Sha31

Not inside, but outside, as combined entity (on average). Like molecules of water, which are electric dipoles, yet they still arrange into combined electrically neutral entity, say 'glass of water', that's what I mean. When you take a piece of wood and when it does not interact with magnet, you say it's magnetically neutral, that's what I mean. So, is there some static spatial arrangement of permanent bar magnets that can neutralize magnetic fields around them, make them magnetically neutral as a whole?

For electric fields to neutralize all you have to have is uniform (random) distribution. 10 protons and 10 electrons will pair in 10 electric dipoles known as hydrogen atoms and each will be neutral on average making the area they occupy electrically neutral, unlike magnetic dipoles. Permanent magnets have this uniform distribution of electrons where electric fields neutralize and obviously their magnetic fields do not. Magnetic fields of electrons actually couple and the larger the magnet the stronger net magnetic field will be.

Magnetic fields do not seem to neutralize like electric fields. Magnetic fields always seem to couple without decrease in overall magnitude, so how non-magnetic materials can manage to cancel all the magnetic fields and stay magnetically neutral? To simplify the situation let me rephrase this using 'permanent bar magnets' instead of electrons, and their magnetic dipole moment, as a source for magnetic fields. So, in other words, is there some spatial arrangement of permanent magnets that can neutralize their magnetic fields?

Ok, thank you for your input. I like the bit about stone on a hill. Can someone provide links to articles or papers describing velocities of FREE electrons in vacuum, superconductors or plasma? Can someone provide links to articles or papers describing how exactly can we 'slow down' free electrons, what technology is used, and what is the MINIMUM velocity achieved?

Ok. But, I can model this by simply simulating electric and magnetic field interaction according to classical electromagnetic equations, so why do you think zero-point energy/forces are necessary, how do you conclude they are more "basic" than magnetic and electric forces?

I'm asking you how and why. How particle structure dictates motion of particles? Why electrons repel?

What is electron velocity? Merged post follows: Consecutive posts merged Yes' date=' I know. What I don't know are electron velocities in those distributions and how it was measured. Do you know anything about that? Can we bring electrons to full stop? No, I'm not aware. I'm not even aware of any experimental measurements of electron speed. I'm interested in numbers, in technology used to slow down electrons or measure velocities. Are you aware? Can you provide some reference to some actual numbers? What is the velocity of that electron? How is that velocity measured/calculated? Merged post follows: Consecutive posts merged Can you provide some evidence for that? Wh..?? Wrong about what? Do you mean to say that article is wrong? 1.) Every electron has dipole moment - two magnetic fields, yes/no? 2.) Can this axis (line passing through N/S poles) change orientation, yes/no?

Dear swansont, I have 7 years of university education, physics and computer science, as well as 18 years of experience in experimental physics and manufacturing, actually working in a laboratory. I could just the same tell how you do not understand and have no idea what are you talking about, but that's lousy argument, so if you'd like to disagree with some statement, which is not my question, then just bring on the arguments and stop waving hands. Real physicists should be very interested to know things like this, it would help them keep electrons in one location, help them take more precise measurements... and disprove QM in the same time. -- Anyhow, I'm asking very specific question: about linear velocity of FREE electrons in vacuum, superconductors and plasma. Do you know anything about this? "arbitrarily" (usually) means 'according to human decision', on purpose, at will. So, what you need to show is some experiment that can slow down electrons to around zero velocity. Do you know anything about this?

Not really, the environment is largely magnetically and electrically neutral. Perhaps you are talking about the difficulties of assembling uniform electromagnetic fields to capture electrons and Earnshaw's theorem? I'm not disbelieving anything since I have not seen anything yet. I simply want to learn about relevant experiments. My reason to question is based on the lack of evidence, that's all. I'm talking about velocities like 100-0 m/s. Are you comfortable with photons not being able to slow down?

In my theory photon is electric dipole. Electron-positron pair, two opposite electric fields trying to stick together, but because of magnetic fields, instead of orbiting, they end up spiraling each other describing double-helix, also known as transverse EM wave. I discovered this by chance when I was simulating electron trajectories in magnetic field, I was curious to see how electron and positron interact and I saw they produce spiraling waves where opposite electric and magnetic fields oscillate around each other, just like in the real-world. Can you tell us more about how did you come up with your conclusion?

Can you describe hydrogen atom and bonding of 2xH into H2 molecule more closely? Do electrons in your theory follow classical trajectories? Do you have any equations to describe what are electrons and protons actually doing, who is attracting who with what force, what is their velocity and such?

