Magnetism

Discussion of electricity, electronics, electrical components and theories of circuit operation.
Post Reply
User avatar
bperet
Posts: 1424
Joined: Thu Jul 22, 2004 1:43 am
Location: 7.5.3.84.70.24.606
Contact:

Magnetism

Post by bperet » Tue Jun 19, 2018 12:07 pm

I have been running some experiments on magnetism (ferro and EM), and have noticed something interesting... an electromagnet works faster than a ferromagnet. These "lines of force" appear to be propagating at different rates, the EM at the speed of light, and the ferromagnetic about 2/3rds of that.

Going back to Eric Dollard's research, I found references that dielectric lines of force run about 1.5x faster than light. 1.5 is close to 1.57, or π/2, which would be the angular velocity of a dielectric "line," if treated as an angular velocity, rather than a linear one. After all, an electron is a rotating unit of space.

The magnetic "line" of force would also be angular, but a solid angle and therefore motion would be distributed further, making it go slower. It hit me that 2/π is about 2/3rds... the reciprocal of π/2.

I suspect that the speed relations between dielectric speed (ψ), magnetic (ϕ) and electromagnetic (φ) is this:
.
Speeds.png
Speeds
Speeds.png (44.04 KiB) Viewed 1457 times
.
And that electromagnetic radiation is the cross-product of the dielectric and magnetic lines of force.
In vector notation: [0,π/2,0] × [0,0,2/π] = [1,0,0] -- EM radiation moves at the speed of light. (π being the natural unit of rotation.)
Every dogma has its day...

User avatar
bperet
Posts: 1424
Joined: Thu Jul 22, 2004 1:43 am
Location: 7.5.3.84.70.24.606
Contact:

Charge

Post by bperet » Thu Jul 05, 2018 1:07 pm

The Reciprocal System is the only system of theory that I am aware of that considers both the charged and uncharged state of particles. In the RS, there are only three kinds of charge:
  1. Linear vibration, commonly that associated with thermal motion or the photon.
  2. 1D Rotational vibration (360° angle), electrical charge.
  3. 2D Rotational vibration (720° solid angle), magnetic charge.
    Heat, light and electrical charge are commonly known, but this topic is on magnetism, so let's take a look at magnetic charge.
Larson first uses the concept of a magnetic charge with the charged, electron neutrino M* ½-½-(1). In his notation, the "*" means "charged." The neutrino has a single, "double-rotating system," magnetic, ½-½, combined with a single, "single-rotating system," electric, (1). In RS2, the "double-rotating system" is a solid rotation, mathematically expressed as a quaternion. The single rotating system is a regular, planar rotation, expressed as a complex number.

Logically, one would expect the charge on a neutrino to be on the electric rotation, like it does for a charged electron. But the resulting behavior does not match what Larson needs for a charged neutrino, so he goes through some excuses to apply the charge to the magnetic rotation, that never made much sense to me.

What he missed was that "charge" is nothing but thermal vibration. Thermal vibration occurs in the largest region of rotation (time region or space region). In the case of the electron, the thermal motion is in the space region, since that is the only rotational displacement it has.

The neutrino has both a time region (magnetic) and a space region (electric) displacement. The time region, being of a 2D structure, is bigger than the 1D electric displacement in the space region, so thermal motion is more likely to occur in the time region, the ½-½ magnetic rotation. Note that it CAN occur in the electric--nothing is prohibiting that. It is just more probably that it occurs in the time region. It can also occur in both as a "doubly-charged" system.

A magnetic charge, being a solid rotation of 720°, appears to have 4 poles--one at the positive, one at the negative and two at neutral: +1 → +0 → -1 → -0 → +1. Objects with a magnetic charge will appear to have three states, since there is no observable difference between +0 and -0.

