Mr. Markoulakis,

Is it true that as you move through the quantum magnetic field by subdividing it into subsets you record a quantum correlation which arises from the classical magnetic lines of force - flux? In other words can quantum correlation be explained by classical magnetism lines of flux - string matching field theory of some sorts. Because we have observed something like this in cybernetic Econophysical experimental data (Mallick, Hamburger and Mallick (2016, 2017)).

Soumitra K. Mallick CA

for RHMHM School of Mathematical Sciences Thinking

USA, Japan, India

Dear Professor Soumitra K Mallick,

I am aware of your brilliant research and I am inclined to believe although quantum reality tends to get suppressed and transformed at the macroscale level, that with the appropriate tools and newest devices it is possible to bring quantum reality to the macroscale view.

Kind Regards,

Emmanouil Markoulakis

Technological Educational Institute of Crete

Thanks Prof. Markoulis for somewhat of a joint statement on this subject. I hope it endures.

SKM

Diametrically magnetized ring magnet - Total separation of the polar fields shown with ferrolens

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6FgzRGLipeI

(please read description of video)

Emmanouil Markoulakis

Technological Educational Institute of Crete

Fig.2

Some few comments and initial observations made from the above video:

Apart of the outside of the diametrically magnetized ring which again shows two totally separated polar fields, the difference of this diametrically magnetized magnet with other magnets is that if you look inside the ring you see not the pole field view of the magnet but the side field view.

So, according to the classical N-S pole flux model of the magnet you should see flux between the two poles looking inside the ring.

But you DON'T! ?...

Flux inside the ring appears totally separated between the two poles with a black void in between (i.e. Bloch domain wall).

Therefore this piece of photographic experimental is possible evidence of magnetic dipole fields on the quantum level consisting of two separate opposite magnetic monopoles tangent to the domain wall of the magnet.

Magnetic flux is not running as shown with the ferrolens between the two poles but between  each pole and the domain wall. Two joined hemispheres structure.

A possible explanation for the above result would be that ferromagnetic magnetic field mapping sensors (e.g. iron filings, Hall effect sensors etc.) because their high magnetic anisotropy can not show or measure this abrupt turn of the magnetic flux inside the domain wall (quantum ground state of magnet) and therefore may possible were registering all these years, the flux as continuous going directly in the macroscale, from one pole to the other pole the magnet.

The actual domain thickness wall in a normal magnet is about just 100 nm or less thick, a few atoms across. So it is not strange that these sensors could easily miss this observable with the ferrolens, sudden turn in the flux of a magnetic dipole field.

However, it would be possible that since the ferrolens acts like a magnifying lens for magnetism and because it  has lower magnetic anisotropy and therefore is more magnetically isotropic due to its superparmagnetic properties, can easily possible show this existing flux on the lowest potential quantum field of a magnet.

video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6FgzRGLipeI

Emmanouil

Hi Emmanouil,

Is this analogous to surface tension? Does this scale to from what we understand to be surface tension. Thinking EZ water and links to magnetism etc.

I would argue that the picture certainly does not depict a pair of MONOPOLES . A simpler description would be two " old fashioned" magnetic domains ( or radially polarised hoerse shoe magnets which need each other to reduce their combined field energy. The configuration is certainly interesting but not monopolar in origin I suggest. A simple test would be to separate the two semicircles . Unless there is huge magnetic anisotropy , the two halves will sprout more closure domains. A little heating might be needed to allow the domain walls to move. Obviously an evolution within each half would not occur if these really were true monopoles.

Fig.3 Makes you wonder if there is something wrong with the classic iron filing fig(a) field image

Chris,

Normally I would agree with you but this shown field geometry is not specific to this magnet used in the experiment but appears the same for all dipole magnets independent of their physical shape. Although the void separation (i.e. domain wall) between the two polar flux can vary from magnet to magnet.

And this is shown not only by a ferrolens but also on different experiments with different modern magnetic field viewing tools and methods.

For example Fig.3(b) shows the to polar fields separation (dark green) by the domain wall (light green) of a normal axial magnetized ring magnet using a magnetic field viewer film. Fig.3(c) is the field of a cylindrical magnet shown by a ferrolens and (d) again a diametrically magnetized ring magnet inside a ferroliquid tank. All showing clearly the total separation of the two polar fields on magnets.

Also notice because the ferrolens when used with incoherent omnidirectional lighting like an incandescent lamp shows the flux of the filed like a cloud fig3.(c) but when used with a LED lighting strip 360 degrees around the perimeter of the ferrolens, shows a wire-frame pattern of the magnetic flux thus individual magnetic flux lines as shown in the bellow video of the polar field view of a loudspeaker magnet:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4N3IISGdW0I (video demonstration)

Therefore the proposed Quantum field geometry observed by our research can be summarized in fig.4 wire-frame illustration.

