Science topics: Physical SciencesElectromagnetism
Science topic
Electromagnetism - Science topic
Explore the latest questions and answers in Electromagnetism, and find Electromagnetism experts.
Questions related to Electromagnetism
Noel Coughlin is a highly analytical researcher who has been in process of relating Synergetics with electromagnetism ever since he graduated, a project that has been his driving motivation since a discussion he had with Arthur Young, who was the only student of Oswald Veblen, who was the only teacher of relativistic theory at Princeton in 1925.
In summary, Synergetics proposes that all existing elementary particles and atomic structures in the universe would be assemblies of close packed tetrahedral structures, each inscribed within an enclosing sphere and whose vectorial dimensions would reduce to isometric unity if their energy was decrease to absolute zero. It is from these assumed pre-time, pre-space potential isometric structures that all constants, frequencies and characteristics of elementary particles surprisingly emerge from vector sums of these tetrahedral assemblies; which constants and elementary particles characteristics are now experimentally confirmed and accounted for by electromagnetic mechanics of elementary particles.
Of particular interest is Fuller's Fig. 522.09 that Noel related to the increasing intensity of electromagnetic energy with increasing frequency while systematically all moving at the constant velocity of light in vacuum.
Here is a link to a recent video in which he explains the general outlines of his synthesis in a conversation with Daniel Ari Friedman.
Noel's email address is noel_coughlin01@yahoo.com in case anyone wishes to communicate with him to discuss these issues with him.
An introduction to Noel's recent videos and to his YouTube channel is provided here:
And also at the top of the Electromagnetic Mechanics Project Index:
All opinions and contributions are welcome.
-----------
Fuller defined synergetics as follows (Ref: http://www.rwgrayprojects.com/synergetics/s02/p0000.html):
"A system of mensuration employing 60-degree vectorial coordination comprehensive to both physics and chemistry, and to both arithmetic and geometry, in rational whole numbers ... Synergetics explains much that has not been previously illuminated ... Synergetics follows the cosmic logic of the structural mathematics strategies of nature, which employ the paired sets of the six angular degrees of freedom, frequencies, and vectorially economical actions and their multi-alternative, equi-economical action options ... Synergetics discloses the excruciating awkwardness characterizing present-day mathematical treatment of the interrelationships of the independent scientific disciplines as originally occasioned by their mutual and separate lacks of awareness of the existence of a comprehensive, rational, coordinating system inherent in nature."
In summary, Synergetics proposes that all elementary particles and atomic structures existing in the universe could be represented by assemblies of close packed tetrahedral structures, each tetrahedron inscribed in an enclosing sphere, whose vectorial dimensions would reduce to isometric unity if their energy was reduced to absolute zero, and whose vertices would then all touch each other through the symbolic walls of the spheres. It is from this idealized configuration of the carbon atom, with its four valance electrons established as the vertices of an idealized tetrahedron circumscribed in en enclosing sphere that the Carbon-60 spherical molecule was discovered in 1985, inspired Buckminster Fuller's research, that was given his name to honor his contribution.
It is from these idealized potential isometric structures, that would predate time and space, that physical constants, frequencies and other characteristics of elementary electromagnetic particles surprisingly emerge from vector sums of assemblies of these close packed spheres each enclosing a tetrahedron. These constants and characteristics of elementary particles have now been experimentally confirmed, and their electromagnetic structures and interactions at the subatomic level of magnitude are now described by the electromagnetic mechanics of elementary particles
IEEE 2024 8th International Conference on Electrical, Mechanical and Computer Engineering (ICEMCE 2024) will be held on October 25-27, 2024 in Xi'an, China.
Conference Website: https://ais.cn/u/baUBfa
---Call for papers---
The topics of interest for submission include, but are not limited to:
· Smart grid
· Heat exchanger
· Computer simulation
· Artificial intelligence (AI)
· Computer modeling
· Mobile computing
· Instruments and meters
· Power and fluid machinery
· Heat and mass transfer
· Laser processing technology
· Wireless sensor networks
· Electric energy processing
· Electromagnetism and photonics
· Power quality and system stability analysis
· Photoelectric effect of semiconductors
· Refrigeration and air conditioning
......
---Publication---
All accepted papers will be submitted to IEEE (ISBN: 979-8-3315-0623-0) for publication, and it will be submitted to IEEE Xplore, EI Compendex and Scopus for indexing.
---Important Dates---
Full Paper Submission Date: September 30, 2024
Registration Deadline: October 18, 2024
Final Paper Submission Date: October 18, 2024
Conference Dates: October 25-27, 2024
--- Paper Submission---
Please send the full paper(word+pdf) to Submission System:
Accelerated Expansion a Fallacy
- August 2024
- Advances in Theoretical & Computational Physics 7(3):1-62
This is one of the many papers that used logspiral photon propagation and a lightspeed expanding hyperspherical hypersurface universe. It does not include my work or Dr. Tuomo Suntola's papers as prior art.
Dr. Pommerenke states that he calculated the Hubble's Constant from the partial list of SN1a data. That does not make sense because a logspiral light propagation (at constant angle with respect to the radial direction) will always produce the same wavelength polarization as it propagates.
In other words, neither Dr. Suntola's (uses logspiral with 45 degrees) nor Dr. Pommerenke's work (different constant angle) can produce ANY redshift.
It also uses Planck lengths. As you might know, Planck Lenght and Planck Units are model-dependent. In other words, in their definition, there is an implicit model. That creates tautologies or circular reasoning, which are oftentimes taken as "Amazing Discoveries with Infinite Precision." by crackpots like the iSpacetime fellow.
This model seems to use Euclidean 4D Spatial Manifold. Of course, that fails to replicate Relativity successes. I say that because one has to derive Gravitation (as I did) to be able to replicate Gravitational Lensing and Mercury Perihelion Precession.
So, I do have strong criticism, which I hope will help Dr. Pommerenke improve his model or determine whether it contributes to Science.
Please, feel free to ask questions, offer suggestions, or object to my objections.
In cases where the rotational of the magnetic field H is zero, we can define this field as the gradient of a scalar function defined as the magnetic scalar potential (similar to the electric potential). What is the physical meaning of this magnitude?
