Hello Emmanouil:

This is excellent question to find about interactive synergistic effect of electric to magnetic action tensor quantum fields.

One of the analyses has brought the following:

It seems that if it is electric or magnetic flux line has dependence on the surface that the tensor or vector sticks out. One may simplify looking at like the character of the surface normal to be either electric in nature or magnetic in nature, that may show observable in polarization terms. Magnetic tensor have precessing property like the Bohr magneton, whereas electric tensor have more translational property, that they move towards each other, lke electrons and positrons or protons. Water molecules with molecular chemistry coagulates coming together to form structures extending to large macrospaces with bonds that have charge properties. Whereas the microwave heating property is linked to magnetic tensor precessing within the proton and oxygen ion bond symmetry, amongst other aspects.

My agreement with your statement that: "electricity and magnetism are actually no separate phenomena but entangled into one we call electromagnetism and which is expressed with its two interchangeable forces, electric and magnetic as described by Maxwell electromagnetic classical theory".

Hope that we will have more observable clarifications with progressing measurements.

Thank you with everything ongoing.

Sincerely,

Rajan Iyer

ENGINEERINGINC INTERNATIONAL OPERATIONAL TEKNET EARTH GLOBAL

Dear Emmanouil Markoulakis

I hope you are doing well.

IMO, there is an interesting statement in the book that is widely famous in teaching electromagnetism (I am considering it as a reference to teach my students) (Engineering Electromagnetic, Hayt, (6th edition) section 8.5, P.252, Line 10). It states that (and I quote)

"The charge Q is the source of the lines of electric flux and these lines begin and terminate on positive and negative charge, respectively). NO SUCH SOURCE HAS EVER BEEN DISCOVERED FOR THE LINES OF MAGNETIC FLUX."

This is why the div.B = 0, while the div.D = Q or Epsi.

Certainly, you are familiar with these equations. However, I liked to mention these differences in this interesting debate.

Thank you very much.

Yours sincerely,

Dear Farooq Abdulghafoor Khaleel ,

Thank you for your input.

Given that the elementary source for the electric field is the electron charge and for the magnetic field the intrinsic magnetic dipole moment of the electron caused by its spin (i.e. Quantum Magnet) we see that in both cases the source is the same namely the electron at rest without any translational motion examined.

Therefore it is logical to deduce that both electron monopole electric lines of force and electron magnetic dipole lines of force could discretely coexist simultaneously in space around the electron. However, IMO this is an impossibility and would defy the unification of electromagnetism.

My model and research shows that there is only one kind of dynamic energy flux (i.e. stream of virtual photons) manifold, consisting the electron particle field and what we experience as electric monopole force or magnetic dipole force of the electron are the two vectorial components of this complex 1/2 spin flux manifold of the electron's electromagnetic field.

As a rough analog more like a whirlpool where we experience both due the vortexing action an inward centripetal force (analog to magnetic dipole moment) but also at the same time a whirlpool has a centrifugal action at its periphery (analog to the electric force). The two force vectors describing the flux velocity trajectory of the whirlpool are perpendicular to each other and positioned not in the same plane but in two different planes at 90°. So in analogy the vertical vector component of this unified flux represents the magnetic lines of force of the electron and the horizontal its electric lines of force.

https://www.horntorus.com/particle-model/mm-index.html

There will be soon I hope a publication by me describing and analyzing this possible electron flux unification model.

Kind Regards,

Emmanouil

Dear @Emmanouil Markoulakis,

Thank you for this elaborated justification and amazing proposals. I hope your paper will be published soon. I have two questions if you dont mind?

1) Does this means the div.B will equal the number of 1/2 spin electrons in the magnetics material that are responsible for the lines of forces at the periphery of the whirlpool?

2) If my understanding is correct and the answer to 1 is correct. Does this mean that the 4th law of Maxwell's equations should be updated? What about other laws that rely on this law (For example, the wave equations in antennas and waveguides??)

Thank you very much for these interesting ideas.

Yours sincerely,

Dear Farooq,

Thank you for you very in depth and precise questions you have asked me.

curl H = dD/dt + J. I don't believe the case I'm discussing affects in any way Ampere's law since there is no transnational motion of the electron examined but the free electron is hypothetically stationary fixed in space with no translational or orbital motion but only its intrinsic spin.

