A hypothesis about magnetic force

[hello1]

Hi Everyone,

 

I have an idea about what is magnetic force. Please comment/feedback. Thanks!

 

Two poles of any magnet, one surface plate is electron concentrated and the other surface plate is electron less. So one pole is positive charged and the other negative charged. Because all those electrons are bonded by protons in the magnet, we see attracting and repelling forces between two poles but we can not see current.

 

Stronger magnet has higher unmovable electric charges on two poles.

[D H]

It is late, very late, so I'm going to keep this short. What you are describing is an electric dipole, not a magnet. Magnetism results only from moving electrical charges, not stationary ones. There is no electrical imbalance between the north and south pole of a permanent magnet (the kind of magnet people use to hold notes on their refrigerator doors). The wikipedia articles on magnets, electromagnetism, and ferromagnetism (that's the kind of magnet people use to hold notes on a refrigerator door) are fairly well written. I suggest you read them.

 

Math warning: Because magnetism only results from moving electrical charges, getting a good understanding of magnetism is quite a bit more difficult than getting a good understanding of electricity. The mathematics and physics that describe magnetism get very complicated very quickly.

[hello1]

There is no electrical imbalance between the north and south pole of a permanent magnet.

 

That is what I mean in my hypothesis. Even one pole surface has more electrons than the other, there is no electrical imbalance. Those electrons are boned and not movable.

 

Let's say if you have a way to move 1,000,000 electrons from your right hand to your left hand, and let them stay still (boned). Then your hands will attract each other, but if you hold a copper wire by two hands, there would be no current.

 

Reasonable?

[swansont]

No. The situation you describe would result in an electric field, and there is an imbalance even if the charges are stationary (boned?). Magnetism is the result of moving charges, not a charge imbalance. Just as D H explains.

[Edtharan]

Even one pole surface has more electrons than the other, there is no electrical imbalance.

Electric charge describes a potential difference between two points. A potential difference is when one location has more or less charged particles (electrons usually) than the other.

 

So, if one pole had more electrons than the other, then there is a potential difference and therefore an electric field.

 

What I think you are getting confused by is an Electro Magnet. this is a magnet created when you force charged particles to move (typically electrons constrained by a wire wrapped into a spiral). The Electro magent is not created because one area has more or less electrons than another location, but it is created when the electrons move along a wire (winding it around and around allows each winding to add to the total field, but so long as the winding is in the same direction).

[hello1]

Thanks for all the help!

 

But I like to explain my idea better. My English is poor, sorry for the inconvience.

 

I am saying a magnet, on the two poles, in atomic scale, the very surface structure, that one single layer of the atoms, some of them are kind of polarized. The whole magnet is many layers of the surface structure together.

 

When we put wire and current around a steel bar, the magnetism somehow magnetized the steel bar, make it a magnet.

 

Seems to me, that's the only reason why magnetic force is reverse to distance^2, just like the force between electric charges.

 

I also wonder if gravity has something to do with electrical force?

 

I droped out from college, don't believe some physics theory. Mostly I will be wrong. But any possible the idea is right? Can you test it by using some tools?

[swansont]

Thanks for all the help!

 

But I like to explain my idea better. My English is poor, sorry for the inconvience.

 

I am saying a magnet, on the two poles, in atomic scale, the very surface structure, that one single layer of the atoms, some of them are kind of polarized. The whole magnet is many layers of the surface structure together.

 

When we put wire and current around a steel bar, the magnetism somehow magnetized the steel bar, make it a magnet.

 

Seems to me, that's the only reason why magnetic force is reverse to distance^2, just like the force between electric charges.

 

I also wonder if gravity has something to do with electrical force?

 

I droped out from college, don't believe some physics theory. Mostly I will be wrong. But any possible the idea is right? Can you test it by using some tools?

 

 

Magnetism in that geometry isn't inverse-square, it's inverse-cube (1/r³) just as you'd expect from a dipole.