Here are a few thoughts of mine that say space can't be curved because it doesn't exist. What we call space is actually the ubiquitous presence of gravitons and photons. Light passing the Sun is refracted because these particles follow curved paths. This naturally means the virtual particles currently theorized to fill space don't exist (only gravitons and photons do).
This might mean (a) gravity and electromagnetism can undergo a particular interaction to form particles with mass (this is supported by Einstein's publication in 1919 of an article suggesting gravity plays a role in the composition of elementary particles), and (b) space, while filled with gravitons and photons, is the absence of the mass-generating interaction.
However, it’s very convenient to simply speak of curved space – just as we say the Sun rises and sets while neglecting to mention Earth’s rotation … or speak of waves travelling without referring to the lack of horizontal propagation - photons merely "bob up and down" like particles of water. Electromagnetism would be caused by a travelling gravitational wave causing excitation of pre-existing photons (either in so-called "space" or in masses like atoms and objects).
Consistent with the unity of space and time, time could be something built into gravitons and photons. I believe these particles (what we call "space") are built from binary digits and topology immersed in the 3rd dimension, that they interact to form mass by a process I call vector-tensor-scalar geometry, and that the 4th dimension of "time" which is built into the particles is the real plus imaginary numbers of Wick rotation.
Given we have knowledge of only 5% of the Universe, can this and the 95% remainder of the Universe including Dark Energy and Dark Matter be understood with a single paradigm shift.
To date the presence of Dark Energy, has remained a mystery. This is solved on the basis of fundamental unit of energy, Planck's constant, from which space-time itself, the forces of nature including gravity, and all particle physics can be derived. This is achieved on the on the basis of the speed of light and classical geometry. In the first instance new research points to a definitive answer to the presence of space time and the value of Hubble's constant. Here we invite open access research and discussion to probe the mysteries and very nature of Dark Energy, and the origins of all the aspects of Nature including the laws of thermodynamics.
There is usually airgap between a radiating element and metasurface and I want to calculate the phase delay analytically. Like what is the reflecting phase from the meta? What is the phase delay from the metasurface to the antenna?
Thanks in advance.
Dark Energy constitutes 70% of the entire energy of the Universe and until now has remained a mystery. In this discussion we resolve the nature of what dark energy is from the fundamental quantum oscillator known as Harmonic Quintessence
This can be used too derive Hubble's constant from geometrical first principles and is capable of also explaining the nature of space time itself and the continued expansion of the Universe
Einstein field equation, assuming a weak gravitational field or reasonably flat spacetime, are analog to Maxwell's equations for electromagnetism.
Using the Holographic Principle’s idea that the universe is a computer simulation, I’d suggest that, in reality, there is no separation at all between anything in space or anything in time. Everything could be compared to the onscreen world of a video game. Things appear separate in both time and space but everything’s actually connected by the binary digits of 1 and 0 – even classical physics and quantum physics are connected. All couplings can be instantly quantum entangled and bypass the speed of light because the equations of James Clerk Maxwell allow the existence of both “retarded” waves traveling forwards in time and “advanced” waves going back in time. Advanced waves aren’t popular with scientists since they seem to violate cause and effect. But if time is compared to a DVD, the entire disk exists at any moment and we can say everything happens at once (this is consistent with no separation existing). Us puny humans are spared from the confusion we’d feel at everything occurring simultaneously. This results from our consciousness substituting for the laser which reads the DVD. Just as the laser only permits the sights and sounds of very brief fractions of a second to be displayed at a given moment, the mind can’t be aware of all events happening at once but only of an infinitesimal fraction of the sights and sounds on the “Cosmic DVD”.
As for the weirdness of wave-particle duality - According to Special Relativity, experiments are overrated by modern science since the truths revealed by experimentation are necessarily restricted to one frame of reference. Regarding the question of length contraction in Special Relativity - Einstein wrote in 1911 that "It doesn't 'really' exist, in so far as it doesn't exist for a co-moving observer; though it 'really' exists, i.e. in such a way that it could be demonstrated in principle by physical means by a non-comoving observer."
(Einstein [1911]. "Zum Ehrenfestschen Paradoxon. Eine Bemerkung zu V. Variĉaks Aufsatz". Physikalische Zeitschrift 12: 509–510)
Demonstration "in principle by physical means by a non-comoving observer" is the same meaning as "demonstration by experiments performed by scientists not moving at the speed of light".
Now relate the previous paragraph to this quote - “While an observer stationary with respect to an electric charge will see it as a source of electric field only, a second observer moving relative to the first will see the same charge as a source of both electric and magnetic fields in a way dictated by special relativity.” (Penguin Encyclopedia 2006 - edited by David Crystal - 3rdedition, 2006 - ‘electromagnetism’, p. 443)
So, we need to revise Maxwell’s propagation of electromagnetism by oscillating electric and magnetic fields. George Yuri Rainich showed in 1925
(Electrodynamics in the general relativity theory. by G. Y. Rainich. Trans. Amer. Math. Soc. 27 (1925), 106-136 https://www.ams.org/journals/tran/1925-027-01/S0002-9947-1925-1501302-6/)
that Einstein’s gravitational equations contain enough information about Maxwell’s electromagnetic equations to make it plausible that gravitational waves also possess an advanced component. In addition to electric-magnetic duality not existing, the unification of all things in space and time means wave-particle duality would not exist in all frames of reference. It would only exist for a non-comoving observer: it could be demonstrated “… by experiments performed by scientists not moving at the speed of light". If looked at from the frame of reference of an observer co-moving with the universe (in tune with it), the weirdness of wave-particle duality vanishes and quantum mechanics becomes as understandable as the macroscopic world.
If magnetic monopoles do not annihilate*, do magnetic monopoles still exist?
If magnetic monopoles do not exist, how should magnetism be described? Is it a bipolar magnetic charge?
If it is a bipolar magnetic charge, how can it exist, and what should be its relationship to a unipolar charge?
The understanding of magnetism has a very long history[2], but to this day we are still searching for what is at the root of magnetism[3], as well as trying to explain what the force of magnetism actually is, for example, facing difficulties with the explanation of the Meissner Effect[4].The MoEDAL-Collaboration† [6] , a scientific project dedicated to the search for monopole[8] and dyon‡[9] , to upgrade the original TeV scale energy levels to the GUT scale in 2022[7] .
