The unity of the electomagnetic force

[sunspot]

Physics has shown that the EM force is an integration of the electrostatic force (due to charge) and the magnetic force. The question I have, is this just mathematics or are these integrated in reality?

 

As a way to clarify my question, if one looks at say the F- anion, it contains one more electron than it has protons. This anion is relatively inert inspite of it having an extra electron, i.e., very weak base. Does this mean that the magnetic addition of the electrons absorbs the electrostatic force of the extra electron, such that the effective electrostatic force drops making act like it only has a partial electron charge?

[rhiannon]

where the hell did that question come from?

[insane_alien]

The electron has a full charge and acts that way. the reason the ion is relatively unreactive is that th valence shell is an octet of electrons which is inherently stable. the ion WILL react and is not inert.

[sunspot]

So the integration of the EM force is only a mathematical concept with no basis in practical reality? I realize a moving charge creates magnetism but is there only a one sided integration?

[sunspot]

Let me explain myself in a way that should finally be clear. If we look at the flouride anion F-, it has nine protons and ten electrons. If the electrons and protons were static or stopped suddenly in space, the charge imbalance would mean that one of the electrons or negative charges would need to repel and the rest of the electrons would flow into the nuclesus and cancel out with the protons.

 

If we next give the ten electrons motion (two in 1S orbtial and two in 2S orbtial) and six the 2P orbtials (below), there is still move negative charge than the nucleus has positive charge. The stability occurs because of the 3-D magnetic addition of the 2P orbtials.

 

 

If the electrons were given motion so they occupy the 2P orbitals but there was no such thing as the magnetic force, the electrons would reamin fluffed out, but the extra electron would be slung out faster than pure charge repulsion due to the centrifugal force.

 

Fortuneately for chemistry, the vector force stemming from the magnetic addition essentially acts like either an extra postive charge that can balance the extra negative charge, or a minus negative charge that cancels out the extra negative charge repulsion. Either way, the negative charge is conserved, but the addition of the magnetic force vectors, essentially more or less cancels out what should be the effect of an extra negative charge.

[[Tycho?]]

So the integration of the EM force is only a mathematical concept with no basis in practical reality? I realize a moving charge creates magnetism but is there only a one sided integration?

 

 

WHAT!? Neither of the two posters said anything like that. Its not even clear what you're asking.

[MattC]

Of course they are integrated in reality!

[aguy2]

Of course they are integrated in reality!

 

At least presently. We have evidence that under conditions of high temperature and pressure the 4 forces we see in nature were united in the early universe, and that these forces 'decoupled' one after the other as the universe cooled and expanded. Seeing as this cooling and expansion is an ongoing process, could it be possible that the 'electro' and 'magnetic' forces might decouple?

 

aguy2

[sunspot]

The EM force can decouple if the moving charge causing the magnetic forces stops all motion. This will cause the magnetic force to become zero leaving only electrostatic force.

 

What I was asking is whether the EM force is truly integrated. I already believe the answer; yes, but was seeking a second opinion. The goal is something very subtle that existing chemisty theory can not seem to see. I thought the physics community could help shed some light.

 

The logical explanation of the F- being able to hold more electrons than it has protons appears to be an example of the magnetic force integrated with electrostatic force, allowing the expected charge repulsion to be neutralized to some extent. Charge is still conserved, but the EM force fields are interchangeable, since magnetism results from charge (in motion) or magnetism is essentially electrostatic force in motion.

 

The magnetic force vector(x) is perpendicular to the current (y)and to the electrostatic force vector(z). With the 2P orbitals 3-D in x,y,z directions, the magnetic force field direction in one orbital lobe run parallel to the electrostatic force in another orbital lobe. This parallel field direction of the EM force within all the lobes subtract in the case of F-. I hope I didn't confuse things but it is subtle.

[Klaynos]

This isn't physically 100% correct but it will answer your question (I'm kinda bored and slightly drunk I'll think I shouldn't have posted this in the morning).

 

The force carrier of the EM forces is the photon.

 

A photon is a bootstrapping EM wave, so yes they are physically integrated one is orthoginal to the other.