The two toroidal polar monopole fields separated by the domain wall in the middle (green disk). Actually the green disk shown in the illustration of fig.4 is not existing but a void of ordinary energy and matter. The thickness of this void domain wall can vary from magnet to magnet as I have said before. We describe the quantum region around the domain wall as Bloch region of a dipole magnetic field.

Only when macroscopic ferromagnetic sensors are used for mapping and visualizing a magnetic field instead of of quantum superparamgnetic or close to nanoscale sensors, we don't see this kind of polar fields separation (e.g. fig 3a, iron filings).

The same picture of the polar fields separation is also shown by the viewer film and other. Essentially, suggesting that dipole magnetic fields projected in 2D are not circles but rather joined semicircles resembling the Greek letter theta θ.

Of course in Euclidean space this are interpreted in a sphere made up by two joined hemispheres. Gyromagnetic ratio γ in this new observed quantum field geometry is preserved from the macroscopic spherical field view(i.e. flux going from N-S poles fig.3a).

Emmanouil

please explain exactly how the images in fig 3 are produced and give the scale ( size) of the magnet. I have no idea what 9s ?)ferro lens is .. faraday rotation in there ?

Quantum field of magnet shown in the ferroliquid tank experiment.

A large diametrically magnetized ring magnet is submerged inside a ferroliquid tank.

Note: field view photos and laser line projector 2D slice of the field. The familiar theta θ pattern of the dipole field is shown.

Emmanouil

Chris,

Fig3b magnet is 3cm OD and 2cm ID axial N-S facial magnetized magnet. Magnet is placed on its side as shown, left and right are the two poles and under a magnetic field viewer film.

Fig3d magnet is a 15 cm diametrically magnetized ring magnet. Top half is one pole (I think the North pole) and bottom half the other pole.

Fig3c cylindrical magnet 10mmX40mm. Placed above the ferrolens on its side. Top is the North pole, bottom the South pole. A small incadescent lamp is placed under the ferrolens center of the magnet.

For more details I'm afraid you have to read the Article published and additional information provided and references at the start of this question thread.

Magnetic field lines as shown are curling between each pole and the ground state domain wall Bloch region of the magnet. Both polar fields are separated by the actual Bloch domain wall thickness about 100nm (void) varying from magnet to magnet and shown magnified by the ferrolens.

Emmanouil

John,

Yes Van der Waals forces play a role for stabilizing the carrier fluid and nanoparicles in a state of equilibrium with very little Brownian motion and when the thin film is inactive thus no external magnetic field is applied but it does not prohibit the movement of the nanoparticles chains (needless) formed under an external magnetic field applied. The nanoparticles are average 10 nm in size and the needles formed when the external field is applied are a few μm long and nm thick. The actuall thickeness of the diluted ferrfluiid thin film encapsulated inside the ferrolens is about 50 μm thick. So the nanoparticle chains (needles) have plenty of space to move freely and align to the magnetic flux of the external field inside the the thin film carrier fluid hydocarbon based. @Rosensweig, Ferrohydrodynamis states that in that thin film configuration the ferrofluid acts more like a gas with more degrees of freedom in its movement when an external magnetic field is applied.

You can observe all this happening and the polarization of the light by the nanochains needles aligned to the external magnetic field applied here in this optical microscopy video:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=suz27yUQOeY (video)

Emmanouil

Chris,

Of course minor magneto optical effects like Faraday effect or Keer effect are present we believe but not to a degree to influence the end result shown by the ferrolens from a macroscale observer reference. Also other minor optical phenomena are greatly reduced due the great transparency of the ferrolens.

The dominant effect here is the polarization of light by the aligned to the external applied field flux, nanochains inside the ferrolens. The nanochains are reflecting back part of the incident light when a external magnetic field is applied. Therefore polarization of light by an active (i.e. external field applied) ferrolens is able to make visible the flux of an applied magnetic field.

Emmanouil

Cheers Emmanouil,

I will research that - thanks

You may like to look at the latest from the idiot factory?

Stonehenge: Intuition and the implicit

https://www.researchgate.net/project/Vision-Space-A-new-form-of-illusionary-space-based-on-perceptual-structure-not-optical-projection

How do I get from the green image of the magnet to the purple image of the ? spatial variation of the Field ? Clearly something is being dug out of the raw data by some image processing . What exactly is that processing ? eg polarisation density / strength or polarisation direction or another .

Chris,

No image processing of any kind. These pictures are resized 10Mpixel pictures taken by the camera no anything else is done.

If you are referring to the ferroliquid tank experiment natural color is golden orange brown. The tank was illuminated with a single white light lamp (actually a flashlight) from its backside and under darkened room conditions this green color came out of the ferroliquid tank.

