shape in the vacuum of space. This is largely due to the vacuum permeability and the natural stresses induced by the magnetic field in that medium. If the permeability were much higher, like say 200,000 like that of a nanoperm core, then the flux path would be much different.

This is what would constitute a magnetic current per se - the routing of flux through a high permeability pathway. There is a length of the pathway that would match the vacuum permeability and when this is exceeded the flux will not follow that path, but instead will simply take the natural path through the vacuum. Unlike electric current, magnetic circuits do not have a 'flow' characteristic because motion is not present. Particle physicists and Zipon enthusiasts may imagine virtual particles flowing along that pathway but that is simply for imaginary comprehension, no real particles actually flow as magnetic flux.

Really ? That is assumption of observer from external point of view. What is happening if observer is inside magnetic field ? I truly believe that the key to opening free energy lies in Earth magnetosphere and generation of magnetic currents.Magnetic field is a whirl in aether constructed from magnetic currents.Ed Leedscalnin teached that I think.

[Richie_asg1]

Quoting Ed Leedskalnin is an interesting approach.

I think we can gain a few clues from what makes materials magnetic.
I's not easy to line the periodic elements up and point out the magnetic ones.
It's all to do with the crystaline structure - and how the Neutrons line up.

I would hazard to guess that Protons are just as likely to swap atoms as Electrons are, and when an electron goes one way - the Proton goes the opposite way. This is done on an atomic level at the natural frequency of resonance of the atom.
I did wonder when people explained about charge building on capacitor plates - that the positive charge "just arrives there" to equal the negative charge - so It must arrive somehow.
Electronic explanation talk of "Electron Holes" to be filled, but does nothing to explain the forces that magically attract these negative ping-pong-balls into the awaiting holes.

Maybe Neutrons spin in a fixed orientation, and the + and - charges - come and go like people through a turnstile. Faster they go - the more spin and the greater the field produced. This theory doesn't hold water - as it is current that produces flux density - not voltage. Maybe it is the mass of moving charge that determines the spin ?
Just my 2p worth

[Harvey]

Quoting Ed Leedskalnin is an interesting approach.

I think we can gain a few clues from what makes materials magnetic.
I's not easy to line the periodic elements up and point out the magnetic ones.
It's all to do with the crystaline structure - and how the Neutrons line up.

I would hazard to guess that Protons are just as likely to swap atoms as Electrons are, and when an electron goes one way - the Proton goes the opposite way. This is done on an atomic level at the natural frequency of resonance of the atom.
I did wonder when people explained about charge building on capacitor plates - that the positive charge "just arrives there" to equal the negative charge - so It must arrive somehow.
Electronic explanation talk of "Electron Holes" to be filled, but does nothing to explain the forces that magically attract these negative ping-pong-balls into the awaiting holes.

Maybe Neutrons spin in a fixed orientation, and the + and - charges - come and go like people through a turnstile. Faster they go - the more spin and the greater the field produced. This theory doesn't hold water - as it is current that produces flux density - not voltage. Maybe it is the mass of moving charge that determines the spin ?
Just my 2p worth

Some day I will need to do more than the cursory search for Ed Leedskalnin's secrets. But one thing is very clear, he understood EDM long before it was made popular in machine shops around the globe.

As regards the 'holes', it is not necessary to actually move Protons around because it is much easier to move the electrons around. Protons are generally bound by the strong nuclear force to other Protons and Neutrons except in the case of Hydrogen which only has one Proton. Instead, electrons are added or subtracted to make IONS. This gives us a way to have Positive electrical potential and negative electrical potential without altering the elemental makeup of the material. So positive Ions exist on one plate while negative Ions exist on the other. It is interesting however, that in the case of capacitors, the charge can be held in the dielectric itself rather than in the plates. In those cases, the conductive plates are simply charge carriers that don't hold the charge itself.

Everything is magnetic in one way or another. There are many forms of magnetic properties:Ferromagnetic, Paramagnetic, Diamagnetic, Ferrimagnetic etc. Everyone has probably seen the levitating frog by now. But not all elements are considered conductors. In fact, this is what separates the metals from non-metals, their conductivity. The conductivity of an element is directly related to the valence electrons in the outermost orbits. Some materials, called semi-conductors, play the middle - not being good conductors and not being good insulators.