 

Gravity and electromagnetism are not related at this level.

 

You have to allow for the possibility that people who actually study this, and didn't drop out, actually know something about it and aren't just making things up.

[Mr Skeptic]

Two poles of any magnet, one surface plate is electron concentrated and the other surface plate is electron less. So one pole is positive charged and the other negative charged. Because all those electrons are bonded by protons in the magnet, we see attracting and repelling forces between two poles but we can not see current.

 

What you are describing is an electric dipole. It would be capable of picking up pieces of paper and other non-magnetic stuff like the static electricity on a balloon that has been rubbed on hair. Also, you can't have an electric dipole of that size on a conductive material like iron.

 

Cut the magnet in half. If you had positive charges on one side and negative charges on the other side, you would have the two sides always attract each other.

[hello1]

Appreciate very much every feedback. Went to wiki read a little, toooo much to learn!

 

One more idea bothers me a long time, please help me out also.

 

I thought, maybe there is a charged tiny thing exist and fill up the space (like ether). it is too small so we can not detect it's mass/charge or it has no mass but charge. Suppose it really exist and carry negative charge and its strength is like e/10^100 (let's call it ?tron).

 

Then, we can image this ?tron attracted by nuclear and form a dense ball around it, and repelled by electron and form a loose ball around. Because the nuclear and electron attracts each other, the two balls (one densed and one loosed ?tron ball) will attract each other and form atom. the rest space is still fill up with ?tron and its density is in between the two kind of balls.

 

In this hypothesis, seems we can explain how light wave travel in space, why atoms are stable, energy transfer etc without using quantum mechanics.

 

Also, seems we can explain magnetism or the inverse cube relation. Because the force between ?trons a is inverse square, its density will be inverse cube to distance.

 

I really can not accept the atomic structure model by the books, pls help me!

[thedarkshade]

I thought, maybe there is a charged tiny thing exist and fill up the space (like ether). it is too small so we can not detect it's mass/charge or it has no mass but charge. Suppose it really exist and carry negative charge and its strength is like e/10^100 (let's call it ?tron).

Well if we cannot detect it, or experimentally confirm it's existence then it's not science any more!

 

In this hypothesis, seems we can explain how light wave travel in space, why atoms are stable, energy transfer etc without using quantum mechanics.

Is the problem that you don't understand quantum mechanics or you think it's not right? If you feel you don't understand it, you're not alone my friend!

 

I really can not accept the atomic structure model by the books, pls help me!

Why, what's wrong with atomic structure? I find well enough!

[hello1]

 

You have to allow for the possibility that people who actually study this, and didn't drop out, actually know something about it and aren't just making things up.

 

Thanks for the kind fine English!

 

Well if we cannot detect it, or experimentally confirm it's existence then it's not science any more!

 

Maybe we just don't have the idea how to detect it yet. We can suppose it exist and try to proof it by math etc.

 

Is the problem that you don't understand quantum mechanics or you think it's not right? If you feel you don't understand it, you're not alone my friend!

 

I know! HaHa!

 

Why, what's wrong with atomic structure? I find well enough!

 

I can't image how electron form a cloud obit the nulear and have different energy states etc, my God, why so freaken complicate? Simple is beauty, nuclear/?tron ball suck electron/?tron ball and form atom is more likely to me and seems expalins heat/energy transfer easier.

[iNow]

Hello hello1,

 

The idea of an electron cloud means that the electrons no longer "orbit" the nucleus.

 

It really is quite simple and very beautiful.

 

 

Quantum mechanics shows us that the location of the electron is described by a probability. It is not at any definite point. We also know that there are orbital shells, or specific quantized distances away from the nucleus in which an electron will be found, and that only a specific number of electrons can ever occupy that shell at the same time. The electron can't be found in between those "quantum" steps.

 

That's really all. It's called a cloud because the electrons are all about... not "orbiting" the nucleus like planets around the sun, but instead randomly walking about the shells like a mist of water coming out of a fog machine...