There have been many ideas about the origin of magnetism, from the earliest Amperian (infinitesimal current loops) [10], the Gilbertian (infinitesimally short magnetic needles), spinning charged sphere[ edit 11]; the ultimate magnetic particle, the elementary magnet, the electron itself spinning like a tiny gyroscope [12], rotation of a ring-shaped negative charge [13], until W. Gerlach and O. Stern experimentally discovered the existence of a magnetic moment in the electron [19], followed by Pauli [14], R. d. L. Kronig [15], G. E. Uhlenbeck and Samuel Goudsmit [16] who defined the concept of an intronic electron spin, explaining the anomalous Zeeman effect. However, we still do not have an answer to the question of what exactly spin is [17], whether magnetism originates from a magnetic charge symmetric to the electric charge, and whether there exists a magnetic monopole symmetric to the electron.
The concept of magnetic monopoles was first introduced by Dirac, who called them "nodal lines" [18], and later gave the quantization condition for electric charge: eg=1/2(nhc). The interpretation is that magnetic charge must accompany electric charge. However there are numerous ideas about magnetic monopoles [7], indicating that our knowledge of it is still uncertain.
Our question is:
In reality we do not find any signs of the existence of magnetic monopoles, all we find are two poles of magnetism, this is true for microscopic electron particles and also for macroscopic electromagnets. The two poles of magnetism coexist in one body and never separate. It is impossible for a mechanism to exist here that would bond positive and negative magnetic monopoles together without causing them to cancel each other out. Nor can there exist a bipolar field that is both positive and negative at one point. Therefore, there can only exist a rational model that still resembles a current ring with a unipolar magnetic field traversing it. This appears to constitute two opposite poles on both sides of the ring.
------------------------------
Notes：
* Weinberg addressed three puzzles, flatness, horizon and magnetic monopoles, in his account of the cosmic inflation in the book [1]. When talking about magnetic monopoles, it is argued that there was a magnetic monopole/photon ratio at the beginning of the Big Bang, which assumes a condition "if magnetic monopoles do not annihilate each other". This assumption triggered the topic.
† the Monopole and Exotics Detector at the LHC.
‡ dyon is a Magnetic Model of Matter proposed by Schwinger, which carries both electric and magnetic charges.
------------------------------
References：
[1] Weinberg, S. (2008). COSMOLOGY, Oxford University Press. Chinese version, p162;
[2] Milton, K. A. (2006). "Theoretical and experimental status of magnetic monopoles." Reports on Progress in Physics 69(6): 1637.
[3] J.Stohr, H. C. S. (2006). Magnetism: From Fundamentals to Nanoscale Dynamics, Higher Education Press.
[4] Kozhevnikov, V. (2021). "Meissner Effect: History of Development and Novel Aspects." Journal of Superconductivity and Novel Magnetism 34(8): 1979-2009.
[5] . "MoEDAL (the Monopole and Exotics Detector at the LHC) ".
[6] Acharya, B., J. Alexandre, P. Benes, K. S. Babu and etl. (2021). "First Search for Dyons with the Full MoEDAL Trapping Detector in 13 TeV p p Collisions." Physical Review Letters 126(7): 071801.
[7] MoEDAL-Collaboration and V. A. Mitsou (2022). "MoEDAL, MAPP and future endeavours."
[8] Preskill, J. (1984). "Magnetic monopoles." Annual Review of Nuclear and Particle Science 34(1): 461-530.
[9] Schwinger, J. (1969). "A Magnetic Model of Matter: A speculation probes deep within the structure of nuclear particles and predicts a new form of matter." Science 165(3895): 757-761.
[10] Maxwell, J. C. (1873). A treatise on electricity and magnetism (电磁通论）, Beijing University Press (Clarendon press) 2010.
[11] Fahy, S. and C. O'Sullivan (2022). "All magnetic phenomena are NOT due to electric charges in motion." American Journal of Physics 90, 7 (2022).
[12] Compton, A. H. and O. Rognley (1920). "Is the Atom the Ultimate Magnetic Particle?" Physical Review 16(5): 464-476.
[13] Parson, A. L. (1915). "A magneton theory of the structure of the atom (with two plates)." Smithsonian Miscellaneous Collections.
[14] Pauli, W. (1925). "On the connexion between the completion of electron groups in an atom with the complex structure of spectra." Zeitschrift für Physik 31 (1925): 765.
[15] Kronig, R. D. L. (1926). "Spinning Electrons and the Structure of Spectra." Nature 117(2946): 550-550.
[16] Uhlenbeck, G. E., and Samuel Goudsmit. (1925). "Ersetzung der Hypothese vom unmechanischen Zwang durch eine Forderung bezüglich des inneren Verhaltens jedes einzelnen Elektrons." Die Naturwissenschaften 13.47 (1925): 953-954.
[17] Chian Fan, et al. (2023). "Is the spin of an electron really spin?", from https://www.researchgate.net/post/No9_Is_the_spin_of_an_electron_really_spin.
[18] Dirac, P. A. M. (1931). "Quantised singularities in the electromagnetic field." Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. Series A, Containing Papers of a Mathematical and Physical Character 133(821): 60-72.
[19] Gerlach, W. and O. Stern. (1922). "Der experimentelle Nachweis der Richtungsquantelung im Magnetfeld.
." Zeitschrift f¨ur Physik 9: 349-352.
If I connected my voltmeter leads across the left-hand crossbar in the top figure, the voltmeter would presumably read an e.m.f of "E"?
But then, what would my voltmeter read for the left-hand crossbar in middle and bottom figures?
Also what is the Relativistic expression for the emf in the moving crossbar?
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Below we have a straight-wire "crossbar" and a U-shaped wire. A uniform magnetic field B is directed out of the paper.
Here, in the top figure, with the crossbar moving to the left, touching the U-shaped wire, we have, by the relation (v x B), an emf appearing across the left-hand crossbar, as indicated.
In the middle figure, with an observer moving in concert with the moving crossbar, we have, by the relation (v x B), an emf appearing across the right-hand crossbar.
In the lower figure, with an observer moving to the left, at half the rate of the left-hand crossbar, we have, by (v x B), an emf appearing across both right and left hand crossbars.