Generally when we call something "magnetic" we are really meaning "Ferromagnetic". These materials, Iron, Nickle, Cobalt for example, have internal domains called Weiss Domains which easily align with magnetic fields in an additive fashion - that is they add to the field when they align with it. This is what makes them attractive to permanent magnets. 'Soft' materials are easily changed back and forth while 'hard' materials are not so easily changed. This is due to the coercivity of the material.

What most persons do not realize is that it is the electron spins and orbits that causes the permanent magnet to have and external field. The orbital path of the electrons around the nucleus represents a substantial electrical current within the material so that each and every atom is a dipole. When they all align and add their force together you get a very powerful magnet.

[Sephiroth]

Thank you for your posts harvey... I'm enjoying them

Might as well throw in my two cents...

interesting thing about the current in a copper wire is that there is a flow of two moving charges, the negative electrons, which are our charge carriers, and the positive flow of holes flowing in the opposite direction.

I have used a theoretical model to try and emphasize that both of these flows are significant in a conductor and it seems relevant to the thread

Imagine a coil that has only one turn and that coil is hooked up so that we can spin it on it's axis.

We apply voltage to our coil and obviously current flows through it and forms a magnetic field that is proportional to the current that is flowing.

We then spin our coil so that the conductor is moving in the direction of electron drift. Electrons don't travel very fast... we could say they move just inches an hour so it would be easy to accelerate the electrons to many times the speed they would normally flow.

If electron drift is the only significance part of current in a conductor, then the magnetic field should increase in proportion to the speed of rotation. I can bet you it won't...

this is because not only are the electrons being accelerated, but the "holes" are being decelerated.

Imagine what would happen if you spun the coil in the opposite direction so the electrons are relatively stationary.

[Harvey]

Thank you for your kind words Sephiroth,

When I think of Electron Drift I think along these lines:
Electron Drift Instrument

But I think perhaps you are referring to this:
Drift velocity - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

which shows a relationship between electron propagation in a wire and measured electrical current.

And then there is the Guiding Center to consider as most charges in a conductor do not move is straight lines, but hop from atom to atom (or in the case of your 'holes' they are the atoms or positive ions left behind as an electron leaves it).

In your example of a rotating conductive ring one must question the matter of relative velocity. If for example, the battery is inserted between the ends of the loop and moves with the loop, then the relative velocity of the loop to the battery is zero. The same is true regarding the speed of the electron drift relative to the electric field source (the battery) causing the drift. Thus the speed of the ring becomes meaningless in this arrangement unless we are doing research relative to the observer or or space-time reference frames.

If we then choose to place stationary conductors (brushes) on the ring, so that the relative velocity of the ring can then be compared to the source, we find that we have two new issues. First, the velocity will be positive as it moves away from the brush, and will be negative as it moves toward the brush and therefore the relative velocity will net to zero. This tells us then, that we must refer to angular velocity instead. Second, because the ring is closed we have a secondary path in the opposite direction for current to flow in and these two currents would work against each other.

However, it may be possible to fabricate a device to explore this experiment empirically. Consider if the ring was made of a semiconductor organized as a series of diodes. Now the brushes can contact the ring in a way that forces the flow in one direction and we can spin the ring up to a desired velocity and test the effect for both directions. In fact, why not make it a series of LED's so we can see the power consumption visually. Theoretically, as we increase the speed in one direction, the velocity of individual charges moving relative to our source will increase and therefore the quantity over time will be greater. Consequently, the LED's should burn brighter due to the increase in current. Rotating the ring in the opposite direction should theoretically have the opposite effect. With a little imagination and some chip type SMT LED's, a hybrid (metal conductor, LED) version of this could be fabricated in the home workshop.

---------------------------------------------

A couple other things that we may want to mention here:
One is that while the migration of electrons through a conductor carrying one ampere is quite slow (mm / s) the quantity of electrons migrating in that period is very great.

