/sci/ - Science & Math

There is a current. You think that electrons don't move around the nucleus and produce a magnetic field?

>>15194562
the intrinsic (magnetic) spin of the electron is purely quantum mechanical, and should not be conflated with motion (indeed you'll see that the magnetic moment associated with this spin is distinct from the spin associated with electron motion).

>>15194553
>>Why not just fucking say the origin of magnetic fields is static dipoles?
because it's not true

>>15194578
so where are the dynamics in the ferromagnet? let me put it this way. if you want to claim that it's due to the physical motion of electrons around the nucleus of the atoms, please tell me at what speed these electrons are moving. it's a pretty direct calculation, actually.

>>15194562
Magnetic properties of materials come from spin, not electrons moving around the nucleus.

>möh purely quantum effect
No such thing. Its not a fantasy land. The electron spins, it really apibs. And makes a current. Magnetic dipole.

Quöntum mechanics always derives energies from classical mechanics.

>>15194553
>Why not just fucking say the origin of magnetic fields is static dipoles?
You see that hole in the center? That's what you're calling a "source" even though there's nothing fucking there. This is what you want to call "something", and this is what extra ordinary retards divide into a dualism.

>>15194562
There is no empirical evidence of an electron particle.

>>15194585
>so you're saying no one else on the planet knows how magnets work?
Correct!

>>15194995
Smoooooth brains have really swallowed whole all models and abstractions as actual physical things.
If they could understand it, pic related would help them.

>>15194995
Ken is that you?

>>15194553
>Current is the source of all magnetism
correct
magnetism is just a byproduct of moving charges
>Place a bar magnet on a table. Where is the current?
charges are constantly moving inside of the magnet
in non-magnetic materials, which are most materials, this movement is completely unsynchronized, so any potential magnetic effect cancels out
in magnetic materials these charges move in a continuously synchronized fashion, which is the current you're seeking
>The origin of magnetic field is (they say) an alignment of electron spins, and a purely quantum mechanical effect.
more or less correct, but "alignment of electron spins" is actually literally charges moving in a synchronized fashion

>>15195502
Are you of the mistaken belief that the intrinsic magnetic moment of the electron constitutes it moving? This is what gives ferromagnets their magnetism. No electron motion necessary
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spin_magnetic_moment

>>15195502
>>15195833
Wrong link. Use this one.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electron_magnetic_moment

>>15194585
>please tell me at what speed these electrons are moving
they're moving at the Speed of Science!

>>15194995
>There is no empirical evidence of an electron particle.
Nta but clearly you’ve never used an electron microscope. Or taken a magnet to a CRT monitor. I pity you.

>>15195896
>Nta but clearly you’ve never used an electron microscope

I pity you because the only correlation you're ever going to provide for the existence of an electron is the word itself. Such as in "electron microscope", no the device itself because if you actually knew how they worked and why all specimens have to be sputter coated then explaining the existence of an "electron particle" would be even less irreconcilable to you.

>Or taken a magnet to a CRT monitor.
>they exist because I can distort an image.
The biggest psychosis on the planet.

why are schizos so obsessed with electromagnetism? is it because they can only afford to buy a magnet?

>>15196241
>electromagnetism
Aether. Its been known for millenia. Are you retarded or ignorant, speak now, retard.

Fess up. Dumb or Ignorant, your post leaves no room for disambiguity.

>>15196245
Known, as in a made up idea that has never had any evidence of its existence?

>>15196250
>made up idea
Lmao, you retards in the system thibk rewording definitions means "science".

Youre shit physicist and everything you touch is wrong. Youre a shit mathematician too.

In fact....What Is Your Field, boy? I want to know how to better own you.

>>15196272
You don't even know what an RLC circuit is, schizo

>>15196277
What the!?....ELECTRICAL ENGINEERING BULLSHIT?!?!??!HOLY SHIT. YOURE FUCKING STUPID...

This is science and math, get the fuck out, /g/.

>>15196272
>wrong
then prove it to the world and gain fame, riches, and bitches.

>>15196284
Its a BAD EQUATION. Want to know how I know this? BECAUSE SOME OF MINE LOOK THE SAME. Its approximate. Good enough past YOUR instruments abilities doesnt means CORRECT, MATHEMATICALLY.

I see that and I use it as fuel to DO BETTER.

>>15196283
why can't you simply admit you know nothing about electromagnetism?

>>15196309
>if I assume to be correct then Im never wrong
This is why academia exists....if you werent gatekept...you would be a snake oil saleman to the poor good peoples...