A series of samarium-cadmium co-substituted hexaferrites, represented by the formula Ba2-xSmxCo2CdyFe28-yO46, were synthesized through a straightforward heat treatment method at 1340 °C. Characterization of the samples involved various techniques such as FTIR, XRD, SEM, VSM, Mӧssbauer, and low-frequency dielectric measurements. XRD analysis revealed the dominant presence of the desired phase (denoted as X) alongside hematite. The magnetic saturation (MS) ranged from 67.01 Am2/kg to 50.43 Am2/kg, while coercivity (Hc) varied from 2.95 kA/m to 6.17 kA/m. The pure sample exhibited a notably high MS value (67.01 Am2/kg), while the composition with x = 0.06, y = 0.3 displayed a remarkably low Hc value (2.95 kA/m), indicating potential applications in electromagnets, transformer cores, and electric motors. However, the Mr/Ms ratio below 0.5 affirmed the multi-domain nature of the hexaferrites. Hysteresis loops of all samples demonstrated narrow characteristics, confirming their magnetically soft nature. Mössbauer spectra of selected samples (S1, S3, and S5) exhibited doublets. The observed low values of coercivity, retentivity, and loss tangent in samarium-cadmium substituted samples suggested their suitability for lossless low-frequency applications.
#hexaferrites
#characterizations
#materialsynthesis
#scientificresearch
#materialscience
#electromagnets
In our investigation, we synthesized hexaferrites with X-type samarium-cadmium co-substitution (Ba2-xSmxCo2CdyFe28-yO46) through a straightforward heat treatment at 1340 °C. Characterization via FTIR, XRD, SEM, VSM, Mössbauer, and low-frequency dielectric measurements revealed a blend of the X phase and hematite in the samples.
Magnetic properties showed variations in saturation magnetization (MS) from 67.01 Am2/kg to 50.43 Am2/kg and coercivity (Hc) from 2.95 kA/m to 6.17 kA/m. Notably, the pure sample exhibited high MS (67.01 Am2/kg), and the composition with x = 0.06, y = 0.3 displayed low Hc (2.95 kA/m), indicating a multi-domain nature.
Hysteresis loops suggested the samples as magnetically soft materials, and Mössbauer spectra revealed doublets in selected samples. The low coercivity, retentivity, and loss tangent in Sm–Cd substituted samples suggest potential applications in electromagnets, transformer cores, electric motors, and as candidates for lossless low-frequency applications.
#Innovation
#MaterialsScience
#Research
#Hexaferrite
#Electromagnets
#LowFrequencyApplications
General relativity and quantum mechanics unite when gravitational and electromagnetic waves produce all forms of mass in planets and black holes, every fermion and boson in the Standard Model of particle physics, and (in stars) quantum-entangled waves which amplify each other’s energy transference as well as synthesizing the stellar hydrogen and other chemical elements.
Einstein's statement that space (more precisely, space-time) is curved is an overgeneralization. He set this conclusion in motion himself in 1919 when he published his article "Do gravitational fields play an essential role in the structure of elementary particles?" His paper inspired my theory called Vector-Tensor-Scalar Geometry - explained in the attached (updated) article.
VTS geometry means (a) gravity and electromagnetism can undergo a particular interaction to form particles with mass, and (b) space, while filled with gravitons and photons, is nothing but the absence of the mass-generating interaction. There can be no curvature of something that has no existence itself. The phrase "curvature of space" would technically mean "gravitons and photons filling space follow curved paths". However, it’s very convenient to simply speak of curved space – just as we say the Sun rises and sets while neglecting to mention Earth’s rotation … or speak of waves travelling without referring to excitation of pre-existing gravitons or photons in space and mass by a space-time disturbance (a gravitational wave) travelling at the speed of light.
How can the gravitons and photons filling space follow curved paths? This requires the universe to be intelligently designed. In purely linear time, the designer would be God. In Einstein's nonlinear time (developed from Riemannian geometry's framework for modelling nonlinear data) is the implication of the possibility of the designer being future scientists who use this curvilinear time to interact with what we call the past and present.
To return to the question "How can the gravitons and photons filling space follow curved paths?" Waves can not only be described by mathematics but, according to this post, they can literally be the result of maths. Then, Fourier analysis or v=f.(lambda) would not merely be descriptions of waves created by interacting particles. In conjunction with base 2 maths aka binary digits, and topology, they’d be part of the “blueprint” for forming waves which, via VTS geometry, produce particles. Interacting particles can produce waves just as masses can curve spacetime to create gravitation and gravitational waves. VTS plausibly explains the inverse – it doesn’t regard mass as the producer of gravity but regards gravity, partnering with electromagnetism, as producer of mass. Inverting quantum mechanics, the inverse law states that waves produce particles.
A one-dimensional line is a set of points obeying a linear relationship. A point’s an exact position or location. It’s important to understand that a point is not a thing, but a place. It possesses zero size and no matter how far we zoomed in, it’d remain dimensionless with no width. Instead of programming a set of points to follow a straight line, suppose they’re represented curvilinearly as a waveform described by Fourier analysis or v = f. lambda
Establishing "gravity electromagnetism" similar to Oliver Heaviside, is his theory of gravity no better oriented than Einstein's theory of relativity? More natural, more rational. "The speed of light doesn't change" is too weird, too supernatural.
One of my friends asked me a question to which I could not find a clear answer. We know that the sunlight spectrum includes the entire wave frequencies including those (of the order of 1 GHz) that our home satellite dishes receive from the satellites revolving around the earth. However, I have not ever seen/heard that there are noises on TV as home dishes face the sun. Why?
Is it possible that home dishes never face the sun during the entire day?!
The recent (1) “observation” by LIGO of a neutron star merger and (2) what is considered as different from it, namely, the arrival of the visible light from the merger at our location, used to be perceived as an indication that gravitational waves may have the same velocity as electromagnetic waves.
But it need not exactly be so, because even in this case we speak of our observation of the neutron star merger using the luminal velocity. Then make independent conclusions on gravitational waves. This is to be granted as a reconcilable manner of looking at gravitation in terms of luminal velocity.
In fact, the gravitational waves are themselves not being observed here directly in terms of gravitational waves or anything known previously to be of that kind in velocity. Instead, we are using the light and other electromagnetic radiation from those astronomical objects and saying that they present us with some real information about the gravitational waves.
From this it is clear that, even today, experimentally we are not sure of the velocity of gravitational propagation.