Where did you get information about 23mil rpm? How much is that when converted to linear velocity? Other than ball falling apart there should be no other limits. Actually, it should even keep its velocity indefinitely... perhaps even speed up as it gets lighter due to radiation.

Yes, they are magnetic poles, north and south magnetic poles, whether you want to think they are caused by real spin or come built-in with each electron. But, I said I'm not talking about that spin, I'm talking about the other two axis perpendicular to the line connecting these two poles, like this: Electron Speedometer http://focus.aps.org/story/v17/st4 - "In a magnetic field, the spin axis of each electron rotates, or precesses, around the field, just as a tilted, spinning gyroscope or top precesses around the vertical gravitational field." I already know about equations and theories, now I want to know about experimental measurements and how exactly can we bring electrons to full stop? I want to know the average electron speed in superconductors and plasma. Please, don't ignore anything. Is <1>de Broglie frequency<1> actually describing <2>linear velocity<2>, or are these two variables independent and each can contribute to total electron energy by itself? Merged post follows: Consecutive posts merged Argument? I'm not arguing, I'm asking for EVIDENCE. You failed to answer the question. I'm asking for REFERENCE, online ARTICLES and published PAPERS describing EXPERIMENTAL MEASUREMENTS. Good bye. Merged post follows: Consecutive posts merged Ok, thanks. That's what I want - numbers. Now, what I'm looking for is some experiment that measures the speed of electrons based on velocity= distance/time, instead of based on momentum. Merged post follows: Consecutive posts merged What is the velocity of that electron? How is that velocity measured/calculated?

I'm asking questions' date=' stop being mysterious, be helpful, if you will. Where do I look? Are you referring to some equation? Reference because I want to learn the theory behind it and I want to know about experimental measurements that can confirm it. Can you now just answer the question without asking me any more questions, please. - What is the minimum electron velocity in low temperature superconductors? [mp']Consecutive posts merged[/mp] I don't see mention of any velocities there. I want to know how to SLOW DOWN electrons, I want to read about electrons being brought to COMPLETE STOP. The problem I have with TVs, accelerators and electron microscopes is that they do not actually measure any velocity, they assume they emit electrons at certain speed based on some voltage they supply to the instrument, but what is the experiment that actually measures electron VELOCITIES?

I challenge you to provide evidence for your claim.

I don't believe you. C'mon, just give me some links with some numbers. All I want is some reference, just give some, or not. Yes, I accept electrons can be accelerated. Now, I want to understand how electron microscope can produce low velocity electrons. I'm also interested to know about how to slow down electrons to zero velocity. And, I want to know average velocities of electrons in superconductors at low temperatures. You mean like this: Yes, that's fine... so what was the velocity? What is the velocity of these electrons on the photo? However, my whole point is to distinguish between ALL the kinetics and mass, so 'linear velocity' as calculated with "v=s/t" is the only acceptable one. Let me rephrase it: 1.) Can de Broglie frequency be zero with non-zero linear velocity? 2.) Can de Broglie frequency be non-zero with zero linear velocity?

Yes, ok. At least we agree there is something strange (impossible) about electron zero velocity. Anyway, I thought you were referring to some experiments. I'm talking about plasma, about free electrons and electron beams. Normally "temperature" is about atoms and molecules, but in any case, if you can show me example of electron plasma or electron beam where electrons can move at some "slow" or different velocities, than you will convince me. But, you see, you don't know what's kinetics and what's mass. Instead of fast moving low-mass charge (electron) that could be slow moving large-mass charge (muon), and you would not know the difference, no? Is ,<1>de Broglie frequency<1> actually describing <2>linear velocity<2>, or are these two variables independent and each can contribute to total electron energy by itself?

Ok, but these two magnetic poles can have any orientation, which we can see when we rotate permanent magnet in hand, so why we could not spin single magnetic dipole (electron) with external magnetic fields just like we can spin bar magnet? I'm talking about axis of rotation that is perpendicular to axis along these two magnetic poles. Ok. Can you just provide some reference to that? There is no mention of any velocities there. Merged post follows: Consecutive posts merged I disagree with all that. Can you provide some evidence to support what you said? Merged post follows: Consecutive posts merged Can you just provide some reference about slowing down electrons? Where do you find that information? Can give some links about that? Now we need zero temperature? Why can't electric and magnetic fields do it anymore? But then, how do you know when you add energy to electrons you are in fact not just increasing their de Broglie frequency? How do we measure electron velocity? What exactly can we measure?