Another is that while the charges themselves may not move very fast through a conductor, the energy they have can be transmitted near the speed of light. Take a look at Newtons Cradle. While the energy carriers in the center do not actually move much, they do effectively pass that energy on to the next in the sequence. Therefore, if you apply a voltage potential on one end of a 300km wire, it can be seen at the other end just one second later.

----------------------------------------------

Now, when I read this post of yours it brought back some memories of a thought experiment I had done quite a while back. The experiment had to do with magnetic fields being created around a current carrying conductor and the relative cause of that field. In my experiment, the question was raised as to whether or not the field was the result of of charge motion relative to space-time rather than relative to any observer. Using Tesla's comment regarding the Michelson-Morley experiment as a basis the thought experiment was constructed on the premise that the Earth drags space-time with it as it rotates. Therefore, it would be possible to do an Earth bound experiment to prove that Space-time itself is the Ether used for EM propagation. In this experiment, a long conductive belt is fabricated and placed around two pulleys. The pulleys are conductive and are charged with opposite polarities, one being negative relative to Earth and one being Positive relative to Earth. The pulleys are then turned at such a speed that the belt velocity matches the Earths angular velocity and presumably, the dragged reference frame of Space-Time as well. Thus, one portion of the belt will be moving at twice the speed and the other will be stationary to an orbital synchronous observer (imagine a satellite that has its back to the sun and is tracking the earths orbit exactly). Naturally the length of our belt limits the duration of the test relative to the outside observer, but since we are moving with the surface there is no limit to the length of the test. Theoretically, then, the charge motion can be stopped relative to Space-Time, but will still be moving relative to the belt and field source. If the magnetic field generated by a moving charge is the result of motion relative to Space-Time, then that portion of the belt that is closer to stationary relative to it will not have a magnetic field even though the current is flowing through it. And conversely, the other half will have twice the field. Remember, the current flows from one pulley to the other through both halves of the conductive belt, one with the direction and one against it. If I am correct, it could shed some light on the Pioneer Anomoly

[Schpankme]

Using Tesla's comment regarding the Michelson-Morley experiment as a basis the thought experiment was constructed on the premise that the Earth drags space-time with it as it rotates.

Harvey,

Would you describe motion in spacetime in a coordinate system?

Schpankme

“No man really becomes a fool until he stops asking questions.” - Charles P. Steinmetz

[witsend]

Magnetic Current?

You raise an interesting question which ties into the matter of relativity. Consider a single particle in deep space. It can be a Proton or a Positron or an Electron, it is not important what it is as long as it has a single charge. This is an electric monopole. Now, if that charge is moving it is said that a magnetic field is created around that charge. That magnetic field will be a magnetic dipole.

I think you mean that the FIELD will be dipolar. Mainstream do not ascribe a material property to magnetic fields.

But what constitutes movement? If we, as an observer, position ourselves alongside the moving charge and move with it at a matched velocity (which is a vector, where speed is a scalar), then will we observe the magnetic field? Since we are in deep space and there is nothing else to use as a reference, how can we say the charge is moving? We cannot. Therefore, as a matter of relativity, the creation of the magnetic field seems to be dependent upon a difference in velocity between the observer and the moving particle.

Whether we see it or not - mainstream require an immediacy or precise synchonicity between the electromagnetic interaction. Our movement or sight of this event is immaterial.

Could this really be the case? Or is it possible, that after all of this, an Ether does exist and the magnetic field is only created when the particle is in motion relative to the Ether. This was the part of the question partially answered by Gravity Probe B. It relates to whether or not Space-Time is able to be dragged along (known as frame dragging) by a gravitational field and it goes to the heart of how things work at the most basic electromagnetic level.

The electromagnetic force is in no way associated with gravity - certainly not according to mainstream. This 'link' between the two forces is interesting but is nowhere endorsed within the classical framework.

A single hydrogen Ion is simply a Proton. But when we balance that positive electrical charge with an electron, we get the Hydrogen Atom. Now what is interesting about this two part entity we call an atom (which is really comprised of even smaller parts)

It is indeed. It comprises an electron and proton.

is that it comes in nature in two varieties. One is called Parahydrogen and the other is called Orthohydrogen and these are called spin isomers.