YOU WILL NEVER BE A SCIENTIST.

>>15196309
Don't waste your time, the idiot hasn't even hit puberty yet.

>>15194553
Magnets arent real you fucking retard
Its all smoking mirrors
Now go back outside and bring in the rest of the turnip harvest

>>15196317
>haha yeah, dude is a total idiot unlike US, the real smarts ones.

GET A JOB, SHITBAG.

>Dude posted RLC circuit

dude.....take your remedial garbage back to the technical school....fucking Phoenix U bullshit....

"BUT IM A DENTAL ASSISTANT"
Youre not a Doctor, shut the fuck up.

wadabout magnetoelectrism?

>>15194553
>Why not just fucking say the origin of magnetic fields is static dipoles?
everytime ppl talk about electrons, but what about protons? they have feelings too...

>>15196379
>only talks about pos and neg...ignores nuetrons

Now you know why you two are different....BECAUSE YOURE THE SAME!!!

>>15196379
protons are composite particles filled with quarks. they're also tightly bound to nuclei. in conductors there are free electrons loosely coupled to their nuclei which can easily be removed via low voltages (talking just a couple volts). so protons don't really contribute to current. and by extension not to the origin of magnetism either.

>>15194949
meds

>>15195833
it's not a mistaken belief at all, the mistaken belief is the exact opposite: thinking that charge isn't moving in complex molecular structures
the "spin" of electrons from quantum mechanics should absolutely be interpreted as moving charges

>>15196326
>smoking mirrors

>>15196619
>the "spin" of electrons from quantum mechanics should absolutely be interpreted as moving charges
Meds.

>>15196314
>This is why academia exists
To be up their own ass?
The LEAST scientific people are academics.
The basically rely on appeals to authority for everythign
>WAS THIS PEEEERRR REVIEWED!?!?!
>OMG IT WASN"T!!!!
>thank god I'm now relieved of believing it or assessing it on it's merits
>WHAT'S THAT YOU DIDN"T KEK FOR 15 YEARS FIRST?!
>thanks god I'm now relieved of believing it or assessing it on it's merits

>>15196622
It's a doggy dog world and you aren't gonna make it fren.

>>15196171
Tell me what causes electrical arcs then, if not for electrons

>>15194553
>Why not just fucking say the origin of magnetic fields is static dipoles?
Because it's an introductory textbook you dumbass. You teach the thumb rule first, then the actual definition, not the other way around. This is like pedagogics 101.

>>15197206
you think it's easier to introduce magnets as originating from currents than to introduce them originating from dipoles?

>>15197244
You think highschoolers know what a dipole is? You are really overestimating the average person.

>>15197244
yes, because the spin of an electron can be interpreted as a charge moving in a circle, which would produce a magnetic dipole. It doesn't matter if it's 100% true.

>>15196615
You take meds. If something is derived from angular momentum, it spins. Its not fantasy spin. It really, really spins.

>>15197248
yes. you brought up pedagogy, do you know what the standard pedagogy is? after they're introduced to charges (monopoles), they're showed what an electric dipole is. no, they don't need to solve laplace's equation with a perturbation. they see the electric field lines, along with equipotential lines. in other words, THEY'VE ALREADY SEEN WHAT A DIPOLE IS. how do you not know this?
>>15197368
>the spin of an electron can be interpreted as a charge moving in a circle
and that interpretation would be wrong.

>>15194553
It all comes back to the Æther. In order to understand reality you need to understand the Æther (or you may call it Prima Materia). It is fundamental in magnetism and can be said manifest itself in a Quantum mechanical setting. (Moreover the existence of Æther is not contradicted by any form of physics). All things in existence are fundamentally in the form of waves. You may have heard this as the "particle-wave duality." Except it's a little more nuanced. Fundamentally a "particle" is simply a wave packet in the Æther with special properties of which is it difficult to delineate at this time. However it would be reasonable in order to consider a wave packet a particle to require that it's expected energy is constant in the absence of other waves and a fairly static "radius" as [math] \frac{E}{c^2} [/math] or another suitable expression can be used to define "mass" or "momentum" and the center of the sphere with the given radius as its "position" (even though these are uncertain experimentally and statistically within the quantum mechanical models). What I would assert is that the source of the magnetic field is the electron wave packet is a particle and has a special type of Ætheric oscillations (likely related to spin) which causes dynamic wave packets to form in the Æther around it which manifest in the usual notation as the particle travels through the Æther. If you places your hand near a sufficient strong magnetic field, you should feel a vortex as the dynamic wave packets causes the particle in contact with the Æther waves to move.