I don't know. I also don't know why are you asking me questions. I've never seen any free electrons moving slowly, nor have I ever heard of slow moving electrons. If you can point me to some examples that should be sufficient to convince me, I'm not arguing, I'm just curious. I tried to google, but I can not find any particular velocities associated with electrons traveling trough different mediums, like there is for light. However, I found something else... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electron_microscope - "The greater resolution and magnification of the electron microscope is because the de Broglie wavelength of an electron is much smaller than that of a photon of visible light." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/De_Broglie_wavelength - "In quantum mechanics, a matter wave or de Broglie wave is the wave (wave-particle duality) of matter. The de Broglie relations show that the wavelength is inversely proportional to the momentum of a particle and that the frequency is directly proportional to the particle's kinetic energy. The wavelength of matter is also called de Broglie wavelength." ...it seems this makes it even harder to distinguish between kinetic energy coming from linear velocity, angular momentum or mass, and now there is this frequency, some "vibration" as well. Merged post follows: Consecutive posts merged I don't know. I just want to see some numbers or range, some velocities, but specifically for electrons. It takes energy to knock electrons out of orbit, so when becoming 'free electrons' they will at least have some velocity proportional to its 'orbital energy', right? I don't know, I'm asking. There is "usual speed" of photons in vacuum, so I expected there are some measurements of electron velocities similar to that. Just how slow can we make electrons go? Can we make them stop completely in one place? Unfortunately article does not mention any velocities. I would think there must be some experimental measurements of electron beams passing through different mediums like vacuum, glass, water...

I didn't mean to say exactly the speed of light, but whatever is their usual speed in vacuum, something a little bit less than lightspeed I suppose. What is the technology and physical principle based on which electron microscopes emit slow electrons? How do they produce different electron energies, how do they slow down electrons? On the other hand, you are not far from what I'm trying to question here. I'm trying to figure out if there is such thing as mass in the real world at all, or is gravity force just an side-effect of different forms of kinetic energy of electromagnetic fields.

Those "particles" are atoms and molecules, not electrons. Can you prove to me electrons can actually go any slower than close-to-light and what is the technology used to achieve this? How can electron microscopes slow down electrons in electron beam, their linear velocity to something like 5,000 m/s? I think electrons, just like photons, can not go any slower than the speed of light. - "If the particles are classical, "spinning" particles, then the distribution of their spin angular momentum vectors is taken to be truly random and each particle would be deflected up or down by a different amount, producing an even distribution on the screen of a detector." This assumption does not need to apply to electron beams and electrons coming from the same source, or any group of electrons with the same velocity, as these electrons might be aligning their magnetic fields according to velocity vector, and most certainly they would be aligning their magnetic fields in relation to each other. So, it should not be surprising this experiment produces these results even if starting assumption does not apply. What are they trying to establish anyway? That angular momentum is constant... or/and ...that ORIENTATION of these two magnetic fields can be only along one axis?

Physicists actually do not refer to physical entities at all' date=' sign is not a description of some material property, it is a description of the EFFECT, i.e. forces of attraction/repulsion, it's a three-dimensional description of motion, action-reaction. So, it is actually mathematical and geometrical property referring to DIRECTION, it has to do with matrix and vector math rather than being a statement about structural make-up of the matter. When looking at the opposite magnetic fields, they only seem to be twirling in different directions, so how do you explain this magnetic interaction with the lack and excess of something? By the way, in my theory magnetic fields are just an effect of motion of electric fields through Aether, like this: [img']http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/f/fe/Airplane_vortex_edit.jpg/250px-Airplane_vortex_edit.jpg[/img] ...so, the "lack and excess" in my theory comes from density differences due to kinetic pressure, compressibility and viscosity of aether (vacuum), where the force will actually have inward radial direction, it will "suck in" like tornadoes and whirlpools do, because of the difference in density distribution. But then, this force can have different directions, both inward and outward regardless of it's original outward flux of the medium and inward force, and so these entities (dynamic itself) like solitons (whirlpools) can both attract and repel, depending on the DIRECTION of their rotation. Ok, I don't see anything wrong with that. But, I also don't see what do you think was wrong to begin with. It's all about direction of displacement, about direction of the force. You might be right, and all that might be the result of only one particle and one force, but the current physics is simply not talking on that level at all, they only describe the "surface" (forces and their directions), while you're trying to describe the essence, so I do not see there is actual disagreement really.