Also keep in mind that according to my research the quantum unified flux of the single electron I describe at rest with no transnational motion, decoheres at the macroscopic scale of electromagnetism. So I don't expect any violations of the classical theory by my theory but in case it is published I am open for any post-peer review.

Nevertheless, your help here is invaluable and I had like to thank for your questions and concerns which will help me to find any loopholes in my theory. That is actually the reason why I have asked this question here in RG?

Kind Regards,

Emmanouil

Dear Dr. Emmanouil,

Thank you for your detailed answer. I wish you all the best and I hope your paper will be published soon.

Yours sincerely,

Thank you Dr. Rajan Iyer,

For your insight and helpful comments.

Emmanouil

A magnetic line of force might simply be an electrostatic force channelled along a double helix of rotating electron-positron dipoles that fill all of space.

I believe it depends on the atomic and molecular structure as well the magnetic domains if any, structure inside a material.

A ferromagnetic material like iron for example allows a large number of its electrons (unpaired electrons) to align their magnetic moments with that of an external field and therefore this material becomes magnetized. So using the whirlpool example the net effect is, the whole material to behave like the center of a whirlpool (magnetic moment) and thus the magnetic component of the

collective electromagnetic force at the macroscopic scale is exposed from the material. Static electric charge polarization in a piece of metal quickly reaches electrostatic equilibrium via translational displacement of its free charges from their relaxed state and storage of charge is not possible in an conductor material under an external applied electric field.

In contrast in an insulator or else called dielectric material when it is also not a magnetic material (usually called diamagnetic material) has no unpaired electron magnetic moments to align unidirectional and therefore these materials do not respond to magnetism and do not mediate the magnetic force component of electromagnetism.

However, these materials respond to and mediate the electrical component of the electromagnetic force thus the electron orbits are anisotropically stretched or rotated (or both) unidirectional. In analogy to our whirlpool example it is like if the perimeter of the whirlpool is stretched or towards a specific direction or the whirlpool plane is rotated to a specific direction or both phenomena in combination can occur. However in these materials there are no unpaired electrons which can collectively align their magnetic moments (Pauli's exclusion principle). Also their paired electron magnetic moments in their atom are oriented anti parallel and therefore these pairs are magnetic neutral.

This is best illustrated in the attached figures.

Red arrows represent the magnetic moments of the electrons.

It is like many different whirlpools aligning and stretching their plane towards the same direction. However, these whirlpools in space imagine are not uniformly placed in space, some are up side down similar to spin up and spin down magnetic moments.

Text copyright©Emmanouil Markoulakis HMU 2021

illustrations source and credits: https://partyideas.purpletrail.com/how-do-magnets-work/

©2007 How Stuff Works

Emmanouil Markoulakis, But we can have magnetic and electrostatic field lines outside of atomic and molecular matter.

Dear Frederick,

That is true. However this does not change in general anything in this case. Macroscopic electromagnetic interactions between macroscopic matter objects will in general mimic the atomic behavior (with some degree of decoherence allowed).

Ferromagnetic macroscopic matter responds to both of the magnetic and electric field component (by creating electric current in case of a circuit) of electromagnetism. But remain charge neutral thus cannot hold any charge polarization due their free electrons.

Diamagnetic insulators ideally respond only to the electrical vector not by conducting electrical current in a d.c. circuit but because being able to hold their charge polarization,

and ferromagnetic insulators like ferrites (i.e. metal oxides) respond to both the magnetic vector component and also electrical component by being able to be charge polarized but do not conduct electric current in a circuit.

Of course there are also variations of magnetic materials depending they degree of their magnetization dictated by their magnetic domains magnetization strength and overall relative orientation of these magnetic domains in the material, like paramagnetic materials such as aluminum, bulk magnetite which is ferrimagnetic and so on etc.

Please notice that in the case of diamagnetic materials this does not mean that an external magnetic field cannot penetrate the material (as in the case of superconductors) but instead it means that only antiparallel polarity magnetic domain pairs are formed which will cancel any magnetization and will keep the material magnetic neutral under an external applied magnetic field.

Emmanouil

Dear Emmanouil, That is an accurate factual summary. A magnetic line of force however is a more complex affair than an electrostatic field line. As you have shown, the magnetic dipoles already contain charged particles which have electrostatic fields anyway, irrespective of their alignment. The magnetic line of force is in effect, an electrostatic field line constructed from a specific alignment of dipoles.