>>15196966
You didnt understand my post and mindlessly replied to the buzzword "academia".

I see you...do you even have eye, boy?

>>15197677
I used your terminology on purpose.
Why did you use a buzzword if you were attempting make a serious point?
I'd suggest doing otherwise.

>>15196984
>Tell me what causes electrical arcs then, if not for electrons
There would be no electrical discharge unless the conditions of the medium between point a and b allow for it in the first place.

>>15196241
>why are schizos so obsessed with electromagnetism?

Every scientist and electrical engineer on earth must be total crackpots then, especially those "particle physicists" at CERN who do nothing but geomance magnets around to produce the phenomena they're all so wooed by. Their magic bumping particles and atomism only become "accurate" observation after they're propped up by halbach arrays and other electromagnet.

>>15196974
for all intensive purposes, this is true

>>15194646
can be both

>>15197775
Cool pic

>we need a bibber bollider :DDDD

>>15199628
this is why we need colonies on the moon

>>15199628
kek I posted in the wrong thread. I guess it still fits, since this shit is heavily magnet-based.

>>15194553
>Why conflate this with current? And don't tell me they mean a Noether current or some other shit, this is an introductory textbook on physics.
Theres no explanation for the source of magnetism in elementary physics textbooks, besides current. Something like a permanent magnet JUST IS.
Yes, you said "elementary textbook".
>Why not say some bullshit
Why not indeed?

>>15194995
>there's nothing fucking there
Is that supposed to be a black hole? A black hole isn't nothing.

>>15195896
Those are electron waves, not particles. ;-)

>>15199652
Both colliders and lunar colonies are wastes of tax money, rare metals, and terrestrial resources in general. BTW we don't even know exactly where we'd build a lunar colony.

>>15199891
anything's a better use of taxpayer money than sending it all to israel

>>15199780
>Is that supposed to be a black hole?
No it's just fucking magnetism

>A black hole isn't nothing.
Keep defining your objects of interest using absence/lack. I'm sure eventually you'll get blue in the face from chasing all the shadows.

>This whole fucking thread
And I thought my home board was bad, ouch. I'm just visiting from /diy/.

As far as an answer to your contention: Bitches dont know about my ECE Theory. Magnetism is really spin connection resonance.
Thought Experiment.
Two bar magnets sitting on a table push each other. Current without flow is potential. Electric potential is volts, magnetic potential is Tesla. If there was current flowing, then work would be performed somehow, and the system would lose energy and eventually the magnets would fail. But this does not happen. Have you ever seen a magnet fall off your fridge on its own? No, because its not doing any work, it never wears out. According to ECE Theory, the spin connection resonance between items directly opposes gravity, and the items fall together, and then exist at a local energy minimum. Magnetized materials actually have less entropy and total energy.

>>15201336
That's an interesting idea. Do you know if there's any way to prove that with an experiment, which might not otherwise work with the current model?

>>15197775
>There would be no electrical discharge unless the conditions of the medium between point a and b allow for it in the first place.
That's not what I asked, why are you moving the goalposts to a completely unrelated topic?

>>15201336
>That's not what I asked,
>Tell me what causes electrical arcs then, if not for electrons
>There would be no electrical discharge unless the conditions of the medium between point a and b allow for it in the first place.

It's an electrical breakdown/discharge DUE TO the GAS being electrified. That's the "MEDIUM" required for it to form in the first place. You also need a circuit already in place otherwise you don't get the "woo/visible phenomena that's so interesting that it gives me a psychosis involving magic particles for some reason/arc". The medium completes the circuit, if it didn't....there would be no arc in the first place. The "gap" distance changes dependent on the medium because it's not exactly a "gap" when there's another electromagnetic phenomena there filling it.

>why are you moving the goalposts to a completely unrelated topic?
If I substituted "medium" with "electrons", you'll find that it's really not so hard to understand. Is that what you meant by "goalpost"? Well the electron still has the "yet to be empirical" goalpost it still needs to cross.

>>15201711
meant to quote
>>15201677

>>15201711
>The medium completes the circuit, if it didn't....there would be no arc in the first place.
bullshit. If emission couldn't occur in vacuum, vacuum tubes and CRTs wouldn't work. You're also suggesting an arc would never happen in outer space/etc which is simply nonsense.

