Magnetic fields responsible for gravity (split)

[Tristan SoCal]

Spin and dipole-dipole interactions may not be responsible for gravity, but they may not be directly relevant to magnetism either. Why do our solar system's solid bodies with relevant gravity have magnetic fields (omitting Venus)? Aren't magnetism and magnetic susceptibility inherent properties of matter, which has the mass? They are related by potential energy because mass has energy relevant to its inherent properties. [The potential for magnetism is related to energy which is related to mass which is related to gravity. ]

 why does mass attract mass? Do two marbles in space fall into orbit because of their mass? 

Why is some matter magnetic and other forms not so magnetic? It is interesting that the center of the planet is made of a large, magnetic form of matter. 

 

Edited May 18, 2018 by Tristan SoCal

[studiot]

Hello Tristan and welcome.

If you are serious with your enquiries/comments then you should have started your own threads about the subject not resurrected an old discredited one.

I have reported this and if the mods choose to split this, I suggest you re-think carefully your wording and concentrate on one main issue per thread, as you have posed several (too many) questions for one thread.

[swansont]

4 hours ago, Tristan SoCal said:

Aren't magnetism and magnetic susceptibility inherent properties of matter, which has the mass?

Magnetism is caused by motion (or momentum) of charges. Run a current down a wire, and you will get a magnetic field that depends on the current. Meaning no, it's not an inherent property of matter.

Gravity is not a magnetic phenomenon. We can shield magnetic fields. We can't shield gravity.

We don't know why mass attracts mass. But then, we don't know why electric charge attracts or repels electric charge, either. We know that it does, and have made models of how each interaction behaves.

[Tristan SoCal]

A copper wire is made of matter sir. The current itself is made of matter, the only reason it "runs"  is because of voltage drop which is induced, sure, but it happens in nature as lightning bolts. Magnetism occurs naturally too, as the mineral magnetite for example. 

So do you think there is some current going through a wire to make the Earth's magnetic field? How the magnetic field not an inherent property of the matter? Aren't electrons matter?

Edited May 19, 2018 by Tristan SoCal

[Mordred]

There are plenty of objects such as asteroids that have no magnetic field but still have gravity. How do you account for those?

Edited May 19, 2018 by Mordred

[Tristan SoCal]

okay. I don't account for them, I'm asking to learn.
I wonder what the average composition of such an asteroid is? 

[studiot]

4 hours ago, Tristan SoCal said:

okay. I don't account for them, I'm asking to learn.
I wonder what the average composition of such an asteroid is? 

I wouldn't recommend starting the study of properties of materials with asteroids.
It may be current and sexy and even offer some novel insights, but is of limited use in the overall scheme of things.

To discuss gravitational, magnetic and electric properties of matter, you need to know some details about them, so tell us what your level of knowledge is?

Electric and magnetic fields can be readily shaped, this is much more difficult with gravitational fields.

The early pioneers studied electric and magnetic fields confined to a particular region of space.

The electric fields were confined by placing a slab of material between two confining plates making a condenser or capacitor.
Confining magenetic fields made use of the fact that the field of an electic coil of is wholy contained within a toriodal winding.
This is called a Rowland Ring after the discoverer J H Rowland.

Rowland was able to distinguish three types of magnetic activity.

Paramagnetism
Diamagnetism
Ferromagnetism

The first two only appear in the presence of an existing magnetic field.

The simple planetery model of the atom with electrons orbiting a nucleus is sufficient to explain this magnetic activity.

Have you heard of the planetary model, due to Neils Bohr?

Edited May 19, 2018 by studiot

[swansont]

8 hours ago, Tristan SoCal said:

A copper wire is made of matter sir. The current itself is made of matter, the only reason it "runs"  is because of voltage drop which is induced, sure, but it happens in nature as lightning bolts.

I was focusing on your claim of an "inherent property". Current flow is an induced phenomenon, not an inherent property.

8 hours ago, Tristan SoCal said:

Magnetism occurs naturally too, as the mineral magnetite for example.

Which is due to uncanceled spins of electrons (charge and angular momentum, as I had alluded to before) and if you raise the material to a temperature above its Curie point, it will lose the magnetism. It's not an inherent property.

The best you can do is say that it's an inherent property of the electron, though it's due to its other inherent properties. But not of any bulk matter, because it tends to cancel out.

8 hours ago, Tristan SoCal said:

 So do you think there is some current going through a wire to make the Earth's magnetic field? How the magnetic field not an inherent property of the matter? Aren't electrons matter?

The earth's core is more than electrons.

[Mordred]

10 hours ago, Tristan SoCal said:

okay. I don't account for them, I'm asking to learn.
I wonder what the average composition of such an asteroid is? 

 

 As Studiot correctly pointed out asteroids would be a poor starting point. However that being said, asteroids are made of minerals and ice commonly found on Earth. So studying the different properties of those minerals here on Earth is sufficient.