When a north pole magnet is pulled towards a south pole, this can be explained as an electrostatic attraction channeled along lines of force that are comprised of double helices of electrons and positrons that fill all of space.

Inside ponderable matter, such as ferromagnetic materials, the atoms themselves are aligned in sympathy with the magnetic field, and indeed are the actual source of the field. In paramagnetic materials on the other hand, it is the magnetic field that causes the atoms to align in sympathy. Diamagnetic materials seem to be impermeable to magnetic field lines penetrating them.

Dear Frederick,

IMO, simply put what I want to say is that both types of flux lines and fields, electrostatic or magnetostatic are made up of from the same "thread material" (i.e. are using the same thread) and what differentiates the two fields is their flux manifold.

Regarding now the common and same quantum elementary source of these two possible discrete types of electromagnetic field, this is the electron mass-dimensionless point particle positioned in my model at center of its rest mass confined dynamic electromagnetic flux manifold shown below in my model:

https://www.horntorus.com/particle-model/mm-index.html

Both of its electric flux representing its electric charge and its magnetic flux representing it magnetic dipole moment are embedded in a single electromagnetic flux dynamic 4-dimensional manifold as shown in the above animation.

The above flux unified quantum model for the electron at rest with no transnational motion starts to decohere as soon it interacts with other electromagnetic charges and finally reverts to classical electromagnetism at the macroscopic scale.

My thesis is that the origin of electromagnetism unified phenomenon and why its two expressed discrete forces electric and magnetic are interchangeable is this complex 1/2 spin dynamic flux manifold I present in the above animation.

Do go even deeper in my research If you analyze this manifold you discover that the above animated model for the electron is actually product of a single relativistic velocity 1/2 spin twisted photon (i.e. deformed Boson resulting to a spin 1/2 instead of spin 1 which is normally the characteristic spin of bosons).

Yes in my theory the electron fermion is actually a stable deformed twisted photon manifold (i.e. unknot) occupying a volume in space:

https://www.horntorus.com/particle-model/e_spin-up.html

Kind Regards,

Emmanouil

p.s. I don't know if this dynamic manifold is close to your double helix electron-positron pair manifold. Mine is more close to an unknot manifold. Needless to say that in my theory a normal spin 1 photon, its manifold is a 2D circle. Therefore a normal photon does not occupy a volume (i.e. is not a 3D entity) in space and therefore cannot interact with the Higgs field thus a massless particle.

©Emmanouil Markoulakis Hellenic Mediterranean University 2021.

Dear Emmanouil, I would say that it is more a case of the magnetic field line being a compound manifestation of an electrostatic field line, as explained here,

Article An Interpretation of Faraday's Lines of Force

Without the electron-positron sea, we will never be able to make any sense out of magnetic fields in space.

IMO the observation that each (magnetic and electric forces) can be created from the other suggests one is primal and the other is derivative. That is, it's a philosophical issue now - to be decided by which type of model (primal electric or primal magnetic) yields the Kuhnian paradigm shift. IMO that is the primal magnetic property of the most elementary particle. Because photons have differing energy levels, the most elementary particle must be a component of photons.

Oh yes I agree with your positron-electron sea theory as the medium we call empty space. My only objection is that this is out of phase with our spacetime and that this is the exact reason we perceive space not as matter but as empty.

https://www.researchgate.net/project/Superluminal-Multiphased-Spacetime-Theory-MPST-2

Best Regards,

Emmanouil

Dear Emmanouil, I'm about to publish a paper explaining that the electron-positron sea actually is Minkowski's 4D space-time continuum. It might be out later today.

Dr. Hodge, I'm pretty sure that you cannot create an electrostatic field from a magnetic field. However, I'm also sure that a magnetic field line is an electrostatic field line channelled along a double helix of electrons and positrons, through an electrically neutral electron-positron sea.

Dear Emmanouil, the reason why we perceive a dense electron-positron sea as empty space, is because it moves freely through the interstitial spaces between the atoms and molecules of ponderable matter. The electron-positron sea is ordinary matter with mass and reacts to gravitational force, but we wouldn't call it ponderable matter because we cannot weigh it using apparatus that is made of atomic and molecular matter, because this apparatus is not impermeable to the electron-positron sea. It would be like trying to weigh a basket full of water on the scales. The water pours out through the holes in the basket.