Are you describing hydrogen or helium? Both are atoms. But varieties of hydrogen are deuterium and tritium. Helium is a completely different thing.

How do we know which way a Proton is spinning? Because when it spins, it creates a magnetic field and the polarity of the field is dependent on the spin direction. Now that is interesting isn't it? Just the surface motion of the particle can produce a magnetic field as it spins?

Actually the 'spin' of both the electron and the proton are esablished against an applied magnetic field. It does not relate to any 'field' generated by either particle. If there is such a field then that is simply theoretical. Certainly neither measured nor extant.

This means that any spinning charged particle can be a magnetic dipole.

How do you deduce this? If it has a spin say to the 'left' it certainly does not generate a field to the 'right', or at a 90 degree angle - if that's what you're implying. And neither an electron nor a proton are considered to be magnetic dipoles. On the contrary.

An electron added to the a proton creates a hydrogen atom. Not a neutron.But what happens if we cause the electron to lose velocity and allow the orbit to decay to the point of joining the Proton? This assembly, a single Proton and a single non-orbiting electron result in a neutral electric charge. We call this a Neutron.

An electron added to the a proton creates a hydrogen atom. Not a neutron. A neutron is a particle - unlike the proton. It is neutral and it is classified as a nuance.

So the question arises, does a spinning Neutron have a magnetic field? Yes! It is called the Neutron Magnetic Moment and tells us something about the Asymmetric geometry of the assembly. While the unit itself is electrically neutral as a whole, it is not electrically neutral relative to space and time in a symmetrical way. Essentially, it has a bump on it that is negatively charged and that bump sweeps space-time as the Neutron spins.

There is no 'negative' charge associated with the neutron.

Why do you think the bump does not stay on the spin axis?

What spin axis? The neutron is neutral. No spin.

Now if we have enough atomic magnetic dipoles all aligned persistently, then we would have a permanent magnet. And that material also would be a magnetic dipole.

What atomic magnetic dipoles? I have never heard of this.

However, the material would be magnetically neutral because its outer surface is considered to be a closed surface. Maxwell's equation commonly known as Gauss's Law states that the magnetic flux through a closed surface will net to zero. Therefore, any flux that exits the surface at one point, must re-enter the surface at another point. This was determined by empirical observation, not by theoretical application. Theory states that a magnetic monopole could exist, but empirically none have been found.

A magnetic monopole has indeed not been found. But electrons and protons evidence a single charge. Negative and positive respectively.

What path does this flux take when it leaves the surface of a magnet? Close to the magnet it is often determined by the magnets geometry, but at some distance it tends to normalize into an overall spherical shape. Notice this diagram which I constructed some time back when working on the WhiPMag Project. You will notice that there is a point where the flux is orthogonal to the magnetic axis - I have named this region the magnetic Event Horizon. Whether you are inside or outside this catenoid region circumscribed by the Event Horizon determines which direction the magnetic moment occurs. You will also note, that any given flux path is not spherical, nor is it truly toroidal. This is because the length of the magnet alters this symmetry and would need to be zero to be a true circular minor radius of a toroid. However, the outside curvature of both halves of the flux path do conform to a spherical shape in the vacuum of space. This is largely due to the vacuum permeability and the natural stresses induced by the magnetic field in that medium. If the permeability were much higher, like say 200,000 like that of a nanoperm core, then the flux path would be much different.

This is highly speculative. There cannot be a spherical magnetic field ever. The shape could not sustain the bipolar characteristics of a magnetic field.

This is what would constitute a magnetic current per se - the routing of flux through a high permeability pathway. There is a length of the pathway that would match the vacuum permeability and when this is exceeded the flux will not follow that path, but instead will simply take the natural path through the vacuum.

If flux is taking a 'natural path' through a vacuum where exactly is there a need for that 'vacuum permeability' and what is 'vacuum permeability'?

Unlike electric current, magnetic circuits do not have a 'flow' characteristic because motion is not present.

What is a magnetic circuit?