An example of this would be the Earth's magnetic field, which is measuring the magnetic charge (see topic: Earth's Magnetic Field). And sure enough, if we look at the magnetic field intensity of the Earth, we find FOUR POLES, a North (+, off Antarctica), a South (-, in Canada) and two "neutrals" (0, in South America and northern Russia):
Image

In the case of the electron neutrino, the magnetic charge makes it oscillate, appearing as three, different particles, as described in the post on Neutrino Charge.

So when you discover effects that appear three-fold, or quad-poled, odds are you are dealing with a magnetically charged system. Note that the electrical charge is independent of magnetic charge, acting as a 360° system that only has two poles, + and -. Therefore, any motion with a magnetic component can exist in four states: uncharged, electrically charged, magnetically charged, our EM charged.
Every dogma has its day...

blaine
Posts: 40
Joined: Mon Jan 16, 2017 9:44 am

Re: Magnetism

Post by blaine » Fri Jul 06, 2018 6:50 am

Thanks for the post, Bruce. I suspect the magnetic charge and the related higher dimensional 3-d rotational vibration is the key to understanding the "weak force" and the related "strong force" in terms of the reciprocal system theory.

There is something that I had never understood about the reciprocal system theory that I think I may finally begin to understand - what is a 1D rotation? This is discussed especially in the context of the electron and the positron. Their effective rotation is in 1 dimension which never made sense to me, a rotation requires two dimensions. However, if you think of it in terms of the number of parameters required to describe the motion, then 1D rotation is just a circle. All you need is the angle to describe the motion.

Last year I wrote two different scripts to visualize matter and the subatomic particles in the RS. This was first done by looking at Lissajous figures on the surface of N dimensional horn tori: see http://horntorus.com/ for examples. This was born out of my own visualization of it, but then after reading the section in NBM more carefully about photons being rotated to create matter, I constructed a mathematical model that used the surface of the N-sphere whose radius was oscilating at either 2/1 or 1/2 (the base photon speed that is being rotated). The rotations around this surface went at a rate based on the rotational magnitudes described by the 3 number notation a-b-c, where the a and b rotations were represented by an xy and a yz rotation around the sphere and the c rotation was a zx rotation of the entire system.

This still didn't look correct somehow, and I think the reason is that these rotations aren't independent. The two rotations of the double rotating system shared an axis. Now what I'm thinking is that the true mathematical model for the double rotating systems is a clifford torus; ie a 4 dimensional object whose rotations are along xy and uz (u being the 4th direction). See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rotations ... dean_space This is further corroborated by the fact that the unit quaternion is the rotational operator for "isoclinic rotations", in which the double rotation consists of two rotations that have the same angle of rotation. Thus, perhaps I should reformulate my visualization script a third time, this time using n-dimensional clifford tori (corresponding to 2n dimensions of euclidean space) stereographically projected into 3d. If this is, in fact, the corrrect model, then it does open up the question - what is the "c" in the 3 parameter notation? Perhaps if the two double rotating systems are along xy and zu, c could represent a rotation along xz or yu or some other combination? There is much to explore... Also posting this link here to look into further https://arxiv.org/abs/1404.1513v1

blaine
Posts: 40
Joined: Mon Jan 16, 2017 9:44 am

Re: Magnetism

Post by blaine » Fri Jul 06, 2018 6:55 am

Also as a quick note - another thing I never understood is if charge is a n-dimensional rotational vibration, then why doesn't neutral matter interact with charge? It seems like a rotation relative to a rotational vibration would be some sort of vibration. But perhaps the answer is that neutral matter *does* interact, its just that in normal physics discussion we talk about "induced charge" and concepts like the neutron having a magnetic moment despite being neutral... We visualize neutral matter and charged matter in our minds as not interacting, but the real world never works that way. Its only when you get two rotational vibrations either aligning or disaligning cancelling either the inward or the outward portion of the vibration that you see dramatic effects (ie the force laws) such as electron repulsion and magnetic fields and whatnot.