 

 

In other words, quite beautiful and simple, just different than expected.

[hello1]

Hello hello1,

 

The idea of an electron cloud means that the electrons no longer "orbit" the nucleus.

 

It really is quite simple and very beautiful.

 

 

Quantum mechanics shows us that the location of the electron is described by a probability. It is not at any definite point. We also know that there are orbital shells, or specific quantized distances away from the nucleus in which an electron will be found, and that only a specific number of electrons can ever occupy that shell at the same time. The electron can't be found in between those "quantum" steps.

 

That's really all. It's called a cloud because the electrons are all about... not "orbiting" the nucleus like planets around the sun, but instead randomly walking about the shells like a mist of water coming out of a fog machine...

 

 

In other words, quite beautiful and simple, just different than expected.

 

 

I know what's in the book. But can't understand the principle to expalin the shells etc. Why is no such thing in visiable world, like star system or any man made stuff. Why down to small size, all machanism changed?

 

Maybe they can not explain why electrons will not touch down nuclear even the attracting force is very strong. They invented QM and use math to support it.

 

In my suggestion, if the ?tron exist, we seem able to explain this and other things like how electromagnetic wave travels even better. I don't have the math skill, can anyone give it a try? That be so great appreciated!

[Bignose]

I know what's in the book. But can't understand the principle to expalin the shells etc. Why is no such thing in visiable world, like star system or any man made stuff. Why down to small size, all machanism changed?

 

Maybe they can not explain why electrons will not touch down nuclear even the attracting force is very strong. They invented QM and use math to support it.

 

In my suggestion, if the ?tron exist, we seem able to explain this and other things like how electromagnetic wave travels even better. I don't have the math skill, can anyone give it a try? That be so great appreciated!

 

Questions about why really kind of wander in to the realm of philosophy more than science. Science, physics in this case, isn't so much interested in the why as how to describe it mathematically so we can make predictions. Perhaps in the quest to describe it better, the why will come out, but that isn't a primary goal.

 

The evidence for the description as given is very, very strong. They didn't just pick this description because it was their favorite story, this is the current model because this is what the evidence points to. The current model is testable and can make predictions that can be verified. It certainly isn't complete, but it is good within its known limitations. You can read about it in many physics books.

 

Just because you can't understand it, doesn't mean that it is wrong. I don't understand all of the inner workings of my computer, but I know it does work. I don't understand all the inner workings of the physiology of people, but I know it works. I trust the words of the experts who have studied computers and chips and cell functions and organ functions.

 

I think that you're going to find it very hard for someone to "do the math for you" because the evidence for the current model is strong. You have to provide the evidence that the current model is wrong, or that your idea does as good and better of a job than the current model. Like I said, they didn't pick it just because it was everyone's favorite -- the current model is the current model because it does the best job. Not to pile on you here, but perhaps had you stayed in school and learned about the current model, you would have learned just how good the evidence is for the current model and how it was obtained. You don't necessarily have to be in school to do this, however you do have to make the effort to go out and learn it yourself. But, without knowing about the current model, how can you fairly critique it?

[hello1]

Questions about why really kind of wander in to the realm of philosophy more than science. Science, physics in this case, isn't so much interested in the why as how to describe it mathematically so we can make predictions. Perhaps in the quest to describe it better, the why will come out, but that isn't a primary goal.

 

The evidence for the description as given is very, very strong. They didn't just pick this description because it was their favorite story, this is the current model because this is what the evidence points to. The current model is testable and can make predictions that can be verified. It certainly isn't complete, but it is good within its known limitations. You can read about it in many physics books.

 

Just because you can't understand it, doesn't mean that it is wrong. I don't understand all of the inner workings of my computer, but I know it does work. I don't understand all the inner workings of the physiology of people, but I know it works. I trust the words of the experts who have studied computers and chips and cell functions and organ functions.