On the second experiment the purple color is due the red laser line projector used as shown in the photograph.

The zoomed in theta θ pattern photo was taken with the room lights turned off.

Emmanouil

Hello Emmanouil: Finding monopoles would invalidate RQM, such as the Dirac equation, which QM cannot do and must be relativistic instead. The special relativity theory of magnetism, says that magnetic forces must result from moving charges, and from nothing else. How do your measurements comply or not with those points?

Cheers, Ed Gerck

oh yes...it moves. But we will reveal the details only at our next publication...sorry.

Recommended baloney. Researchers expect to find information in RG, not excuses. You may not get attention a second time.

Ed,I agree . I do wonder what motivates this sort of apparent fake news. Who does he think he is kidding??

Hello,

This is an ongoing research. We are not obliged to anyone to disclose any future unpublished information before we are ready and deemed it as appropriate.

This thread had specific questions and presented specific data and is merely an unpublished hypothesis and proposal and novel observation not a hot headed debate thread over any established scientific fact.

And I was specific about not personal attacks and hot headed comments in this thread. If you don't like the proposal discussion here we respect that, you have expressed you opposition that's fine with us and you can leave this thread whenever you like.

Emmanouil Markoulakis

Technological Educational Institute of Crete

Quite so but you are, on this site, expected to address genuine questions about whatever it is that you think you have shown in your material already posted here. As it stands it makes no sense at all to me and would seem to be at odds with every EM textbook . As scientists we are trained not to take things simply on trust.

The short answer is we don't know yet for certain or enough. Much more analysis and validation must be done of these preliminary data. Until then we are reluctant to give out more of our thoughts without some solid analysis on hand.

However, we are hopped for an initial feedback of the results presented here and our outline analysis given from RG instead of blames and personal attacks. We are not stating that we reinvented the wheel but a mere possibility as observed.

Not trusting an analysis given is one thing and is understandable and healthy and constructive dispute is always welcome, but not trusting the experimental results and blaming fellow researchers for fakery is another thing and not the way to go as a respected member.

The best way would be for starters, to simple replicate the experiment proposed here and shown in the video.

Get a ferrocell (we have used the 509 model) five diametrical magnetized stacked together 10mm OD, 7mm ID 3mm height N45 each, ring magnets. We used for ferrocell lighting a 15-high intensity RGB LED with an IR remote lighting strip around the perimeter of the ferrocell positioned 5 cm below the ferrocell. This was just for changing color of lighting. You can use instead a plain 15-high intensity White LED lighting strip instead.

Place ring magnet on top of the ferrocell center in a darkened room or lab and use a high definition camera with zoom and macro function for close ups.

Alternatively, the ferocell we have found with the most holographic depth information is the 100mm demonstration ferrocell. Place any type of magnet on top of the ferrocell or below the ferrocell (most holographic depth method, slide in this case for better results with more contrast a black cupboard paper between the ferrocell and the magnet under the ferrocell). Put the magnet on its side to observe the two separated polar vortices and the Bloch domain in the middle of the magnet or on its pole to observe the polar field.

Best magnets for polar field view are the axial magnetized ring magnets (just place the ring on top of the ferrocell) because the polar field is magnetically confined inside the ring. Loudspeaker magnets are mainly ring magnets for example here:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4N3IISGdW0I

In other shape magnets like for example cube magnets the polar fields tend to extend over the surface of the ferrolens however the results and holographic depth are impressive. Here is a video we took from a 10 mm N42 cube magnet pole field view placed under the ferrolens:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=asiTMTKkMZc

Emmanouil Markoulakis

Technological Educational Institute of Crete

Fine but what is it that is ,that you think, is actually being imaged ? Is it the density of the indicator ferro particles or the orientations of the same or another? . You most certainly are not imaging a magnetic field directly and you have already discounted Faraday rotation etc.

For lack of any better description. We call it the ground state, "Quantum Field of a Magnet", since a quantum optic device was used for display and also because it displays information on the domain wall of the magnet which is considered a quantum effect.

1. I am surprised to see a magnetic domain wall described as a quantum object: surely it is most analogous to a dislocation in a crystal lattice. That is to say a local region of " strain relief" that sort of allows the rest of the lattice to maintain the regular periodicity ( and reduce total energy) in the presence of some imposed strain ( thermal, impurity etc etc). Likewise in a magnet, the domain walls allow the overall field energy to be minimised by having large regions ( domains ) of reversed spin direction but radically reducing the number of more energetic anti parallel near neighbour spin pairs . In short a balancing act that overall reduces the total field energy . I don't see this being primarily a quantum effect . Domain structure was always considered to be a secondary , macroscopic property , of ferromagnets . The QM resides in the exchange interaction between pairs of say Fe atoms, ( in the first approx anyhow)

I have no idea about the mechanism of the "ferrolens" . I guess that in the end something is being altered by the local B field . So you are likely to be imaging the the variations in local B field via whatever happens locally in the ferrofluid. This is surely another macroscopic observation not quantum effect since the B field of a macroscopic object is not quantised.