User avatar
bperet
Posts: 1424
Joined: Thu Jul 22, 2004 1:43 am
Location: 7.5.3.84.70.24.606
Contact:

Re: Magnetism

Post by bperet » Fri Jul 06, 2018 11:07 am

blaine wrote:
Fri Jul 06, 2018 6:50 am
I suspect the magnetic charge and the related higher dimensional 3-d rotational vibration is the key to understanding the "weak force" and the related "strong force" in terms of the reciprocal system theory.
RV3 would be an 8-pole system based on octonian rotation and may be the basis for a lot of the "octave" systems found in metaphysics. You typically find 8-pole arrangements in living systems, not inanimate ones.

The RS has no strong force, as the "nucleus" is just a compound motion--there aren't little balls of protons and neutrons that need something to force them together. The weak force is another device to explain away that explosions can occur in 3D time, rather than 3D space. Both of these are devices of the "standard model" to force an incorrect model to agree with observation.
blaine wrote:
Fri Jul 06, 2018 6:50 am
There is something that I had never understood about the reciprocal system theory that I think I may finally begin to understand - what is a 1D rotation?
It is an angular velocity, expressed in radians/second. In RS2, this is expressed by an "imaginary number" (a rotational operator), to distinguish it from a linear velocity.

⇀s is a linear velocity in space, whereas ∠s is an angular velocity in space. Both are a single magnitude, since the clock time component is assumed to be normalized to unity (revolutions per ONE minute, feet per ONE second, etc--convention tends to leave the magnitude of "one" out of the text, so you get RPM and FPS).

Rotation only becomes 2D when you try to represent it in a linear system, which has no way to directly express a curve in a single dimension. In this case, 1D rotation is a spinning disk--where an orientation has to be assumed. There is no inherent "axis of rotation" with angular velocity--you don't get that until you have a line to make an axis with.
blaine wrote:
Fri Jul 06, 2018 6:50 am
This still didn't look correct somehow, and I think the reason is that these rotations aren't independent. The two rotations of the double rotating system shared an axis.
The difficulty you are having is that you trying to express angular velocity in linear terms--there isn't an axis of rotation! (This is why Larson calls it a "scalar rotation"--magnitude only.) If you want the mathematical version, the two, double-rotating systems of an atom are a dual quaternion. The dependency between them is the epsilon function, ε (where ε2 = 0, but ε ≠ 0).
blaine wrote:
Fri Jul 06, 2018 6:50 am
Now what I'm thinking is that the true mathematical model for the double rotating systems is a clifford torus; ie a 4 dimensional object whose rotations are along xy and uz (u being the 4th direction).
You don't need a 4D object--that is an artifact of trying to express an angular velocity as a linear one, so you need to get that extra dimension.

The problem is thinking in "angular" terms (something Larson could NOT do, but Nehru could). A torus is not a 2-dimensional motion, it is just two, angular velocities much like X and Y on a graph paper. Moving in the X direction (major radius) then the Y direction (minor radius) is not the same thing has drawing a square of XY dimensions.

We visualize 1D rotation as an expanding angle in a circle. Expand that concept--make the angle a cone, and the circle a sphere, and you have what 2D rotation looks like.

Clifford algebra has its uses, but it proceeds from the assumption that everything is linear, so it has dimensional errors. This was pointed out in the --daniel paper, page 9, section "Imagine That" on how angles are misrepresented by lines. (I'm sure Gopi could give a lecture on how Maxwell's quaternion equations were all flattened out to linear vectors!) I would suggest you study projective geometry, particularly the works of Nick Thomas regarding "turns" and "shifts," the rotation and translation of angles, rather than lines.
Every dogma has its day...

User avatar
bperet
Posts: 1424
Joined: Thu Jul 22, 2004 1:43 am
Location: 7.5.3.84.70.24.606
Contact:

Re: Magnetism

Post by bperet » Fri Jul 06, 2018 11:13 am

blaine wrote:
Fri Jul 06, 2018 6:55 am
Also as a quick note - another thing I never understood is if charge is a n-dimensional rotational vibration, then why doesn't neutral matter interact with charge?
This is what I was discussing in the topic on resonance. "Neutral" seldom means "went away." What it usually means is that there is no expression in our conventional coordinate system for what is going on.