Frederick David Tombe

Perhaps in your model. I suggest the close relation shown in experiment and the concept of one being primal is a criteria for a model. In my model (STOE) the magnetic effect is primal and it does induce an electric field. But the STOE does not use a electron-positron field. It uses much simpler components of the universe.

Frederick and John,

I guess that makes three plausible explanations for why space medium is perceived and generally measured as empty :)

Emmanouil

Dr. Hodge, When has a magnetic field ever been known to induce an electrostatic field?

Dear Emmanouil, The electron-positron sea explains the effects of General Relativity. See here,

Article Centrifugal Force in the Schwarzschild Field

Okay Frederick acknowledged . Anyway my thesis is not trying to explain what empty space is and this is outside the scope of my question here. Thank you.

Dear Emmanouil, It relates to the physical structure of magnetic lines of force and further explains how the electrostatic force is something more fundamental.

As regards the curl, if we are considering the H vector, the curl is zero in the steady state. But that doesn't mean that it has any kind of equality with the electrostatic field as regards which is the more fundamental. An electrostatic field is simply a radial force field. But a magnetic field is more complicated, involving fine-grained rotation.

Frederick David Tombe

The STOE suggests the electric field is caused by moving electrons, protons, etc. The structure of the particles moving in a plenum (a form of aether without particles) produces vortices - one type for each type of charge. Particles are always moving at temperatures above (near) absolute K. If there is no overall drift, then a static field of the vortices is produced. Speed of vortex movement is much greater than light speed (plenum wave speed). So, de Sangro measured the speed of the coulomb field at much greater than light (he implied rigid field). However, at very low temperature (

Dr. Hodge, Why would you need a vortex to explain an irrotational electrostatic field. What's wrong with a plain irrotational sink?

"Dear Emmanouil, It relates to the physical structure of magnetic lines of force and further explains how the electrostatic force is something more fundamental."

According to my thesis there is not any field of the two more fundamental than the other. Both are embedded into one manifold for the electron.Therefore the unified electromagnetic phenomenon.

cheers

Frederick:

The problem is to have one model that explains a wide range of observations. In the STOE, we also need to explains spin, interference of light an electrons, the photoelectric effect, the atomic structure, etc. not only the double slit, but also Afshar experiment and the transparent mask experiment, Maxwell's equations and the Faraday paradox (moving magnet and conductor problem).

Dear Emmanouil, Consider an electron orbiting a positron. The force of attraction is the electrostatic force, E. Now consider above it another electron, directly above the positron and it is orbiting another positron directly above the first electron. The two rotating dipoles will attract each other in the axial direction. This will also be an electrostatic force, but this time it will be a magnetic force too. Electrostatics is more fundamental than magnetism.

Now if we say that the circumferential momentum of these orbiting particles is A, then curl A = B. The magnetic vector B is a vorticity and not a force.

There is no analogy between the electrostatic field E and the magnetic flux density vector B. Magnetism is more complex than electrostatics.

Dr. Hodge, How does the STOE model explain the magnetic force F = qvxB which arises when a charged particle moves through a magnetic field?

The particle has a magnetic field. The magnetic field of the particle reacts to the external magnetic field which moves the particles. In the Stern-Gerlock (sp?) experiment, the electron structure of photons produces 4 lobed magnetic N-S poles which in the magnetic field produces the "spin" 1/2 (720 degree symmetry).

The "spin" is a magnetic interacting with the external magnetic field. Particle is not "charged". Thanks for yur interest.

Again, my thesis is only about a hypothetical single isolated free electron at rest with no translational motion fixed in space and only having intrinsic 1/2 spin thus an intrinsic magnetic dipole moment and charge -e and its rest mass. I don't examine interactions between particles. Interaction between particles is a total different story. The particles when moving translational or orbital get smeared out in space and become topologically more like a small confined wave structure thus a wave-particle and things get much more complex.

We try to describe the structure of the electron at its most fundamental state.

In this state described above according to our theory (I hope will be shortly published) the electron has a single unified flux embedded in a manifold. There is no discrete magnetic or electric flux field. If you like to avoid any confusion you can call this flux, quantum vacuum flux. Thus, a coherent, stable, localized distortion in the vacuum space-time medium which creates the electron.