 

I think that you're going to find it very hard for someone to "do the math for you" because the evidence for the current model is strong. You have to provide the evidence that the current model is wrong, or that your idea does as good and better of a job than the current model. Like I said, they didn't pick it just because it was everyone's favorite -- the current model is the current model because it does the best job. Not to pile on you here, but perhaps had you stayed in school and learned about the current model, you would have learned just how good the evidence is for the current model and how it was obtained. You don't necessarily have to be in school to do this, however you do have to make the effort to go out and learn it yourself. But, without knowing about the current model, how can you fairly critique it?

 

 

Thank you for the long post. I agree with you at all. But I have a true story to tell.

 

1971, I asked my physics professor what is time, he couldn't answer. He told the class a story. That some years ago when he was work for the Japanese scientist who won the Nobel prize in physics for discovered a new partical. I forgot the name of the partical and the winner. My profassor was helping him to take millions pictures in the cloud chamber and count the evidence of the new partical to mach the math prediction. They altered the data by 10^3 times to put in the paper and won the prize.

 

I believed my professor, do you?

 

I doubt my ?tron idea a lot, but it seems to me easier to explain many wonders. Why is light a self propagation wave? Why is current creats magnetic? Why is proton and electron stay away?

 

In my imagination, a magnet's structure is like many layers of atoms polarized, one direction is nuclear concentrated and the other electron concentrated.

 

The electron plate (south pole) pushes ?trons away and form a loose ?tron layer, right next to that layer, the space (?trons) been magnetized and form a dense layer. And so on. The two layers attracts each other to form magnetic field. The strength is equal to the density of the ?tron.

 

The nuclear plate (north pole) attracts ?tron and form a dense layer, it pushes near by ?trons to form a loose layer, the two layer attracts and keep forming magnetic field.

 

With out good math, and enough IQ, I am lost for so long. Wish I can get serious help here.

[Edtharan]

I can't image how electron form a cloud obit the nulear and have different energy states etc, my God, why so freaken complicate? Simple is beauty, nuclear/?tron ball suck electron/?tron ball and form atom is more likely to me and seems expalins heat/energy transfer easier.

Electrons and other particles don't actually exist as solid little balls flying around in space. Many people think of these things like very tiny marbles. They are not like that at all.

 

All our experiences throughout our lifetimes do not have anything similar to what they really are. The clostest (and still quite wrong) is a Cotton Ball.

 

Here is how weird it is:

Imagine you have a cotton ball that expands (gets bigger) at the speed of light. Then when anything (usually photons/light) interacts with that cotton ball, then there the cotton ball "collapse" into a small cotton ball at the point where they interact.

 

As I siad, weird...

 

I know what's in the book. But can't understand the principle to expalin the shells etc.

 

Again, this is only an analogy (that is a story using thing we have experienced to explain, although not necessarily extremely accurate, something we don't quite understand) and is not exactly how it really works.

 

Now certain thing can effect that cotton ball's shape (other cotton balls for one, even if they don't actually interact and collapse down). One of which is being constrained by electric attraction.

 

If we have a cotton ball that is supposed to be like an electron, and another that is like a proton, then the two will be electrically attracted. There are also other forces that repell them (stop them occuping the same space - like other electron cotton balls, and suprisingly even it's self).

 

If the speed of the electron cotton ball and it's proximity to the proton cotton ball and the net results of the other forces are just ballanced, then the electron cotton ball is trapped around the proton cotton ball in what we call a shell.

 

The repulsion between various electron cotton balls and their attraction to the proton cotton balls means that only a certain number can occupy certain "shells" in the atom.

 

Now remember how I was talking about how these cotton balls spread out as time goes on, well because they are constrained to the "shell" by the various forces acting on it, the shape of the spreading out can only be within that shell.

 

So, untill something (usually photons/light) interacts with the electron cotton ball, it spreads itself aout around the shell. This is the "cloud" that they are talking aobut. The electron (cotton ball) is not orbiting the proton (cotton balls) like a planet, but is spreading itself our around it like a cotton ball would if you streched it out (and then squashed it into shape).