Classic example here are electrical inductors and capacitors. Sure, voltage and current just up and disappear... so they had to use "imaginary numbers" to express where they went, because the real axis went to zero--but they still had energy, someplace and it would come back out of nowhere when discharged--in exactly the same amount that disappeared. This is the situation with most "neutrals"... not neutral, just went somewhere that we cannot directly observe or measure it.
Every dogma has its day...

User avatar
bperet
Posts: 1424
Joined: Thu Jul 22, 2004 1:43 am
Location: 7.5.3.84.70.24.606
Contact:

Magnetic pole in 3D

Post by bperet » Tue Jul 17, 2018 6:45 pm

I got some "ferrofluid" ... a magnetic fluid. Strange to see a magnet stick to liquid. I used my USB microscope to get a close look at a magnetic pole of a magnet. Interesting stuff. It is a spiked hemisphere:
.
vlcsnap-2018-07-17-18h10m06s224.png
vlcsnap-2018-07-17-18h10m06s224.png (627.92 KiB) Viewed 1280 times
vlcsnap-2018-07-17-18h11m17s863.png
vlcsnap-2018-07-17-18h11m17s863.png (629.58 KiB) Viewed 1280 times
vlcsnap-2018-07-17-18h13m52s369.png
vlcsnap-2018-07-17-18h13m52s369.png (600.08 KiB) Viewed 1280 times
.
If you notice, they are NOT LINES OF FORCE, but more along the line of Faraday's "tubes," having diameter and volume. I assume the conic shape occurs because the magnetic field strength diminishes with distance, so it cannot hold the fluid together past that point.
Every dogma has its day...

User avatar
bperet
Posts: 1424
Joined: Thu Jul 22, 2004 1:43 am
Location: 7.5.3.84.70.24.606
Contact:

Ice Penitentes

Post by bperet » Wed Jul 18, 2018 11:48 am

I thought these magnetic spikes looked familiar... turns out that at high latitudes--where the Earth's magnetic poles tend to be--there exists a phenomena known as "ice penitentes," for which there are many theories about--but I don't think anyone considered the idea that it may be the magnetic influence from the Earth's pole, itself:

Image

Image
Every dogma has its day...

blaine
Posts: 40
Joined: Mon Jan 16, 2017 9:44 am

Re: Magnetism

Post by blaine » Sun Jul 22, 2018 1:21 pm

Funny the timing of this since you've been discussing the importance of the octonian: https://www.quantamagazine.org/the-octo ... -20180720/

User avatar
bperet
Posts: 1424
Joined: Thu Jul 22, 2004 1:43 am
Location: 7.5.3.84.70.24.606
Contact:

Re: Magnetism

Post by bperet » Sun Jul 22, 2018 2:09 pm

“Octonions are to physics what the Sirens were to Ulysses,” Pierre Ramond, a particle physicist and string theorist at the University of Florida, said in an email.
Great quote.

And this is exactly what I am doing with RS2:
To reconstruct particle physics, Furey uses the product of the four division algebras, R⊗C⊗H⊗O (R for reals, C for complex numbers, H for quaternions and O for octonions) — sometimes called the Dixon algebra, after Geoffrey Dixon, a physicist who first took this tack in the 1970s and ’80s before failing to get a faculty job and leaving the field.
But what I do different, is to treat a "rotation" as a rotation, not as a projection on to linear axes, which is what they are still doing:
Günaydin and Gürsey, in their early work, already found SU(3) inside the octonions. Consider the base set of octonions, 1, e1, e2, e3, e4, e5, e6 and e7, which are unit distances in eight different orthogonal directions
When you keep an angle an angle, you don't need 8 linear dimensions--only three dimensions of rotation. That seems to be the great fallacy of modern science--everything must be based on the "ruler." Protractors are forbidden!

Thanks for the link. Will look into her research in more detail.
Every dogma has its day...

Post Reply