Dear Emmanouil,

If you have the patience to carefully read the Section "Photons, Electrons, Positrons, exclusively made of kinetic energy" starting on page 4 of this paper, you may also be tempted to conclude that it can only be made of "physically existing kinetic energy":

https://www.omicsonline.org/open-access/on-de-broglies-doubleparticle-photon-hypothesis-2090-0902-1000153.pdf

Best Regards

André

The question is but part of the much larger question "Of what is anything made of fundamentally"? We begin with ordinary matter and break it down into molecules, atoms, electrons, protons neutrons until we arrive at quarks with apparently no further division allowed. Nor is there further division allowed for the electron nor for the neutrino. Of whatever it is that composes these entities fundamentally they all seem to have at least a pittance of mass that is measureable through its interaction with gravitational fields. Of what are fields (including the magnetic field) composed? We introduce entities (bosons) to carry the fields from here to there and across the Universe. Of these entities the photon, carrier of the electromagnetic field, probably is the most familiar. Of what, then, is the photon made?

The relativists among us recognize an equivalence between mass and energy and so it is tempting to say that the entities having mass are composed of energy. Mass here refers to rest mass which is the mass of an entity at rest with respect to the device that measures the entity's mass. Pity the frenetic photon that normally never is at rest with respect to anything but perpetually flits about the Universe at the speed of light. The photon, however, possesses inertia, momentum and kinetic energy that allows it to interact directly with matter as demonstrated, for example, by the photoelectric effect and Compton scattering. But in certain circumstances the photon finds representation as a wave rather than as a particle and one asks anew "Of what is the photon (as wave) made?

André Michaud addresses this issue in his answer above to the question at hand.

I suggest that we face a dilemma. The categories and concepts of photons, electrons, energy and mass are of our making. We invented them to describe and represent the environment in which we find ourselves. Are we, perchance, deluding ourselves by assigning effectively "absolute" reality to these entities? We definitely are producing a convincing representation of the workings of the Universe but are we, in fact, seeing only a part of a much larger picture of which our creations, photons, etc. are only a zero-order approximation?

I do not want to downplay our successes but I just want to toss out a cautionary note that all may not be as we percieve it to be. Maybe we are in Plato's cave watching the dance of shadows cast upon a wall. "But carry on my wayward son, there'll be peace when you are done . . ."

Dear Emmanouil Markoulakis ,

I agree that there is a physical ether and that electric, magnetic, and gravitational fields and forces arise from modifications of this physical medium.

For the curious and open minded I first recommend the Local-Ether model proposed by the late Prof. Ching-Chuan Su [1-2]. He qualitatively and quantitatively shows how a classical EM wave propagation paradigm is in accord with a wide range of known EM wave propagation phenomena including Michelson-Morley type interferometers, the one-way point-to-point Linear Sagnac Effect for GPS location calculation, and the propagation of EM waves in a moving dielectric medium (e.g. the Fizeau experiment).

Prof. Su's Local-Ether model only defines a minimum set of properties that he uses to establish how it is in accord with known Electromagnetic and Quantum phenomena. Briefly, every celestial body is surrounded by a local ether halo that extends out to where the gradient of the body's gravitational potential no longer points toward the body (approximately 106 km). The Earth's local-ether is stationary with respect to the Earth Centered Inertial reference frame, the ECI.

The Sun also has a local-ether that extends out to the edge of the Solar System and envelops the local-ethers of the Earth and the other planets. The Sun's local-ether is stationary with respect to the heliocentric or barycentric inertial reference frame (the BCI or the ICRF).

The Local-Ether paradigm is an alternative paradigm to Einstein''s Relativity: It restores Newtonian time and Euclidean space; it is Galilean invariant instead of the Lorentz invariant. EM waves (including light) propagate within a local-ether as classical waves like sound propagate in a medium.

If you find the Local-Ether paradigm compelling, then I suggest you check out a paper that describes a more detailed physical ether concept called the Tron Theory [3]. It was developed by Richard Marsen in the late 1960's and is fully in accord with Prof. Su's Local-Ether model.

Regards,

Jim Marsen

Please see:

1. Ching-Chuan Su, “Quantum Electromagnetics”. The eBook version is available at https://ebook.hyread.com.tw/bookDetail.jsp?id=19899 for about $18.00. A special reader app called “Hyread 3” is required to access and read the book. It is available for free from the Windows App Store. It is also available for Android and iOS devices. This book includes the full scope of Prof. Su’s thesis.

The following paper covers similar content to Chapter 1 of the book including the detailed description of the Local-Ether model.

2. C.C. Su, "A local-ether model of propagation of electromagnetic wave"

Eur. Phys. J. C, vol. 21, pp. 701-715, 2001, http://www.qem.ee.nthu.edu.tw/f1a.pdf

3. Richard and James Marsen, “The Tron Theory: A novel concept for the Aether and Matter“, https://www.researchgate.net/publication/326606689_The_Tron_Theory_A_novel_concept_for_the_Aether_and_Matter

It's been known for more than one hundred years that electromagnetic waves are coherent superpositions of photons; and the consistent mathematical description, called quantum electrodynamics, is known for about seventy years.