 We would be happy to help guide you in learning how electromagnetism and gravity differ from one another but also as pointed out we need an understanding of what level of teaching to start at.

 Lets start with Studiots questions then work from there...

 By the way it is a great act of character to admit when one is wrong or doesn't fully understand something. I wish far more posters did the same so +1 for that. I have far greater respect for posters who honestly wish to learn than those making grandiose assertions.

 When thinking over the comments made by both Studiot and Swansont I would recommend you start thinking of iron in particular.

 Iron does not normally exhibit a magnetic field but if you apply a current can be made into a magnet. The questions Studiot asked relate to this phenomenon.

(it also relates to why certain astronomical bodies has a magnetic field while others do not)

Edited May 19, 2018 by Mordred

[Tristan SoCal]

First, thank you so much. I really appreciate this forum. I am an undergraduate focusing on the evolution of plants with an interest in chemical engineering, but I had to take physics and I took geology, I also love astronomy. I qualify for an AA in natural philosophy and almost for Engineering/tech - I just need a humanities class for the engineering degree. 

I can follow along so far, Studiot is a genius! Also thank you for the very cool, simple and step-by-step definition based explanation. 'Toroidal' is a great vocabularly word, points! I had to look that up, my math level is that I have taken two Calculus classes, up to that I have seen a differential equation and also evaluated series and functions with limits at infinity.

 So, studiot, I follow up to the last two parts - I don't understand how the electron orbitals cause magnetism. In looking up the topic, I found quantum electrodynamics, which I realize I have yet to work up to in courses - so I know there is a lot I don't know about that has been explained. I am interested in how the ferromagnetism occurs naturally, what makes this magnetic field? I think it is the electron motion. 
I realize connecting any of this to gravity is, by the common perspective today of mass/mass stuff, ridiculous, and Swansont has defended the establishment with vigorous debate. I am super interested in how spin, or uncancelled spin... makes magnetism? 

In reading about the Earth's magnetic field and its reversals, I came across research about the curie temperatures of titanomagnetite, how the three crystal structure variations each have a specific curie temperature. I took this as data to support the idea that electron motion, or limitations of the cycling of confined electrons, as a system, like a crystal structure, would affect the magnetic field potential of the substance - as in a unique curie temperature. 
Did that make sense?


Modred, thank you. This is so amazing, I don't know who to ask about these ideas - I like how you brought up iron. I am interested in studying the periodic table by atomic structure, to see why is iron so susceptible to generating or holding - a pattern of electron motion (i think) - that makes magnetic field force - or the titanomagnetite crystal structures - and why are other metals, like copper, more conductive of electric flow. I have tried to learn a little about electrons as a fluid but it is complicated. So back to atomic structure, and isotopes, I wonder if there is something about the electron configuration, or the most stable one (or the most relevantly common one, like in earth's core), of iron that allows for magnetism. 

Sorry, this is all over the place, points for Rowland, I will read more about him. Also, I have heard of the VSEPR theory of quantum orbitals, so that is just a little past Neils Bohr - I know also that he described the difficulty in ionizing the noble gases form a chemistry website with one of his papers, but I do not know much about his original thoughts of the atomic model because I only scanned his paper and I learned a different model, the VSEPR model. Organic chemistry would be my next chemistry class. 

Just to clarify - there are two ideas under discussion, magnetism related to gravity which has been set aside now to discuss magnetism and electrons or atomic/molecular structure.  The gravity idea is far more risky as far as reputation, which I don't have anyways, than the idea about magnetism by electron motion  -which maybe is already described?

I recently had a flash of insight to think more about the kinetic energy of electrons as they orbit by thinking about their momentum, so it is super interesting that you brought up momentum of electrons, Swansont, but I don't understand what you meant. 
 

Edited May 19, 2018 by Tristan SoCal

[Mordred]

Ok magnetism is primarily due to the net magnetic moment alignment of electrons, which involves spin. Every electron has a magnetic dipole moment. In most materials the alignment cancel each other out. However certain materials such as hematite the net alignment is imbalanced. 

 Here is a rather lengthy 633 page article that has excellent coverage of magnetism. This will greatly help you in your physics course. It will detail several highly important details such as the Currie temperature etc.

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=http://www.dsf.unica.it/~fiore/libricorsoptr/coey-magnetism.pdf&ved=2ahUKEwj7puu4-pTbAhUeHGMKHVdgBO0QFjAAegQIBxAB&usg=AOvVaw01a_57WGwNznR89qLB3zxW

 The article is essentially a one stop resource for pretty much anything you will need to know or want to know about magnetism and why certain materials have greater magnetic susceptibility and others don't. How this ties into spin orbitals etc.

 It also details Maxwells equations etc. 

 Rather than give snippets of details which would be unavoidable via strictly questions and answers on a forum this will provide you a comprehensive and rather detailed understanding of magnetism.

Edited May 20, 2018 by Mordred

[Tristan SoCal]

Thank you, so much! point!