We assume it to be c because of our observation of electromagnetic propagations that carry to us news of gravitational propagation from the said objects. Hence, it need not show their velocity to be equal.
Here arises the question: At the level of the large-scale processes of the cosmos, is gravitation or electromagnetism (or any other non-gravitational or contrary-to-gravitation propagation) more influential in determining the general evolution of the structure of the cosmos?
I hold it has to be gravitation that has the final say. My arguments are indirect. I shall put them forth in the course of development of arguments in the discussion.
What I want to accentuate is this: If there are other (may be infinite number of) worlds of different content, density, etc., the velocity of what may be termed gravitation proper in each of them might also be different.
This may be the case also for non-gravitational propagations in each such worlds.
FOR MORE, CONSULT THE DISCUSSION:
Hello all
I’ve synthesized recently different magnetic nanomaterials, and as a trial, i pressed the powder into rectangular shapes and put them inside a rectangular waveguide with similar dimensions to study their electromagnetic properties in the microwave region.
Then using the Nicholson-Ross-Wier method i calculated Epsilon, which should be nearly constant for such systems.
Finally, i calculated the return loss RL using 20*log((Zin-Z0)/(Zin+Z0)) where Zin is Mu and Epsilon dependent and Z0 = 50 ohm
RL should be negative and dipping below -10 dB once with a large bandwidth
Images are available below
The sample dimensions are 2.3x1 cm, and they have a thickness around 2.4 mm. the 2.3 cm side is 0.1 mm to big for the waveguide so it requires some quick polishing, which sometimes leaves a small air gap due to human error
My main question is, what is causing such massive peaks and jumps in the calculated parameters?
It’s either from the setup, the small gap or some hidden error in the matlab NRW code? which after importing the real and imaginary S11 and S21 is:
S11 = s11r + 1i.*s11i;
S21 = s21r + 1i.*s21i;
X = (S11.^2-S21.^2+1)./(2.*S11);
G = X + sqrt(X.^2-1)
G(abs(G)>1) = X(abs(G)>1) - sqrt(X(abs(G)>1).^2-1) %%this is to guarantee that abs(Gamma)<1
T = (S11 + S21 - G)./(1-(S11 + S21).*G);
%% This is 1/Lambda^2
ils = -(1./(2*3.141592*L).*log(1./T)).^2;
%% This is 1/Lambda
il = sqrt(ils)
Mu
M = il.*((1+G)./(1-G))./sqrt((1./L0.^2) - (1./Lc.^2));
Epsilon
E = L0.^2./(M).*(1./Lc.^2+ils);
This code worked for the given example in the following pdf's explanation of the NRW method:
Any help is much appreciated
(This also answers the criticism that the natural and the artificial shouldn't be mixed. The discussion takes the view that “natural” and “artificial/technological” are the same thing – and explains HOW they are the same thing) –
Let's begin with a statement I read recently, “Special relativity is the most fundamental, and thoroughly proven, theory in all physics.” I won’t question that but I will suggest that we consider quantum gravity (QG). There’s no theory of quantum gravity at present but modern physics seems to have little doubt that we will have a successful theory one day. Despite the enormous success of general relativity, that theory will require adjustments to fit in with QG. Quantum mechanics will also need modifications to fit in, as Einstein realized when he called it incomplete. In all history, there has never been a single theory that could be called 100% perfect in the sense that it explained every detail forever, and never needed refinements – and there will never be such a theory. Our period of history is no different and that other product of Einstein’s brain (special relativity) has brought great advances but must inevitably endure the same fate of being refined.
May I suggest possible modifications to the above theories – not to attempt to compete with quantum mechanics or the relativity theories but merely to demonstrate that refinements of them are conceivable.
First, quantum mechanics –
Reliance on bodily senses – extended to our technology – tells us things and events are distinct and separate. Acknowledging the correctness of this frame of reference means there are countless particles forming the cosmos. Recognizing the truth of a different point of view means these particles are unified by the action of advanced and retarded waves into one particle* - whether it be classified as a boson or fermion (or both). The interpretation of particles being in two or more places at once can be reinterpreted as being in one position i.e. unipositional, from the Latin ūnus meaning one. This unipositioned particle interferes with itself since it’s composed of self-intersecting Mobius strips which, because mass is united with spacetime, account for spacetime’s curvature. Unipositional quantum mechanics also means every particle is entangled with every other.
* "When we solve (19th-century Scottish physicist James Clerk) Maxwell's equations for light, we find not one but two solutions: a 'retarded' wave, which represents the standard motion of light from one point to another; but also an 'advanced' wave, where the light beam goes backward in time. Engineers have simply dismissed the advanced wave as a mathematical curiosity since the retarded waves so accurately predicted the behavior of radio, microwaves, TV, radar, and X-rays. But for physicists, the advanced wave has been a nagging problem for the past century."
("Physics of the Impossible" by Michio Kaku, 2009, Penguin Books, p. 276)
Second, addressing the subjects “non-causal” and “at once” –
All mass is composed of gravitational and electromagnetic waves, according to vector-tensor-scalar (VTS) geometry inspired by the title of Einstein's 1919 paper "Do gravitational fields play an essential role in the structure of elementary particles?" Both types of waves possess retarded and advanced components which cancel each other and entangle all masses. Wick rotation (time) is built into the Mobius strips and figure-8 Klein bottles composing (respectively) electromagnetism's photons and gravitation's gravitons. Therefore, all time (the entire past and present and future) is united into one thing just as all space and all mass are united into one thing. If time only passed rectilinearly - from past to present to future - the idea of waves travelling back in time would make no sense at all. But if time is curvilinear - with past, present, and future interconnected - time must be able to move from future to present to past.
(Unity of past/present/future may remove the issue of non-simultaneity – in special relativity – because the timing or sequence of events being different in different frames of reference can only exist if past/present/future are separate. The concepts of cause and effect are no longer separate when all periods of time are united, and everything can happen “at once”. This is similar to watching a DVD – every event on the DVD exists at once since the whole DVD exists but we’re only aware of sights and sounds occurring in each tiny fraction of a second.)
Third, proposing faster-than-light travel (a feature of special relativity is light-speed as the universal speed limit).