[Meir Achuz]

"If the electrons were given motion so they occupy the 2P orbitals but there was no such thing as the magnetic force, the electrons would reamin fluffed out, but the extra electron would be slung out faster than pure charge repulsion due to the centrifugal force. "

 

I am not sure what you are talking about, but can say this:

The magnetic forces in the fluoride anion are not very important.

They are of order v/c times the electric forces and v/c is less than about 1/10. They do not play a major role in keeping the ion together.

[Severian]

We have evidence that under conditions of high temperature and pressure the 4 forces we see in nature were united in the early universe, and that these forces 'decoupled' one after the other as the universe cooled and expanded.

 

I would dispute that. There really isn't any evidence of this at all. It is simply a nice hypothesis that there is some large symmetry group which fractured into smaller ones as the universe coolled.

 

As for the original question, the electric and magnetci field are as unified as is possible. They are simply different components of the electromagnetic field tensor. So they are unified on a mathematical and a practical level.

 

To break the unification, you would need to break Lorentz invariance.

[sunspot]

Where I am going with this, is connected to the nature of hydrogen bonding, where, for example, the hydrogen of water want to share the unbonded electrons of oxygen of another water molecule. I claim that the potential to form this bond is not equally distributed between the oxygen-hydrogen dipole, but that the hydrogen carries the most potential.

 

The example I gave of F- anion being stable, allowing this anion to hold more electrons than it has protons cannot be explained by electrostatic force alone. A balance of charge should result in a neutral atom. The unity of the EM force, suggests that magnetic addition is creating the little extra attraction potential to make this anion stable, allowing it to overcome the expected electrostatic repulsion.

 

Oxygen is also highly electronegative or can hold more electrons than it has protons in its nucleus. This stability is also due to EM integration or magnetic addition overcoming the expected electrostatic repulsion. As such, within O-H bonds of water, the electrons are pulled closer to oxygen exposing the positive charge of hydrogen. The stability of oxygen due to magnetic addition cause the hydrogen to carry the burden of potential, i.e., the oxygen lowered potential or it would not have taken the electron density in the first place. As such, when a hydrogen bond forms with another water molecule, the hydrogen needs the electron density much more than oxygen needs to give up electron density due to its magnetic stability.

 

This analysis is subtle but is very pivotable to understanding how one can model cells in terms of just the hydrogen bonding hydrogen. Hydrogen bonding defines the active and structural properties of DNA, RNA, proteins and water and allows one to theorectially integrate the cell using only one variable; hydrogen proton potential. The thesis is DNA, RNA, proteins and water all create hydrogen bonds with nonoptimized distance and angles, leaving residual potential, distributed throughtout the cell, within the hydrogen protons of the hydrogen bonds. Biochemistry is convinced the potential of hydrogen bonds are distributed equally between the hydrogen and O or N making the model a moot point. I am convinced that it is distributed unequally with the hydrogen containing residual potential from its orginal induction.

 

I could use the help of the physics community to help settle the debate. The unity of the EM is my best argument where magnetic addition can alter the expected electrostatic dipole potentials. It works with F-, while oxygen and nitrogen also use the 3-Dimesional 2P orbitals to allowing the EM to integrate lowering electrostatic potentials.

[MattC]

seems fairly clear to me. The oxygen is electronegative, that's why it has such a high -e density. It is fine with things as they are, without the hydrogen bonding. That same electronegativity in adjacent water molecules deprives hydrogens of density, and that's why the hydrogen is bearing the burden, so to speak. The oxygen has what it wants, and the hydrogens want the oxygen to share. So to speak. Honestly, though, I don't see how this would help explain anything. Ultimately it doesn't matter, right? Whether you assume they each share the attraction equally or not may not matter.

[swansont]

I don't think the magnetic force is doing what you think it's doing in an atom. I also think you are focusing only on charge and not charge distribution. i.e. on the scale of the atom, or smaller, the system may not "look" neutral. Does a dipole look neutral at all r, even though the net Q is zero?