Chris Guy,

Quantum effect NOT quantum object... Chris you are twisting my words!... anyway,

thank you for your input.

Emmanouil Markoulakis

Technological Educational Institute of Crete

no intention nor need to twist your words . I simply want to understand how your pictures are produced. I happen to think there might be something interesting in them which resonates a bit??with something I did 30+ years ago viz found that antiferromagnetic manganese fluoride single crystals generally give rise to a a spatially non- uniform ( and very very weak ... needs a Squid to see it , magnetic quadrupole + ? field . Probably domain walls yet again !! . My main grouse (S) with what you have said so far are the references to magnetic monopoles and quantum ground states . Ditch those and I would be interested in hearing more. .Magnetic domains are necessarily a messy ,classical ( mostly) Many body effect but of course can still be a interesting and technically relevant .

Chris Guy,

The proposed published is a novel quantum optic visualization method and apparatus for magnetostatics and the terms we used are scientifically sound. The domain wall of a magnet is its ground state, potentially speaking, and because the visualization sensor uses superparamagnetic nanoparticles and light is by all means quantum.

Magnetite Fe3O4 is in its bulk state is nor ferromagnetic or antiferromagnetic but ferrimagnetic and when it is cut in nanopaticles less than 23nm it becomes superparamagnetic.

We have observed with optical microscopy and have no reasons found yet to doubt it that the magnetite nanoparticle chains (or needles) a few microns long and nm thick formed under an external magnetic field applied, align with the magnetic flux of the external field and follow it and at the same time polarize the incident light at the same direction of the field flux induced in the ferrolens.

Nanoparticle needldes floating inside the carrier fluid of the 50 μm thick thin film used encapsulated inside the ferrolens have plenty of space and all degrees freedom of movement and are no restricted by any other means and are driven correspondingly to the applied field as directly observed. Thus, we have no evidence found yet in order doubt that the proposed apparatus is a quantum magnetic flux viewer.

With that said, and coming to the macroscopic ferromagnetic field visualization and mapping sensors and let us assume the most simple thus the classical iron filings experiment used by Faraday, what makes you say that iron filings gives us a more reliable and valid picture of a magnetic field than the one observed with this quantum sensor the ferrolens?

And please don't refer to the textbooks, Faraday on its days had not a quantum sensor on hand to see the field.

We are not disputing any classical EM or other established theories.

However we all know that quantum reality gets transformed and distorted at the macroscale level so we merely state by our observations and research the possibility that this new device to be able to bring at the macroscale view an undisturbed quantum image of the field of a magnet and which is we believe, somehow magnetically masked at the macroscale whenever macroscale sensors are used from mapping and visualizing the field.

This is the premise of our ongoing research and much work has to be done in subsequent publications by us or others.

So here you have it.

Kind Regards,

Emmanouil Markoulakis

Technological Educational Institute of Crete

Regarding the monopoles observation, yes on the quantum field view as shown by the ferrolens, poles of the magnet appear to be as monopoles as shown by their curled separated flux.

And more specific macrocopic curved space magnetic monopoles.

[ https://tinyurl.com/ycq3tk4l ]

Of course one can debate for ever disputing it, nevertheless that is what the direct observation shows up and subject of ongoing investigation.

Personally, I have also a hard time to believe this but nevertheless it would be quite funny to prove that we had them all this time right under our nose hidden in the form of a normal magnet, I submit.

Emmanouil Markoulakis

Technological Educational Institute of Crete

Important still photos from the 509 Ferrocell latest experiments

https://www.researchgate.net/project/The-quantum-field-of-a-magnet/update/5b6ee419cfe4a7f7ca59d501

Emmanouil

having given your pictures some thought on and off for a couple of days I concluded that what you are seeing is some interesting but prosaic property of the coupled MAGNET + Ferroparticle + Surfactant+ Solvent + ? surface of the container system . I devised a few experiments for you to try in order to begin teasing apart this complicated soup of interactions . I started with simply with moving the magnet inside a cylindrical container ( to prevent mechanical disturbance to the fluid)... does the equilibrium pattern change ? how and how quickly etc etc ? I stopped after looking up ferrofluids on WIKI !! Ii appears there is a well known property called the Rosensweig or normal-field instability. It can result in peaks and troughs in the surface of the fluid . I suggest your results owe more to a variation on this than a new description of the the real Classical field of a bar magnet .