The Riemann hypothesis, proposed in 1859 by the German mathematician Georg Friedrich Bernhard Riemann, is fascinating. It seems to fit these ideas on various subjects in physics very well. The Riemann hypothesis doesn’t just apply to the distribution of prime numbers but can also apply to the fundamental structure of the mathematical universe’s space-time. Cosmic maths incorporates
1) topology (the two-dimensional Mobius strip and figure-8 Klein bottle which is immersed [not embedded] in three dimensions),
2) BITS aka electronics’ BInary digiTS, or base 2 maths, which encode the topology,
3) the real and imaginary numbers of Wick rotation (time),
4) vector-tensor-scalar geometry, describing interaction between photons and gravitons, and
5) the Mobius Matrix, combining the topological Mobius and mathematics' Matrix to explain higher dimensions.
How does the Riemann Hypothesis support Faster-Than-Light travel? Answer – Using the axiom that there indeed are infinitely many nontrivial zeros on the critical line (calculations have confirmed the hypothesis to be true to over 13 trillion places), the critical line is identified as the y-axis of Wick rotation (stated above to be the time component of space-time). This suggests the y-axis is literally infinite and that infinity equals zero. In this case, it is zero distance in time and space. Travelling zero distance is done instantly and is therefore faster-than-light travel.
It must be stressed again that I’m not saying the above ideas are either correct or incorrect. I’m merely seeking to show that modifications to special relativity, general relativity, and quantum mechanics are indeed possible!
I am a PhD in mathematical modeling and never studied applications in diabetes treatment.
However, by particular reasons, I was searching some new researches in the area. In fact, I've found some people doing electromagnetism tests to promote better life quality to patients. It seems fantastic to me.
I am interested in learn more about it. Some researcher can indicate me some new trend?
Thank you!
This morning, I found a couple of paragraphs in a book I had published a year ago which made me wonder if the EmDrive, EM Drive or radio frequency (RF) resonant cavity thruster should be renamed the Possible Engine. I don't know if these are more deep thoughts or if it's just my subconscious telling me I have a secret crush on Supergirl 📷 but here are those 2 paragraphs -
"British engineer Roger Shawyer proposed the EmDrive, EM Drive or radio frequency (RF) resonant cavity thruster in 1999 and it's claimed to use patented microwave technology which converts electrical energy into thrust by amplification of the microwaves creating pressure which drives the vehicle's front forwards. Light is one form of electromagnetism – microwaves are another (so they also obey James Clerk Maxwell's electromagnetic laws and their solution for both retarded and advanced components of the waves).* So some of the microwaves are advanced, and travelling back in time.^ To this action, there is - agreeing with Isaac Newton's 3rd law of motion - an equal and opposing reaction i.e. a thrust forward in time. Since space can never be regarded separately from time, an object in space is affected and the forward thrust in time could power a spacecraft through the void via the EM Drive.
* Gravitational waves must also have advanced and retarded portions. Einstein's equations say gravitational fields carry enough information about electromagnetism to allow Maxwell's equations to be restated in terms of these gravitational fields. This was discovered by the mathematical physicist George Yuri Rainich. [George Yuri Rainich, Transactions of the American Mathematical Society, 27, 106 - Rainich, G. Y. (1925)]
^ The attached "Topological Propulsion Through Space-time" should explain how advanced waves are indeed possible.
"What are the consequences if gravitational fields play an essential role in the structure of elementary particles,** and if gravitational waves can travel back in time? Then the equal and opposite reaction providing the forward thrust in time could not only "power a spacecraft through the void", but it could power anything with gravitational waves in its composition. This includes giving controlled flight to Superman and Supergirl, without any jetpacks - acting in a manner similar to the proposed method of EmDrive, superbeings would be powered through the air."
** The section about vector-tensor-scalar geometry in "Topological Propulsion ..." explains the relation between gravitational fields and elementary particles.
"Out of Time - Predicting the Science of Future Centuries and Millennia (Edition 2)", 19 October 2021, Page 1-93 https://doi.org/10.9734/bpi/mono/978-93-5547-061-4
I know that the electric field inside a charged conducting shell is zero. However, what if we accelerate the shell uniformly? Does the charge distribution remain uniform? If not, is it possible for the new charge distribution to allow some electric field to penetrate the conducting shell?
I guess that the shell still resists the electric fields to be penetrated inside it even if the shell is accelerated, however, I cannot prove it.
Are there any students or professors with students interested in helping with research of Bob Lazar's Sport Model? I don't have much money, just the thrill of a whole new field of study, specifically , a link between electromagnetism and gravity. For more information, please see the attached presentation. Skip over project 1 and see project 2 and 3 used together at the end of the file. This research is for people with experience with microwave RF and microwave magnetic materials.
The refractive index is obtained owing to classical electrodynamics. Is there any way to know how much momentum the electron gains when light incident on a dielectric material? How does the momentum of the electron depend on the refractive index ?
I have the dimensions of an electromagnet comprising a 0.8mm diameter copper wire, which is used to make a coils around 11mm X 13 mm rectangular cross section core material. The dimensions of the coil after wounding around the core is 25mm X 23mm cross section and 17.6 mm height.
So, how to find the effective number of turns in this for calculating M.M.F and also what other properties can be calcuated from this?
Inertia, by definition, is a concept of measuring the “change”, the resistance, in the “natural state” of a body in motion. Is it thus correct to suggest that the idea of a “natural state” is exactly what a theory of everything would entail, and thus would not include the idea of “inertia”, would not include the deliberate man-made “changing” of bodies in motion, bodies in motion that would ideally primarily yield to fundamental field forces? Is not “inertia” a man-made theoretical concept to highlight how we are able to “resist” bodies in motion, to change the natural course of mass, as a “disruptor” within an otherwise ideal “theory of everything” manifest as the natural state of reality? The big question is then, “can using the idea of inertia provide for a link between the most fundamental field forces of gravity and electromagnetism” in achieving a grand unified field force theory of time and space?
This paper is a project to build a new function. I will propose a form of this function and I let people help me to develop the idea of this project, and in the same time we will try to applied this function in other sciences as quantum mechanics, probability, electronics …
Hi,
Is there any tips that can make finding modes for fibers, such as photonic crystal fibers, an easy process?
Thanks.
I am looking for a Hall effect sensor that can be interfaced with the Arduino board for measuring the flux densities of permanent magnets(NdFeB 40, NdFeB 42 etc.) at varying distances from the Magnet's surface.