>>15196619
>the "spin" of electrons from quantum mechanics should absolutely be interpreted as moving charges
some interpretations take quantum spin to really mean the electron is "rotating" on its own "axis," but that is still separate from motion; a rotating pointcharge induces nothing, as compared to a *revolving* (orbiting) one.

>>15196245
>>15197670
while modern quantum field theory does share some similarities with the old luminescent aether model, the old view still separated "light" from its "medium;" if you're really taking the modern its-all-fields perspective, light is simply a local state or configuration of the medium, not something that exists "in" or "through" it, or "interacts with" it.

>>15201742
>If emission couldn't occur in vacuum
One negates the other. It makes no sense.

>vacuum
There is no such thing. Something cannot travel in nothing, it makes no sense. They're sealed with "less air" which means less resistance for that circuit to still form.

>>15201711
>It's an electrical breakdown/discharge DUE TO the GAS being electrified
So you need electrons retard

>>15201760
>a rotating pointcharge induces nothing,
Its imagined as a rotating ring or spatial distribution. Textbooks emphasize that such visualization is ultimately futile and just a psychological trick, as long as one does a quantum mechanical calculation its ok to imagine some charge cloud doing something.

>>15202024
>Archaic hertzian waveform that doesn't exist without being induced as a waveform implies electrons!
>electrification means electrons!
>yes, because there's somehow particles traveling through a solid copper line.

Only to a dumb materialist. Now you've got me curious. What would your explanation be had I conceded over the issue of a vacuums existence and how would you reconcile particles magically traveling through nothingness?

>>15197775
what about the electron transport chain in photosynthesis?

>>15202855
>what about (described particle chain) of (another described particle chain)?
The "electron" is just the quantified form of a wave of energy. A summarized form of the process is that it's same as magnetic repulsion only with water molecules where hydrogen ions gets repelled through proteins and the motion from that is what the plant utilizes as energy (the hydrogen being the alleged carrier of these electrons).

The "chain" is simply the conductor, like a copper line. And just like in a copper line the energy isn't traveling, nor inside the solid line (though the process is way more complex cause it's a membrane instead of a wire).

>>15194553
You can describe a bar magnet classically with a surface current loop if you want. If you want to describe genuine quantum effects, use quantum field theory. You shouldn't expect classical electromagnetism to cover everything

>>15201784
>They're sealed with "less air" which means less resistance for that circuit to still form.
Didn't you say that air (the medium) was the conductor? Less air would be less conductance.

>>15197775
>>>why are schizos so obsessed with electromagnetism?
>Every scientist and electrical engineer on earth must be total crackpots then
P(obsessed|schizo) =/= P(schizo|obsessed)

>>15199891
>Both hot air balloons and airplanes are wastes of tax money, rare metals, and terrestrial resources in general. BTW we don't even know exactly how to build an airplane (quoted 1898)

>>15201336
>it never wears out.
Yes it does, thermal vibrations cause the metal to demagnetize over time. It just happens very slowly.

>>15203125
>Didn't you say that air (the medium) was the conductor?
In the "gap" yes. What else would be? It cannot just bridge over "nothing", it makes no sense. It's simply rarefied air

>Less air would be less conductance.
Less resistance too.

>>15203316
So the ideal medium would be one helium atom?

>>15194995
Hey Ken I love your channel man

>>15203215
Hot air balloons have existed since the 18th century in Europe. It was developed using private funds. It was very cheap and well proven long before 1898. Likewise, airplanes were invented by private businessmen using only private funds and was fairly cheap to develop and implement into transportation/logistics.

Meanwhile particle colliders are extremely expensive and their instruments extremely inaccurate (6% at best) and rely primarily on tax money. This is a dead end that you can't tell the difference between detection and noise (and people spend a lot of time fudging the data to make it say what they want in that field anyways). The field has gotten zero results in the 50+ years of its existence. By definition, a waste of tax money.

Lunar colonies are a dysfunctional dream as 1. you can't build them on the surface due to the problems with prolonged radiation exposure so you need suitable cavern/tunnel system to build in (a lot of money just mapping to get to a point where know where you can build), 2. just transporting people is extremely expensive even with rocketry developments via SpaceX, etc. putting supplies on top of that is likely ludicrous. The only saving grace here is the possibility that if propulsion engines might be replaced with an engine that doesn't require propulsion and can lift comparable masses. For now, moon bases are just another söyance fiction fantasy and tax money shouldn't be wasted on it.