This is no bulk Newtonian ferrofluid where magnetism fights gravity or vice versa and surface tension and other Van der Waals manifestations resulting to the Rosensweigs instability. Neither the magnetic pattern of the field results from surface tensions and

ferrofluid in collision with the lens glass surface if this is what you imply.

The magnetite ferrofluid EFH1 used in the ferrolens is additional further heavily diluted inside a carrier hydrocarbon based fluid.

When the ferrolens is inactive thus no external magnetic field is applied, existing Van der Waals forces stabilize the fluid and bring

it i a state of equlibrium and greatly reduce Brownian motion. The encapsulated thin layer of ferrofluid inside the ferrolens in this

state, does not flow anymore, but exists in a balanced state of equilibrium no matter what position the cell is oriented. The

nanoparticles inside the ferrolens do not settle with gravity. More in detail, the anionic surfactant coating on the nanoparticles

keeps the particles from touching each other (i.e. clumping or agglomeration) in the free state when there is no external magnetic

field present. Notice here that the generated Van der Waals forces in the ferrofluid are not attractive but due to steric repulsion

results to stabilization. Rosensweig states inside its ferrohydrodynamics book that in this state a thin film of ferrofluid behaves more like a gass.

When now the ferrocell is activated by an external magnetic field the 10 nm average size nanoparicles inside the 50 microns thick

film can move freely and are dipole magnetically interacting to form the few microns in length needles and nm thick inside the 50

microns thick film. The needles have relative plenty of space between them and a large rooftop to move in. The needles align to the magnetic flux of the applied field and at the same time polarize the incident light and align it to the induced field flux in the

ferrolens as shown in this video demonstration here of the ferrolens needles movement and polarization of light under a magnetic

field:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=suz27yUQOeY

So, Rosensweig instability and other related phenomena do no apply to the ferrolens or in the worst case are greatly suppressed.

Additionally, the calculus for critical values for the H field given in the related Rosensweig paper so this phenomenon can manifest results in values which are not even near the normal minimum H value inside the operation range of the ferrolens.

A ferrolens can display fields as low as 100-150 Gauss up to 1 Tesla and more (depending the model) without any notable difference apart light intensity of the displayed field lines or any deformation occurring which would be an indication for Rosensweig instability.

https://wsgc.carthage.edu/ojs/index.php/wsc/article/download/157/154

(Rosensweig reference paper)

Emmanouil

Polar field of ring magnet as show by the quantum optic device ferrolens (a RGB LED lighting strip was used)(photo taken by Michael Snyder).

Besides, I don't see any magnetic macroscale fluid effect phenomenon like Rosensweig instability or any magneto optical phenomenon like the Faraday or Keer effect which could produce symmetry like this shown in the photo, unless quantum magnetic phenomenon in nature:

DIY video demonstrations from hobbyists and company presentations:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x8zEWJzglN0

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KHTwS6Cxr50

Ferrolens is actually the quantum modern version of the classical iron filings experiment.

Emmanouil

...and here is the immediate magnetic field of a transmitting radio antenna rod segment as shown by the ferrolens.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fGcvh4Rb0G4 (video)

(MIT motion magnification algorithm was used for making the EM wave visible)(http://people.csail.mit.edu/mrub/vidmag/)

Article Real Time Visualization of Dynamic Magnetic Fields with a Na...

We derived a maximum frequency capability for real-time visualization of dynamic magnetic fields from the ferrolens at a value of 5MHz making it currently the fastest passive device magnetic field viewer. Future plans include the use of a professional High-speed camera 1M FPS to see what is happening inside the dynamic magnetic field of the antenna in slow-motion.

clarification: The ferrolens is not our invention but Timm Vanderelli's from http://www.ferrocell.us/ .

Emmanouil Markoulakis

Technological Educational Institute of Crete

Magnetic Nanoparticle Galaxy (by Timm Vanderelli)

Sometimes quantum reality manifests exactly as in our macro cosmos

https://twitter.com/ferrocell/status/1026154243940601857

Ferrocell wining the best magneto-optic topic poster award in the 21st International Conference for Magnetism ICM2018 San Francisco:

http://www.icm2018sf.org/

Best poster award :

https://tinyurl.com/y76dt8nl

http://www5.each.usp.br/premios/professores-da-each-se-destacam-em-conferencia-sobre-magnetismo-nos-estados-unidos/

Quantum magnetic field view of spherical magnet as shown by the ferrolens.

Photo 1 (upper photo) legend: Spherical magnet North pole is up and South pole down. Bloch domain wall disk at the middle of the photo. Nanoparticle chains stacks in the ferrolens showing the expelled theta θ arms of the Bloch domain wall disk of the field at the middle of the sphere magnet and its lower South pole hemispherical field region tangent to the the Bloch domain wall disk.Notice how the chains stacks on the theta arms left and right appear to be bend outwards like straws bend by the wind. 