I am looking for a solid core material for DC electromagnet design, but could not find any. I found only hiperco 50 material, but it's price 123$/kg too expensive. Would you suggest me suitable and avaliable core material on the market.
The waelength of the CMBR is about 10^-3 metres, what is the longest wavelenght or lowest frequency of electromagnetism detected in a vacuum.
Please do not include ULF electromagnetic frequecies as these have to go through a solid (the planet Earth)
Many thanks in advance for your replies
Can I please ask for good articles/papers/ thesis on Flat Lens Antenna to study? Is it metamaterial or antenna having a metamaterial at the back?
I am looking at this:
Trying to understand what is this?
Thank you
If you had a design for an electromagnet core that required it to be assembled out of several parts would it still produce as strong a magnetic field as the same core but made out of a single piece?
My thinking is that the magnetisation may not be as effective across the boundary between two metal components that are touching as opposed to a solid piece of metal but I am unsure as to how detrimental that would actually be.
I need some help. I am involved in calculating numerically the potential and electric field solutions in the 3D space of the classical problem of a disk with radius r0, biased at potential V0, surrounded by a circular crown of a flat dielectric (from r0 to rb), and this in turn by a flat infinite conductor at V=0. The three elements are located, for convenience, in the Z=0 plane, and the disk axis coincides with the Z axis (angular or acimutal symmetry).
I realize this is a problem involving 3 boundary conditions in separate domains, and with 'hybrid' character, because in the dielectric the only thing we can say is that the vertical component of the electric field (Ez), or potential derivative in the z direction (dV/dz), is null (by smmetry). This is what literature considers an "triple integral equation system with hybrid boundary conditions".
I follow the guidelines proposed in books and formulate the solution for the potencial V(r, z=0) in the dielectric region in terms of series of Bessel functions.
My problem is that I am able to solve the series coefficients for V defining a domain for the Bessel funtions up to a distance rh > rb (well inside the grounded conductor), without using the hybrid boundary condition dV/dz=0. In fact, the problem is that my solution meets well the condition V(r)= V0 (for 0 < r < r0), and V(r)=0 (for rb < r < rh), but does not meet the condition dV/dz = 0 in r0 < r <rb. If I try to impose this condition, apparently the only solution is the trivial one, null. What am I doing wrong?
(I know the analytical solutions of the triple integral equation system proposed by Duffy for the so-called A(k) function, but I wanted to formulate the problem in terms of discrete series, and not continuos functions). Can someone help me with this?
Wavelength of light is an obvious factor, but this is not my point of question
Some specific questions are
- What can be molecular/atomic level mechanism behind temperature and density dependence of refractive index?
- refractive index is square root of product of relative (electric) permittivity and relative (magnetic) permeability of a medium. How a ceramic/glass/polymer structure can attain high relative permittivity (higher dielectric constant means more polar groups in polymers, more charge imbalance in ceramics) and high relative permeability (aromatic groups and ferromagnetic ligand centers in polymers, second one also for ceramics) without losing transparency?
- how phase angle of complex permittivity and permeability of a medium depends upon its structure (e.g. factors mentioned above, bulk of chain and steric effect in polymers, photon propagation and phonon-mediated dipole oscillation of ceramics, chemical substitutions in ceramic structure)?
- Why some atoms elevate refractive index of ceramics and some substituent groups elevate refractive index of polymers more than others? While atomic/ionic polarizability can be explained from fajan's rule and pearson's HSAB theory, and magnetic behaviors can be explained from magnetic spin, electronic configuration (and spin exchange between nearby atoms); have there been any comprehensive work combining all these aspects to predict refractive index elevation?
if there is somebody who can help me with modeling an electromagnet 12V Dc and a piece of material placed on the electromagnet core to study the effect of current flux on the mechanical properties of the material.
I made an iron powder core of the following specifications:
Radius : 65mm
Length : 10mm
Mass of iron used : 10% mass fraction (20g)
Total mass : 200g
Binder : Slow cure epoxy
I noticed that after curing, the iron powdered settled at the bottom and formed a thin layer. The core also did not increased the magnetic field strength of the magnet. As I don't have enough epoxy to make more cores, I'm wondering if anyone know if the lack of improvement is due to the amount of iron used, the fact that the iron settled at the bottom of something else I may not have considered.
Any help or tip is very much appreciated. Thanks !
Looking for some good FEA software that is not cost prohibitive.
I am looking for benchmarks in educational studies that investigated the benefits, obstacles and disadvantages regarding the use of simulation software to support teaching at undergraduate level. It would be interesting to see results both from a teaching perspective as well as the learning outcomes and benefits to the students' understanding of STEM. It could be applied to any field in which simulation software is used (structures, fluids, electromagnetism, etc).
Dear Sirs,
I think many knows the ideas due to Jules Henri Poincaré that the physics laws can be formally rewriten as a space-time curvature or as new geometry solely without forces. It is because the physics laws and geometry laws only together are verified in the experiment. So we can arbitrary choose the one of them.
Do you know any works, researchers who realized this idea. I understand that it is just fantasy as it is not proved in the experiment for all forces excepting gravitation.
Do you know works where three Newtons laws are rewritten as just space-time curvature or 5D space curvature or the like without FORCES. Kaluzi-Klein theory is only about electricity.
Hi,
I'm attempting to create nonlinear metamaterial structures in comsol and I don't know how to measure second harmonic generation.
How do I measure that frequency x goes into structure and generates frequency 2x ?
Thanks for any help.
Is there any software (preferably MATLAB) for computing the E field resulting from a short dipole above a stratified media? I found something for a line source, but not a dipole.
The general term of the current reads
J_total=J_conduction+J_Displacement.
Where in most cases J_C obeys Ohms law and J_D=epsilon dE/dt.
Usually when a capacitor is disconnected from the electric circuit the the condition current is zero and so is J_t=0.
What will happened if I now intentionally adding a time dependent electric field between the capacitor plates (not sure if it's possible so it may be considered as a though experiment)?
My thought is that J_C will cancel somehow the displacement current in order to maintain J_t=0 since there can't be current outside the capacitor.
Is this analysis true or false? am I missing something? What is the meaning of conduction current in this case?