[sunspot]

Maybe my magnetic force explanation is a little bit off the mark. But another way to visualize the impact of the magnetic force, is when water forms. One has essentially two neutral molecules H2 and O2 combining, very exothermically I may add, to form two dipoles (one for each O-H bond. This would appear to break the laws of physics because, typically to form a dipole from a neutral start is endothermic. One possible thing that can account for this, paradox, is the magnetic force playing a significant role in the energy equation.

 

The model that I visualize for the cell works sort of like this. The H in question are attached to O and N, trying to get other O and N to share some of what they took from their fellow hydrogen. All the O and N are quite magnetic stable and stingy with electron density, but H is hungry and will take what it can. But biochemistry screws things up for H even further, by making odd bond angles, long bond distances, and sometimes just not enough N and O around for it to share. In the cell, we have all these H with lingering potential. Not all biomaterials are so cheap, some are very generous and allow H to feast, while other make them starve. This sets up hydrogen potential gradients within the cell that is connected by the water.

 

At the time of Einstein, when he was working on relativity, physics and chemistry were very close. What is called physical chemistry today was the much of the physics of Einstein's day. After he published relativity, physics and chemistry parted ways. Physics went after subdividing the nucleus into subparticles. And chemistry went in the opposite direction of molecular synthesis. Where I am looking, is in the no-man's land between these two sciences. It is a neutral territory that requires physics getting close again to chemistry and chemistry closer to physics.

[swansont]

Maybe my magnetic force explanation is a little bit off the mark. But another way to visualize the impact of the magnetic force, is when water forms. One has essentially two neutral molecules H2 and O2 combining, very exothermically I may add, to form two dipoles (one for each O-H bond. This would appear to break the laws of physics because, typically to form a dipole from a neutral start is endothermic. One possible thing that can account for this, paradox, is the magnetic force playing a significant role in the energy equation.

 

Or it could just be that one bond is stronger than the other, so the reaction is exothermic, completely in accord with standard physics.

 

At the time of Einstein, when he was working on relativity, physics and chemistry were very close. What is called physical chemistry today was the much of the physics of Einstein's day. After he published relativity, physics and chemistry parted ways. Physics went after subdividing the nucleus into subparticles. And chemistry went in the opposite direction of molecular synthesis. Where I am looking, is in the no-man's land between these two sciences. It is a neutral territory that requires physics getting close again to chemistry and chemistry closer to physics.

 

Sorry, no. Physics and chemistry are already there. Rather than being a no-man's land, there is in fact considerable overlap. There are chemists who do physics and physicists who do chemistry.

[sunspot]

I agree Swansont that there is great overlap but not at the point where the physics of the EM force overlaps electron orbitals. Consider any atom. The electrons in the orbitals are in rapid motion, filling the volume of the orbital.This is charge in motion, moving near the speed of light. There should be a lot of magnetic force stemming from the electron movement within the orbitals. Electron orbitals are magnetic shapes that are integrated with the electrostatic force.

 

Getting back to H2 and O2, the H2 has two electrons and two proton, while the O2 has sixteen proton and sixteen electrons. If only the electrostatic force mattered this should be stable. Going to H2O, still retains the same balanced electron/proton ratio, such that the electrostatic force did not appear to gain or lose anything. The exothermic formation of the two -OH, dipoles was due to magnetic addition within the 2P orbitals of oxygen allowing an imbalance of charge where it did not originally exist.

[Norman Albers]

There is a mixup of questions here. Consider a lightwave. The time-changing electric field pumps the magnetic field, and the time-changing magnetic field pumps the electric field. This disturbance happily pumps its way through space until it encounters something. Atoms are an assembly where electrons show their wave nature in distinctive orbital patterns. Yes the net charge count is always an integer, but different amounts of energy will be involved in the different shells and orbits, say outer valence compared to inner electrons. The fundamental existence of a circular resonance illuminates both the E and M faces of Janus.

[Norman Albers]

Angular momentum is what is quantized. Is it not directly related to the magnetic moment? I shall get out a "vector model of the atom" book.

[opening_cred]

~The unity of the electomagnetic force~what an idea! HUMMM

 

Might also consider........

 

http://www.ligo.caltech.edu/