Photo 2 (lower photo) Green circled areas above indicate what part of the magnetic field wee see in previous shown photo 1. 

Rest of photos here: 

https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1qLU740_8ZP9V0kcHtPKbdr5qG5B9x6h7?usp=sharing

Also these youtube videos:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p-_rmErXo3s

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S9yADKO88Ww

copyright©Emmanouil Markoulakis TEI of Crete 2018

I added a "Dark matter" and energy tag topic to the question thread.

In my opinion magnetic monopoles are possible closely related to dark matter and dark energy.

Emmanouil

The two possible models of operation of the Ferrolens - An outline analysis:

1. The relative low magnetic anisotropy (isotropic) model [updated]

Why magnetic anisotropy is so important for the primary function of the ferrocell as a quantum optic magnetic flux viewer?

Materials highly anisotropic used as sensors to physically visualize or measure magnetic fields have the tendency to align or get magnetized by an external field applied, only with or by the highest potential field lines present. If the nanoparticles inside the thin film in the ferrocell would have been highly magnetically anisotropic they would align only with the nearest  flux line which has a direction closest to their easy axis of magnetization.

This would be catastrophic for the function of the ferrocell as a Quantum magnetic flux viewer and the resulted displayed field would be an interference distorted by the ferrocell field pattern of the actual field. 

Therefore the ferrocell must be proved to be magnetically isotropic enough (showing no preference) in order to complete reliable its primary function as a quantum magnetic flux viewer.

DATA

What we learned until now from the literature on the subject of anisotropy of superparamgnetic nanoparticles thin films:

Temperature increase lowers anisotropy.

Film thickness increase lowers anisotropy.

Nanoparticles concentration increase in the carrier fluid increases total anisotropy of the film.

4 main types of anisotropies interacting: Magnetocrystalline (KB bulk anisotropy), shape, stress, surface anisotropy.

Fe3O4 and Fe2O3 iron oxide nanoparticles have relative low  Magnetocrystalline bulk anisotropy.

For particles less than 20 microns in size (needles in ferrocell) the dominant anisotropy is the particle's (needle) shape anisotropy.

Spherical particles whatever size DON'T have shape anisotropy. For supeparamagnetic nanosized iron oxide particles like Fe3O4 or Fe2O3, the dominant  anisotropy is the particle's surface anisotropy.

Surface anisotropy increases with reduction of nanoparticles size.

The total effective anisotropy for supeparamagnetic nanosized iron oxide particles is reported to be measured and simulated (Monte Carlo) at a reference value around  50X10^3 erg/cubic cm (depending concentration of nanoparticles, size and temperature)[https://tinyurl.com/y9kt6x38].

Spherical nanoparticles have surface anisotropy of about X1.5 of this of the cubic nanoparticles. Ks(sph) = 1.5 Ks(cub).

Therefore Keff(sph) > Keff(cub).

Blocking Temberature TB increases with size increase of nanoparticles and is found to be around a reference point of -39 Celsius for average 10 nm Fe2O3 nanoparticles [https://tinyurl.com/y9kt6x38].

Spherical nanoparticles excibit higher blocking temperature TB than cubic nanoparticles [https://tinyurl.com/y9kt6x38].

The stress anisotropy of the thin film (i.e. dipole-dipole interactions of nanoparticles) is lowered by increasing the dilution of the nanoparticles inside the carrier fluid. The EFH1 ferrofluid used in the ferrocell has a low concentration 3-15 % of magnetite nanoparticles and is further diluted when making the ferrocell thin film to less than 1% concentration of Fe3O4 magnetite in the Ferroles thin film. Therefore ferrocell stress anisotropy must be very low.

Minimum saturation magnetization value for the nanoparticles increases by increasing the size of the nanoparticles.

Also minimum saturation magnetization value for the nanoparticles decreases when dilution of the thin film increases.

Magnetization M of a superparamgnetic thin film increases when dilution of thin film increases.

Needlles microns in size formed inside the ferrocell have dominant anisotropy the uni axial shape anisotropy. However, since then needles are only some hundreds of nm thick they shape anisotropy is cancelled out and irrelevant and therefore macroscopically  from an observer's point of view, their easy axis of magnetization coincides with their physical shape axis.

Iron Fe on it's bulk form like for example iron filings has a total effective anisotropy, room temperature,  at the enormous relative value of 480X10^3 erg/cubic cm !! No wonder why iron filings display only the high potential field of a magnet giving us a fake image of the field geometry with the two poles shortcircuit together and in that matter all sensors which are using bulk ferromagnetic material.

RESULT

Logically analyzing the above data, the thin superparamagnetic film inside the ferrolens must be relative magnetically isotropic or much less anisotropic than bulk ferromagnetic material or ferromagnetic films.