>>15201760
>its-all-fields
No. It's not the "it's all fields" perspective. This is distinct. The Æther is a physical substance also known as the Prima Materia, and it is what makes up all things including the light.

How come there's not even one non schizo thread on Sci? How can this board be this bad?

>>15203344
It's all just hydrogen

>>15204574
>>15195466
No, but don't tell the schizo on this board who really believes I'm him that.

>>15205022
Aether doesn't exist. It has been debunked by Michelson-Morley experiment.

>>15206013
It has been rebunked.

>>15205039
>i hate /sci/
why are you here?

>>15206492
By a pseudo-scientist. You guys are no better than academia professors.

>>15206889
>Noo you can't just look at things for yourself and publish your results!
>People can't just read your paper and agree with them!
>That's as unscientific as my appeals to authority!
Find a fault.

>>15206899
Aether doesn't exist. Michelson-Morley experiment null result evaporated aether hypothesis.

Believe in science, not religious fantasies like aether.

>>15209314
>Aether doesn't exist. Michelson-Morley experiment null result evaporated aether hypothesis.
This has been debunked. See >>15206492

>>15209314
>Michelson-Morley experiment null result evaporated aether hypothesis.
wrong, those experiments proved the Earth is not moving, but scientists din't want to admit nthey lied about Earth being a rotating globe, so they chose to throw in the trash all the previous Physics that supported aether
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KLEhw7upzFE

>>15209346
>wrong, those experiments proved the Earth is not moving,
This also has been debunked.

>>15194576
no its the same thing, its just that the electron movements are synchronized in a magnet, it comes from the fact the electron is moving

>>15194553
"Magnetism is the source of all current flow"

Maxwells equations are so gay. First of all, divinding single forse phenomena into two fields E and B.

They imply nothing but Coulobs force law and biot savart law in a fancy way. Plus later correction-additions when the fields are time dependent.

Find a solution than does not involve this separation and hand waving or be as gay as maxwell.

>>15209346
This is the average Aether believer. You guys are bunch of pseuds.

>>15211499
every physics prof i ever had said quantum spin didn't mean physical motion. same with textbooks.

>>15194553
Moving electrons are a current

>>15212448
stop imagining an electron orbiting like a planet or a ball rolling

spin IS a vector, and in the case of ferromagnets its the spin of the electron which generates the field. not the movements of electrons in an atom through the electron cloud, but its the orientation of these electron clouds.

ferromagnets are always magnetic, due to the movements of the electrons inside the atom, however in something like iron all of the spins are in random directions and cancel each other out. we don't see effects from electrons moving around the atom unless you have a lot of atoms with their electrons all spinning in the same direction.

>>15212869
>in the case of ferromagnets its the spin of the electron which generates the field. not the movements of electrons
>ferromagnets are always magnetic, due to the movements of the electrons inside the atom
Dumb fuck

>>15212873
if it werent true you wouldn't be able to magnetize any lump of iron, cope

>>15212914
So.
Is it movements of electrons, or is it their spin, mr chatGPT. Which one.

>>15212922
sorry can you read >>15212869 this post and explain what part you didn't understand because I don't know why you're being so retarded.

spins aligned in a material = fields constructively add

spins randomly aligned = fields destructively cancel, its the movement of the electrons combined with their physical orientation (spin)

>>15213200
>in the case of ferromagnets its the spin of the electron which generates the field. not the movements of electrons
>ferromagnets are always magnetic, due to the movements of the electrons inside the atom
Both statements made by that post of yours you're in love with. The two statements contradict each other. Which did you mean? And I honestly can't believe I need to call you out on this AGAIN. Either you're trolling, a pseud, a fucking moron or all the above.

>>15213200
he's triggered because this post >>15212869 says magnetism is produced both from spin, and electron "movements" (which would imply a particle moving in a circle or something). While technically both would be possible, iirc ferromagnetism is generated solely from the spin of unpaired electrons.

>>15213383
please read
>>15213373
and then delete your post lmao

>>15213373
you are esl or illiterate or a troll

>>15213418
No. You sound unhinged, and are getting increasingly belligerent. Take your meds and rephrase your question.

>>15213445
and I will elaborate further by saying, you are purposefully taking those quotes out of context and playing dumb, its like your AI eyes cant read through my further explanation and use context clues. idk maybe you need to stop taking so many drugs and read what you are replying to

>>15213455
You got caught in a contraction. Everything is fully in context. You claimed two opposite things: which is it?