Magnetism is overlooked in physics

[MuppetBabyX]

Yes. it would change. Magnetism is a VERY overlooked part of physics. From the work I have done, magnetism is the key that science is missing to describe all of its phenomenons doings.

Mass = Magnetic Flux in Teslas ( frequency in sec ^2 - current). even electrons have mass. Noone has been able to prove this formula for mass of wrong yet. Any takers? All it will take is one person to prove it wrong.

 

And if you take M=T(S^2-A) and inject M in Einsteins equation of E=MC^2 you get a workable unified feild theory. so it would be E=T(S^2-A)Planks constant. Since things do go faster than the speed of light. And you have Einsteins relativity fixed to actually describe nature and the universe.

[swansont]

Mass = Magnetic Flux in Teslas ( frequency in sec ^2 - current). even electrons have mass. Noone has been able to prove this formula for mass of wrong yet. Any takers? All it will take is one person to prove it wrong.

 

It's up to you to show that it's right.

 

But how about this: the proton and neutron have almost the same mass, differing by less than 1%. How is it that they don't have basically the same magnetic moment? The neutron's is -9.66236x10^-27 J/T and it's 14.106067 x 10^-27 J/T for the proton

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magnetic_moment#Elementary_particles

[Klaynos]

Yes. it would change. Magnetism is a VERY overlooked part of physics. From the work I have done, magnetism is the key that science is missing to describe all of its phenomenons doings.

Mass = Magnetic Flux in Teslas ( frequency in sec ^2 - current). even electrons have mass. No one has been able to prove this formula for mass of wrong yet. Any takers? All it will take is one person to prove it wrong.

 

Are you familiar with dimensional analysis?

 

Magnetic flux in Tesla doesn't make sense as Tesla is the unit of magnetic flux density.

 

I'm pretty sure that neither have the dimension of mass though, so the equation is not physically realised within the universe.

[ydoaPs]

Mass = Magnetic Flux in Teslas ( frequency in sec ^2 - current). even electrons have mass. Noone has been able to prove this formula for mass of wrong yet. Any takers? All it will take is one person to prove it wrong.

 

One Tesla is one kilogram per Ampere square second ([math]T=\frac{kg}{Cs}[/math]).

 

So, let's try out some dimensional analysis:

 

[math]\frac{kg}{Cs}(\frac{1}{s}-\frac{C}{s})=\frac{kg}{Cs}(\frac{1-C}{s})=kg\frac{1-C}{Cs^2}[/math]

 

Yep, you're wrong. And that's not even addressing the meaninglessness of your terms. Frequency of what? Current of what? You say it can apply to individual particles. They have no current.

 

Let's even go with what can only be a typo (since frequency is not measured in s²).

 

[math]\frac{kg}{Cs}(s^{2}-\frac{C}{s})=kg\frac{s}{C}-kg\frac{1}{s^2}=kg(\frac{s^3}{Cs^2}-\frac{C}{Cs^2})=kg\frac{s^3-C}{Cs^2}[/math]

 

Any way you slice it, your "mass" doesn't have the units of mass.

Edited May 27, 2012 by ydoaPs

[nieuwenhuizen]

I could not agree more! I am impressed by the unbelievable strength of the magnets in (srapped) hard disks and disappointed to find how much info is on internet on electromagnetism and how little if you scratch 'electro' off. I would say magnetism is one branch of physics, electro phenomena another, and they are differen but interrelated. I have made a setup to measure force versus distance, but since that works out to grams versus millimeters the accuracy is almost zero.

 

As unit of magnetism I would expect to be defined as force at a distance(wiki/oersted: The oersted is defined as a dyne per unit pole.[citation needed] The Oersted is 1000/4π (≈79.5774715) ampere per meter, in terms of SI units.[3][4][5][6]), but I agree that a magnet that produces 1 Newton at 1 meter distance must be a fiction.

 

That the relation must be similar to that of gravity ( F = m1 . m2 / r^2 ), which is sometimes, but seldom found in literature, is useless without the definition of 'centre of magnetism', but it did realize me that gravity if by far the most unstable process I know of. I tried to find a method to shield the North Pole from South without success. Obviously I tried copper. I am open for suggestions for other materials.

 

Can anybody explain to me the necessity to define H as distinguished from B? How can I measure the magnetic field strength H different from calculating it back from a measured 'Induction' ( without electicity ) B? I thought I had found one in wiki/Magnetic_field#Definitions.2c_units.2C_and_measurement::4.5 :Torque on a dipole: as H fields..., but when you read it you will see that the result is \tau = \mu_0 H ...., so that the title does not cover the conents, it is only B that counts. Does the field strength increase if I introduce a 5mm strong iron plate into the field?

 

What I am looking for is partners in a discussion to understand more of this I feel neglected subject in physics.

 

N

[ydoaPs]

I could not agree more! I am impressed by the unbelievable strength of the magnets in (srapped) hard disks and disappointed to find how much info is on internet on electromagnetism and how little if you scratch 'electro' off.

 

That's because it's the same thing.

[nieuwenhuizen]

<br />That's because it's the same thing.<br />

<br /><br /><br />

 

It is not. An apple will never become a pear.

[insane_alien]

the only difference is the source of the magnetic field.

 

both sources are well understood. the use of a current carrying coil results in a much better field for scientific study as it can be replicated around the world and can be controlled much better than a permanent magnets field. ie. it is much better for performing experiments on.

 

this is like arguing the difference between full serum and chemically defined growth media. both can grow cell cultures but your chemically defined medium will produce better reproducibility because it has less variation in its source components.

 

in short, it doesn't matter what the origin of the field is, magnetism is magnetism.

[ydoaPs]

<br /><br /><br />

 

It is not. An apple will never become a pear.

 

Good thing we're not talking about fruit. Electric fields and magnetic fields are relativistic transforms of each other. They literally are the same thing.

[Janus]

<br /><br /><br />

 

It is not. An apple will never become a pear.

 

Yes it is. Whether is is a permanent magnet or a current carrying coil, it is all electromagnetism. Electric and magnetic fields are not separate things, they are two aspects of one thing. It is just unfortunate that we happen to use the term "electromagnet" for a particular type of device in order to distinguish it from a permanent magnet and use "electromagnetism" for the science that describes both.