Ferrocell is optically and magnetically even and homogeneous when in its inactivated state (i.e. no external field applied) and turns into very optical anisotropic when activated due to the magnetic film polarization of light but remains magnetically isotropic enough so that we can with certainty say that image of the field displayed by the ferrolens is not an interference pattern nor because an  intrinsic behavior and response by the ferrocell.

Therefore the ferrocell must and shows correctly the Quantum Field of the magnet.

2. The alternative Chaotic Magnetic Anisotropy model of operation of the ferrolens

This theory states the possibility for explaining the operation of the ferrolens, that even assuming a medium to high relative anisotropy for the nanoparticles inside the ferrolens thin film, this will be compensated by the fact that nanoparticles don't have uniform easy axis of magnetization of surface anisotropy but this is randomly and rather chaotic distributed during the creation manufacturing process of the thin film.

Therefore and assuming sufficient concentration of nanoparticles inside the carrier dilution fluid, on every area of the ferrocell there will be always sufficient number of nanoparticles with an easy axis of magnetization to match the direction of the flux lines of the applied external field on that area of the ferrocell.

The above theory can also work as a complementary to the low magnetic anisotropy (isotropic) model of operation of the ferrocell described previously.

Emmanouil

I do not think that I understand the term “ Quantum field “ in the present context of these ferrolens experiments. As I understand it :

1 . The quantum field is entirely determined by the small bar magnet.

2. The quantum field has a pattern of constant field lines that differs markedly from

A those that would arise by a point by point mapping , using say a hall effect or search coil magnetometer .

B those that would result from a 3D calculation of the field.( eg a simple integration of Biot Savart over the volume of the magnet ( assuming uniform internal polarisation).

3. Similar differences between the quantum and “classical” fields would occur if the magnet were replaced by a short solenoid carrying a constant current.

Please correct any and all of my errors

Our research and terminology is not referring to atomic or sub-atomic particle physics but rather to macroscopic manifestations made visible with the ferrolens of quantum effects.

All your conclusions pointed out on your latest post are correct unless proven otherwise and subject of investigation in our research.

Thank you for your expert input.

Emmanouil

Updated Photo: Quantum field of spherical magnet as shown by the quantum optic device Ferrolens (ferrocell). Spherical magnet North pole is up and South pole down. Bloch domain wall disk at the middle of the photo.

anyone,

...you might have also a look on this:

https://www.researchgate.net/project/The-quantum-field-of-a-magnet/update/5b784db5cfe4a7f7ca5b3232

shhhh!!... it's a secret...:)

Emmanouil

Quantum field θ pattern of magnet observed with the ferrolens points that a magnet is a quantum harmonic oscillator?

If we assume that the flux pattern above observed with the ferrolens is correct and since magnets are considered to belong and best described by quantum mechanics thus must be quantum machines and also accept the characteristic of magnetic potential of magnetic fields then in the quantum system which is called a magnet, must exist a magnetic potential energy ground state:

see Fig.1 and Fig.2

reference: http://www.umich.edu/~chem461/QMChap5.pdf

What are your thoughts about it?

update:

I finished the calculations.

My result is for the first harmonic of magnetic potential energy of E0= 1/2 (h-bar) X (v) = 1pJ gives,

v = 19X10^21 Hz= 19ZHz (zettahertz) of first harmonic oscillation.

corresponding to a magnetic moment of 20 nA m^2 of a one cubic mm magnet with Br= 25 μΤ.

This is the fundamental oscillation vibration at the Bloch domain wall (at 1mm distance from the domain wall) of the magnet assuming a magnetic potential energy quanta at 1 pJ.  

Magnetic dipoles assumed to be odd harmonics oscillators.

Emmanouil

)h come off it .If you are really just " seeing the static B field then invoking an SH quantum oscillator model is pure fantasy or worse. I would now bet heavily on your exotic fields being only very loosely related to the Staticn B field of any magnet . You might like to look at the tolerances for the Main static B fields used in all MRI machines and the guide fields at CERN . There cannot be anything above 1: 1o^6 unknown in those fields and either one left working to spec( by detailed Maxwellian, purely classical calcs.)

Hello Chris,

Sometimes a static imprint is a result of a dynamic system and phenomena. This might also be the case for the so called "static" magnetic dipole field, since nothing in nature is really static and motionless this scenario is plausible.

Nevertheless, I will investigate your leads and thank you for this latest info.

Emmanouil

Chris Guy

quote: "There cannot be anything above 1: 1o^6 unknown in those fields and either one left working to spec( by detailed Maxwellian, purely classical calcs.) "

Our proposed observed geometry of dipole magnetism does not change a thing on classical magnetism and calculations. All classical theorems and quantum mechanics interpretations stand as they are and almost fully accurate in their predictions.