In our model this distortion of the medium manifested as energy flux IS the electron. This flux creates the electron and not the electron the flux. So yes, this vacuum energy flux is more fundamental in our model than the electron.

What is exactly the nature and constitutes of this vacuum space-time energy flux coherent distortion? We don't know could be similar to a hypothetical microscopic Black Hole dipole or wormhole. In my thesis I ansatz and align to the known theory that each energy transfer flux line (i.e. line of force) is a coherent stable stream of virtual photons. What these virtual photons are? Well known theory predicts that these are entities similar to normal photons that spontaneously pop out from the vacuum space medium. Imagine them as the trails in cloud chamber but now only as constant trails which don't fade out with time. Therefore you could say that the immortal electron is a stable consistent stream of these virtual photons cumming out from vacuum space medium and embedded in an manifold which creates the electron.

https://www.horntorus.com/particle-model/mm-index.html

In the above animation the double horn flux formation of the electron's manifold animation is its intrinsic magnetic moment and all the moving flux on the surface of the sphere is creating its electron charge -e. The mass of the electron is resting at the center of the double horn formation (in mathematics this topology shown in the above animation is called horntorus) at a dimensionless point thus the electron has a dimensionless point mass (mass of the electron and its center of mass are the same). The electron particle is not just this point mass according to our theory but also the vacuum flux field manifold surrounding its point mass.

I believe it is an exciting new theory and story about the origin of the electron source and thus the origin of the Electromagnetic phenomenon. Our model of this theory predicts so far all the known and measured intrinsic properties of the electron , charge, magnetic moment and rest mass by analytical method but also numerical (i.e. simulation) and also by Quantum Emulation (i.e. non-logarithmic simulation using a physical device) experiments.

More on that in my publication soon.

©Emmanouil Markoulakis HMU 2021.

p.s. I'm afraid Frederick our theories describe different phenomena and causes and therefore cannot be directly compared.

Dr. Hodge, The force involved in the Stern-Gerlach experiment is not the F =qvxB force. Can you explain the latter?

Dear Emmanouil, Then what you are looking at is something like this, see attached picture. The momentum in the flow lines will be vector A, such that curl A = B, where B is a vorticity/angular momentum. Meanwhile, the electrostatic field lines will not be curled since there is no transverse component to the electrostatic force field in the static state. Hence curl E = 0.

Any magnetic repulsion will occur in the equatorial plane due to centrifugal force. As for magnetic attraction in the axial plane, that will require another particle of opposite electric charge.

The horizontal vector component of the tangential trajectory defines the E vector in my theory and it has always non-zero divergence and zero curl on the surface of the manifold but I don't want to go now into details. Wait for my publication.

"Any magnetic repulsion will occur in the equatorial plane due to centrifugal force. As for magnetic attraction in the axial plane, that will require another particle of opposite electric charge."

Not if the nature of the electron intrinsic magnetic dipole moment is Gilbertian and not Amperian.

However thank you for your valuable input, these are very good arguments.

Frederick David Tombe

yes it is. v is velocity of particle ( a magnet). B is the exertnal mag field.

Dr. Hodge, The velocity in F = qvxB applies to particles, irrespective of whether or not they are a magnet.

Can you explain this force for a charged particle that is not a magnet?

Dear Emmanouil, Is your E vector an electrostatic field vector sourced in a charged particle?

Dear Frederick,

I don't want to debate here in this link. Let's continue via RG messenger?

Whether it is a source or a sink depends on the electric charge sign. I think I have already give an answer to that via RG messenger.

There are no two discrete different types of flux, magnetic or electic flux.

There is only one unified flux.

Namely the Electromagnetic flux:

Preprint The Electromagnetic Flux

©copyright Emmanouil Markoulakis HMU 2021

A very interesting question. Surprisingly, it is not just fundamental physical, but even concerns medicine (electro- and magnetic therapy). I don't know the final answer. But I think that it is related to the parity of the electromagnetic induction function. As for the imaginary difference between a vortex magnetic field and a "potential" electric field, it was not by chance that I took the word "potential" in quotation marks.

Alexey Orlovsky

In analogy it is tha same as asking, if there is any other difference between a staight streamline of water and a curled one?

There are both water.

Therefore there is only one flux energy.

The Electromagnetic Flux.