 

Why is no such thing in visiable world, like star system or any man made stuff. Why down to small size, all machanism changed?

Now, as I was explaining erlier, when those cotton balls interact with something (scientist call this observation, but it doesn't actually require someone actually looking at it), they collapse down into the small version. If we look a the volume that such an effect would encompase if it were visible to the eye, then the number of potential interactions is massive. So the likely hood of such an effect being large enough to be visible to the naked eye is so remote that even if the Universe existed for a billion times the length it has already, then you would still not expect it to have occured with any piece of matter in the entire universe.

 

Inother words, it might randomly occur, but don't count on it.

 

However...

 

It is posible for certain situations to occur that will greatly increase the chances of such an event occurring. These situations are the experiements that scientists are doing with quantum mechanics. The functioning of many modern devices actually rely on creating this kind of effect in a large scale.

 

Take something so common that most of us wouldn't look at it twice: The Laser. You have one in your CD or DVD player, you might even have one on a key chain (I do ).

 

This requiers a very special situation where all the electsons in the material used to create the laser (most that you will encounter are made from soild crystals of silicon dioxide with a few other atoms specifically selected so that it behaves the way it is supposed to) act as if they are the same electron. That is their "cotton ball clouds" overlap without interacting. To make the laser work, you need to then introduce somthing that interacts with the electrons and causes a very specific cascade of interactions.

 

They usually use light as the thing that they use to start the interaction cascade, and this give the LASER it's name: Light Amplification by the Stimulated Emission of Radiation.

 

So yes, such things are visible in the everyday world and they do exist in man made stuff.

[swansont]

Thank you for the long post. I agree with you at all. But I have a true story to tell.

 

1971, I asked my physics professor what is time, he couldn't answer. He told the class a story. That some years ago when he was work for the Japanese scientist who won the Nobel prize in physics for discovered a new partical. I forgot the name of the partical and the winner. My profassor was helping him to take millions pictures in the cloud chamber and count the evidence of the new partical to mach the math prediction. They altered the data by 10^3 times to put in the paper and won the prize.

 

I believed my professor, do you?

 

No, not really. Other people doing similar experiments would have noticed the discrepancy.

 

I doubt my ?tron idea a lot, but it seems to me easier to explain many wonders. Why is light a self propagation wave? Why is current creats magnetic? Why is proton and electron stay away?

 

This now has its own thread http://www.scienceforums.net/forum/showthread.php?t=31343

 

Discussion of it should go there.

[hello1]

No, not really. Other people doing similar experiments would have noticed the discrepancy.

 

 

 

This now has its own thread http://www.scienceforums.net/forum/showthread.php?t=31343

 

Discussion of it should go there.

 

swansnot, thanx!

[xptoast]

If magnets are seen as moving electrons from one end to the other to create the lines of flux then I query this: Why cant you leave a magnet stationary as well as a coil and gain electrical current based on the electrons flowing from one end to the other. That would in fact be similar to a transformer that induces a field by means of electrons. However I know that you cant get current from a stationary setup. That would mean its not electrons flowing from one end to the other. Yes..No?

[swansont]

If magnets are seen as moving electrons from one end to the other to create the lines of flux...

 

They aren't. The electron motion in a permanent magnet is due to the electron spin, i.e. intrinsic angular momentum, that gives certain atoms magnetic moments.

[Riogho]

They aren't. The electron motion in a permanent magnet is due to the electron spin, i.e. intrinsic angular momentum, that gives certain atoms magnetic moments.

 

Why would it do that?

[swansont]

You need unpaired electrons, and a material that will allow the atoms to remain arranged so the fields add.

http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/solids/ferro.html

[Riogho]

What does their spin angular momentum have to do with that?

[swansont]

That's the source of the electron's magnetic moment. Orbital angular momentum comes into play as well.

[Riogho]

*sighs*

 

I really need to read more about electromagnetism.