I need to build a continuous electromagnet, B=1-2 T, narrow hysteresis loop, good linearity (to have the flux density easily adjustable). Application - MeV electron beam deflection. I'll be grateful for any advice.
I am following the below method so far & need guidance to further modify it:
1) Making a specimen
2) Making an Electromagnet using prepared specimen
3) Using DC & AC Source to find BH- Curve
4) Calculate Permeability from graph by taking respective points
Please make your suggestions regarding all 4 points
Most people say that electro-magnet of strength more than 2 Tesla is not possible without superconductor.
Please tell me why ?
Regards
Nityananda Das
Is it possible to make a 4 Tesla or 5 Tesla magnet at 5 mm air gap. Air cooled.
Regards
Nityananda Das
Estoy trabajando con algunos alumnos Elementos Finitos para Electromagnetismo. Me interesa también la formulación con formas diferenciales.
Me gustaría hiciéramos un trabajo entre grupos.
Me escribes cuando puedas cpiedrahita@udem.edu.co.
Saludos cordiales,
CarlosP
In an electromagnetic field the flow of energy is given by the Poynting vector. For an electromagnetic wave, this vector is in the direction of propagation and accounts for radiation pressure. However, in a static electromagnetic field the Poynting vector can of course be non-zero. It's not easy to understand how there can be a 'flow' of energy in a static situation. Please discuss.
Hi, everyone! I want to use fluent's MHD module to simulate, using electromagnet to generate a rotating magnetic field, which can induce current in liquid metal and make liquid metal flow. How can I add the time-varying rotating magnetic field to the MHD module? How to write magnetic field files in .mag form? Can anyone help me out?
Does anyone know if the poisson solver will enable the calculation of capacitance between electrodes with a cylindrical structure?
Bonnor and Bondi suggest that GR predicts antigravitational interactions between negative masses. Jame Farnes points out that Newtonian mechanics suggest the same. But in electromagnetism interactions, same particles sign results in the same interaction, and only different signs behave different. Why choose one insted of the other?
Hi,
I'm trying to couple electrical circuit physics with frequency domain em wave.
In my simulation a wave of some frequency propagates through a split ring meta atom.
I have set lumped ports in the split gap of my split ring, and am attempting to connect a circuit element in my split gap to my split ring (eventually attempt to mimic a varactor diode but for now just a diode +resistor combination will do).
Whenever I run this, I get:
Failed to find a solution.
Maximum number of Newton iterations reached.
Returned solution is not converged.
Even if I change the iterations to 100/200 etc and even if I increase my relative tolerance.
I have tried a fine mesh and it takes a very long time and still has the same issue.
Any suggestions for helping the simulation converge?
Or even tips for linking circuit elements to 3d models in comsol as I'm new to the whole coupling physics functionality.
Thanks!
Hello,
I would like to know how to deduce the amount of current flowing through a solid volume , when current is applied in the form of current density 'J' (A/m2).
Example: As shown in the image attached, the solid body is a rectangular volume which acts as a coil in a electromagnet. In the simulation model I am building , the current flowing through the coil has to be input in terms of current density. The total volume is about 4.5 x e-6 m3 . A current density of 1e6 A/m2 is applied to the body.
As current density J=I/A , if applied to a 2D surface area, it is pretty straight forward to calculate the current flowing through the area.
What is the formulation to calculate the current in amperes for the volume?
Hi folks,
I am going to find the band structure of a 1D photonic crystal waveguide by COMSOL. There is an example in application library for 2D photonic crystal with a 2D geometry. In the example the refractive index of materials are frequency dependent, and a nonlinear formulation is used to normalize the field in a unit cell and finding the frequency and so updating refractive indices. It is exactly the point that I need to understand completely, since material dispersion is important for me, too. However, I can not figure out how the nonlinear formulation for the field normalization works and how I can utilize the same principle for a 3D geometry. I would be really grateful if somebody can help me.
Thanks for your attention,
Zeinab
Dear all:
I hope someone can give me some insight to this problem.
Considering that I have a micro size metallic particle. Lets say a symmetric Gold cubic particle, about 6 micrometers of lenght.
What physical framework do I have to use if I want to find the Electric Field distribution coming out from this particle ?
Will Maxwell Equations be enough for this case ? Ohm's Law ? some consideration of some Quantum Mechanical Effects ? Consideration of Plasmons ?
I'am posing this problem cuz I'm attempting to solve an Octahedral Gold particle of these dimensions in COMSOL Multiphysics, where I need to compute the E field distribution. Therefore I continue thinking if is as straightforward as to set the system of linear PDEs using just Maxwell Equations and Ohm's Law, and obtain physical representative results.
Please, any insight will be helpful
Regards ! :)
Hello everyone,
I am searching for references in numerical modelling of fully-coupled electromagnetism with FEM for high frequency applications? I am particularly focussed on induction heating of magnetic polymers with hysteresis losses at high frequency alternating external magnetic fields.
Any help is very much appreciated!
Thank you in advance!
The transformation of two "colliding" photons into a pair of particle / anti-particle was experimentally observed already. But the observed particles are always electrically charged.
1. If such a transformation takes place in vacuum, and the pair annihilates after a short time, then no interaction with other real particles occurs (apart from virtual particles in vacuum). If under these circumstances a pair of magnetically charged particles were generated, could the mass of each particle roughly equal the mass of an "otherwise similar" electrically charged particle? I.e., if we permit the existence of magnetic monopoles at all for the moment, could we assume magnetic counterparts to electron and positron, for example, without immediately generating paradoxes? (The theoretical lower limit for the mass of magnetic monopoles in condensed matter is usually calculated as being much larger than the mass of an electron.)
2. If magnetic monopoles were generated by photon/photon collisions, do you think they could be / would be detected under the standard experimental conditions? (For example, the usual spiral shaped paths would occur only in a strong electric field instead of the usual magnetic field. And besides that, the use of a cloud chamber is incompatible with the above assumption "no interaction with other real particles".)
3. If the anwer to question 2 is "no", do you know of attempts to observe magnetic monopoles generated by two photons? (If I'm not mistaken previous attempts to prove the existence of magnetic monopoles were directed toward single, relatively long-lasting monopoles, not necessarily generated inside the experimental setup.)
Many thanks in advance for answers and links to publications related to this topic!