At the end of the day even for CERN all what matters is the magnetic moment, where the two poles are in space, spin and gyromagnetic ratio γ. All these remain unchanged by the new observed geometry because fundamentally the shape of magnetic field still remains a sphere.

However, it matters and maybe is this 1:10^6 unknown key information we were missing to unlock everything from magnetic monopoles, dark matter and dark energy to grant unification.

For example, If the theta θ geometry for magnetism is correct then this would imply that in a magnet, dipole magnetic radiation has a common origin point and is induced to ordinary matter by another form of unknown energy and domain. This directs to magnetic monopole charges and their possible close relation to the so called dark energy and dark matter domain. Maybe monopole magnetism IS the dark energy we were looking for and can be manifested in ordinary matter only in it's dipole configuration. All this of course are mere speculations from my part and are not to be taken seriously, yet.

Also notice that in my question thread I asked specifically, what unresolved physics problems this new observed field geometry proposed would solve and explain. I still got no answer about it.

Emmanouil

On the true form of magnetic fields shown by the ferrolens and their correlation with Maxwell EM Theory and Faraday's experimental observations

https://www.researchgate.net/project/The-quantum-field-of-a-magnet/update/5b9e33a23843b006753992c2

Emmanouil

1. why does the simple iron filings exp. get the wrong field lines ?

2.Please demonstrate how new field pattern satisfies Maxwell's zero divergence.

3. why does the polarisation inside the bar magnet switch sign in its middle section ?

1. Iron filings are not field lines sensors just pole relative direction indicators thus compasses. They sense only the highest potential spatial regions of the field thus the pole positions. The resulted field imprint is not the actual dipole vortex field of a magnet or else Quantum Field of the magnet. Additionally they lack in spatial resolution to demonstrate the fine geometry of the field. The reasons why are due size and their ferromagnetic properties, like high magnetic saturation, high magnetic anisotropy and very low magnetic reluctance which makes them to react only to the highest potential of the field and unsuitable to show its vortices.

2. There is no divergence all field lines of the two monopolar fields are closing circuit between each pole and the domain wall of the dipole magnet potential ground of the field.

3. Because it is not a single field but two counter polarity (vortex spin direction) monopolar magnetic fields or hemispheres joined back to back at the domain wall middle of magnet essentially forming the spherical geometry of a dipole magnetic field.

You can read more on this here:

https://www.researchgate.net/post/Are_dipole_magnetic_fields_modons

actually I think they (iron filings) accumulate in regions where the field is relatively homogeneous eg where there is no or little translational force acting, effectively only "compass" rotation " . Hence they indicate lines of constant field THE FIELD LINES. I simply do not believe your nano particles can be really any different except of course they are in colloidal matter with extra many body interactions .

Again Is your your pattern consistent with zero divergence ? If not you have hold of the tail of a very red herring .

Once again if your pattern were the real field then neither the LHC nor MRI machines would work.They were designed using Classical Maxwell, no more no less.

As a check use a very long straight current carrying, wire ( withe a return lead a long way off (RELATIVELY ) as your field source. For this you should see simple circles . . What do you get ?

Chris,

quote:

" As a check use a very long straight current carrying, wire ( withe a return lead a long way off (RELATIVELY ) as your field source. For this you should see simple circles . . What do you get ?

We already did that by recording with the ferrolens an immediate static magnetic imprint of an a.c. radio signal on an antenna rod section. The field shown by the ferrolens is as predicted by classical theory circular encompassing the rod in all its length. You can read the paper here:

Article Real Time Visualization of Dynamic Magnetic Fields with a Na...

arxiv pdf: https://tinyurl.com/yc2sjolt

video of experiment: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fGcvh4Rb0G4

Emmanouil

With respect the near RF field of a radio antenna neither a static field nor the same as that from a straight, very long wire . please address my issue with Div B . This has to be a litmus test of your claims .

Chris Guy

"With respect the near RF field of a radio antenna neither a static field nor the same as that from a straight, very long wire . please address my issue with Div B . This has to be a litmus test of your claims . "

Who says that? First of all this is not even the near field but the immediate magnetic signal field and also considering the skin effect the magnetic field of a radio signal on a copper cable as a static imprint would be by all means identical with the one of an antenna rod.

Also about the Maxwell's second equation compliance. I told you that there is no divergence on the quantum field of a magnet, everything is curling perfectly. Because the two counter polarity monopolar magnetic fields are attracted together and are joined tangentially at the domain wall. These are curved-space monopole fields vortices. Nothing is spiking out!! Please read the Modons thread and also confirmation from second independent research group in there.

Kind Regards,

Emmanouil Markoulakis

Technological Educational Institute of Crete.

The Modons thread:

https://www.researchgate.net/post/Are_dipole_magnetic_fields_modons