For a better understanding of atomic magnetism, we must review the model of the atom. if the paired electrons are on the same circle (orbiter) the notion of pairing has no meaning, since it is necessary to wonder with what force two electrons will be paired. If the pairing prevents the lines of magnetic fields of two electrons to emerge from the atom, necessarily the pairing is done by the lines of magnetic fields of two electrons. These two electrons are movements, the Lorentz force is the only force that can be exerted on these two electrons in the event that the magnetic field lines of one intersect the trajectory of the other. This implies that these two electrons evolve on two juxtaposed planes (one below the other) and not on the same plane.

Pour une meilleur compréhension du magnétisme atomique, il faut revoir le modele de l'atome. si les électrons appariés sont sur un même cercle (orbitre) la notion d'appariement n'a pas de sens, puisqu'il faut se demander avec quelle force deux électrons seront appariés. Si l'appariement empêche aux lignes de champs magnétiques de deux électrons à émerger de l'atome, forcement l'appriement se fait par les lignes de champs magnétiques de deux électrons. Ces deux élctrons sont mouvements, la force de lorentz est la seule force qui peut s'exercer sur sur ces deux électrons au cas où les lignes de champs magnétiques de l'un coupent la trajectoire de l'autre. Ce qui implique que ces deux électrons évoluent sur deux plans juxtaposés (l'un endessous de l'autre) et non sur le même plan.

In simple magnetic simulation using hard permanent magnetic materials the magnetic field outside the magnet can be accurately modelled by placing evenly distributed fictional magnetic charges on the faces of the magnet (and ignoring the magnet). The fields are then identical to the electric fields from electric charges in the same place, and have no curl. Inside the magnet, the flux is given by the difference between the field due to the fictional charges and the magnetisation, and is in opposite direction to the field due to the fictional charges, but outside the magnet it is in the same direction as the field due to the fictional charges which means that when the magnetisation is included with the field due to the fictional charges it has non-zero curl, whereas the electric field from the same charge distribution has zero curl. The magnetic field and electric field have identical forms inside and outside the magnet, but the flux lines are different, inside the magnet.

The electric displacement and magnetic flux density are direct equivalents, and have the same form of equation relating displacement (flux density), field (field) and polarization (magnetization), except for the use of the proportionality constants, and result in the same vector fields. One difference is that although there are permanent magnets, there are not permanently polarized materials, so there is not the electrically polarized equivalent of a permanent magnet, with permanent polarization within it, I think.

It comes down to time. Electric currents flowing through a conductor create a "phase-space" that produces a magnetic field, each out of phase with the other. It's time that creates this 90 degree offset. You can't have phase-space without time. We prove this by producing "electric" flow in a conductor by moving a permanent magnet perpendicular to the conductor over a distance in a period of time. There is no phase-space from a magnetostatic field. That's the difference.

the lines of electrostatic fields are in fact the lines of magnetic fields of the electrons which have a different behavior at the level of the poles, at the level of the positive pole the electron is in orbit around the nucleus, the defficiency of electron in conjunction with gravity causes the electron's magnetic field line to move back and forth, allowing it to attract electrons from a distance towards it. while at the negative pole level the electrons being free but must constantly move to develop lines of magnetic fields which are also the lines of electrostatic fields

The quarks in the nucleus have no kinetic energy, so they do not move in the nucleus, they are static, but the atom is in a medium (for example the earth) which is animated by a speed (for example rotation in the earth around the sun as well as the movement of the sun in space) which gives a relative speed to the atom by extension to the nucleus of the atom then to the quarks and as the quarks have a charge they produce a magnetic field which explains nuclear magnetism. (See my physics treatise) this nuclear magnetism has implications on the juxtaposition of atoms which is done according to a well-established order, the atom thus having two North and South faces because of this nuclear magnetic field like a magnet, two North (or South) faces cannot be juxtaposed and goes as far as ordering matter into carpets (lamellae of atoms or molecules, crystal lattices etc.). Note that the lines of this nuclear magnetic field are not identical to the magnetic lines of the electron that gravitates around the nucleus.Because a component of these lines, because the quarks are static locally at the nucleus, is transformed into a graviton and gradually raised by the quarks that are in the pyramidal structure of the nucleus ((See my physics treatise). An idea of ​​the shape of these nuclear magnetic lines is like a funnel (tornado) with a well-defined direction of rotation.