Particle physicists and Zipon enthusiasts may imagine virtual particles flowing along that pathway but that is simply for imaginary comprehension, no real particles actually flow as magnetic flux.

Harvey - there is one truth in physics and that is that it is essentially simple. I have found that the more 'obtuse' a presentation becomes, the more flawed it is. These threads are read by contributors who 'grapple' with concepts of physics - first assuming that it is complex. It is NOT. I think one should limit one's observations to facts. And it is possibly harmful to misrepresent physics at all. Nowhere in or out of mainstream - is there any evidence that a neutron could 'absorb' an electron. Perhaps you meant a hydrogen atom? To the best of my knowledge, no spin in the proton and the electron has ever been seen to generate a 'field' as is implied here. Is space i considered to be permeable? Are there bipolar properties in atoms? Is there such a thing as a hydrogen atom with more than one proton. You present these facts with some authority. Do they comply to mainstream? I suggest unless they're confirmed then it simply confuses our knowledge of physics and it is no wonder that mainstream regard our efforts here as misguided. What is understood by mainstream is that current flow is 'charged'. But mainstream physicists have never presumed to attribute that charge to particles within the accepted 'models' of physics. It is still an unknown. It is only our engineering fraternity who have come to depend on the concept of electron current flow. That concept is widely considered to be flawed. For many good reasons. But nor does this prove the 'zipon' thesis.
EDITED

SECOND EDIT - And BTW electron 'drift' is known to be 'as a numerical example,for a copper wire of 1 square mm area, carrying a current of 3 amperes, the drift velocity of electrons would be about 0.00028 metres per second (or just about an hour to travel one metre)' (straight from wiki) That is way, way slower than the rate at which current is KNOWN to flow in a circuit. Current flow simply cannot be ascribed to electron drift or anything at all to do with 'drift'.

EDITED AGAIN. I've changed the summation in the interests of keeping this as a 'discussion'. I have perhaps been too blunt?

[Harvey]

Harvey,

Would you describe motion in spacetime in a coordinate system?

Schpankme

“No man really becomes a fool until he stops asking questions.” - Charles P. Steinmetz

Would I? Perhaps, but I imagine the exercise would have little value here in our discussion of electric current.

GP-B — Einstein's Spacetime

". . . to express physical laws without coordinates is like "describing thoughts without words . . ."

Thus he used Tensors in his work explaining General Relativity.

[Harvey]

Witsend,

Your personal opinions are duly noted and hereby treated as such.

However, the confrontational nature of your dissection of my posts and the inferences embedded in them will not be tolerated. Adminstration has made the matter very clear that such is to be stopped or else you will be banned. You will do well to listen to them and abide by the forum rules.

[witsend]

Witsend,

Your personal opinions are duly noted and hereby treated as such.

However, the confrontational nature of your dissection of my posts and the inferences embedded in them will not be tolerated. Adminstration has made the matter very clear that such is to be stopped or else you will be banned. You will do well to listen to them and abide by the forum rules.

There are no embedded 'inferences'. I apologise profusely if this is seen as confrontational. I only meant, most urgently, to draw attention to some 'flaws' in the presentation of your arguments. Facts were possibly 'misrepresented' and I am concerned that this will confuse rather than advance the knowledge that we all so urgently seek. If my observations are 'wrong' you can perhaps point out where. That would form the basis of a discussion. If you prefer it that I do not post here then I will happily abstain. But then I would ask you not to bring zipons into your discussions.

[Richie_asg1]

Can I just quickly add a bit about superconductors ?
I don't know much about them - except that they take electron pairs in at one end - and move them very quickly to the other end.

Does your theory hold out for superconductors ?
Why are some superconductors magnetic at low temperatures only ?

Thank you for your informative posts guys...I'm learning a lot

[Schpankme]

Would I? Perhaps, but I imagine the exercise would have little value here in our discussion of electric current.

GP-B — Einstein's Spacetime

Harvey,

Thank you, unfortunately the link did not provide a descriptive for motion in spacetime.

Schpankme

"Inductance represents energy storage in space as a magnetic field." - Eric Dollard