It suffices to open any textbook in electromagnetism to find how to describe the static limit of the electromagnetic field. The static limit is, as the term implies, a limiting case.

There are many open questions; but this question has been answered.

But if classical electromagnetism, already, isn't known, the question doesn't make sense.

Static magnetic fields are solutions of the Maxwell equations-there's no virtual photon involved, since they're classical configurations. And the reason they're classical is that the magnetic fields involved have energy that corresponds to a macroscopic number of photons, whose quantum fluctuations are negligible for that reason.

All this is undergraduate electromagnetism.

Dear André Michaud ,

Reference: https://www.omicsonline.org/open-access/on-de-broglies-doubleparticle-photon-hypothesis-2090-0902-1000153.pdf (page 4, Photons, Electrons, Positrons, Exclusively Made of Kinetic Energy )

quote from the reference: "...first observed and confirmed by Blackett and Occhialini, such as in the case of positronium decay. So both reverse processes constitute the de facto irrefutable material proof that electrons and positrons are made of the very same energy and are of the very same electromagnetic nature as photons. "

Thank you for your confirmation. Excellent and pioneering work on your research. The above leads inescapable to the conclusion that magnetism phenomenon and possible all known elementary particles are essentially deformations and different modalities of the same energy field or "substance unknown medium" .

This of course gives rise to a new modified pilot wave theory (which includes also an omnipresent scalar medium) describing all matter and energy in the universe also proposed by Dr. Milo Wolff WSM (Wave structure of matter).

Of course, this contradicts SRT since then there is an absolute frame of reference after all. But this can be easily circumvented by the Multiverse theory.

If one can not see this, he/she must be blind. Sciecne partially and silently acknowledged this truth by the confirmation of the Higgs particle.

However I dare to differ and say that we are far from discovering the "God Particle".

Emmanouil Markoulakis

Technological Educational Institute of Crete

Dear Dwight Hoxie,

I couldn't agree more with you!

Excellent reasoning and analysis of the problem.

Best Regards,

Emmanouil

Dear All,

Here are some more questions for you.

If the Boson involved is the photon, what is the wavelength then of this photonic radiation we call static magnetic field?

Emmanouil

p.s. virtual photons not accepted as an explanation.

Dear Jim Marsen,

Thank you for your invaluable information and references

Kind Regard,

Emmanouil

@ Stam Nicolis,

quote:

"Static magnetic fields are solutions of the Maxwell equations-there's no virtual photon involved, since they're classical configurations. And the reason they're classical is that the magnetic fields involved have energy that corresponds to a macroscopic number of photons, whose quantum fluctuations are negligible for that reason.

All this is undergraduate electromagnetism."

Thanks for the info (see text in bold in the quote)...Really?!

So, now your precious electromagnetism I must assume is only useful to decipher 4% of the Universe over the last 200 years. WoW what an achievement!!

or maybe,

This model came to the end of its potential and a new model must be adapted in order to explain the 96% remaining? And fast! We are running out of time...

...or else even 2,000 years from now we will be still stuck at this 4%.

EM

Dear Gokaran Shukla,

quote:

me: "If the Boson involved is the photon, what is the wavelength then of this photonic radiation we call static magnetic field?"

Gokaran: Highlighted statement is absolutely NOT correct. If this is correct then you MUST have MONOPOLE in nature and could have found till now. In nature you will never get monopole, because the origin of North and South pole arises due o quantum mechanical effect. Origin of curl in magnetic field is also arises due to quantum mechanical effect."

Please elaborate more on your answer above.

Emmanouil

In the work “Quantum state and periodicity” see at the bottom, I discuss of the building process of the atoms that is of electrical interactions. Historically they are describe with polarity. Experimentally in the domain that I know there are particles with larger mass than the other let say protons or nucleus and the electrons with smaller mass. If the hypothesis of exchanges of small grains of mass to describe the interaction is correct (The Wave and the Quantum State) it seems possible to avoid the notion of positive and negative charges. To complete this approach we can underline that we introduce the electrical and magnetic fields at the macroscopic scale, how it is inside the atom?

Now the hypothesis of exchange small grains mass to describe the motion of the electron around the nucleus leads to consider that the energy exchanged during the motion of rotation is exchanged in the opposite way during the perpendicular linear motion.

From the work “Quantum state and periodicity”

“The problem of the electron rotation reminds that of the earth rotation and the absence of absolute space. According to experiments the bodies in motion describe a trajectory, but this one is not built up with matter, and during a small interval of time there is no material bond between this trajectory and the two particles in motion. Indeed, since the hypothesis of Newton F = m.gama, we accept the distance interactions without having solved the question of their nature and this leads us to take hypotheses without realizing that the absolute space is still present therein in a more or less obvious way. Consider the Einstein hypothesis on the relativity of the motion that we will thus express "In the study of the phenomena the causes of the physical laws must be independent of the place of the observation". Then consider the electron and the proton, and ask ourselves which variables are able to generate a force? When the speed of the electron changes, in the volume of the electron just the variations of its inert mass can be supposed to be involved, and reciprocally for the proton. So one has to consider that the variations of the inert mass between the electron and the proton are at the origin of the speed variations and thus of the corresponding momentum. To make this possible, the electron and the proton are supposed fluid matter and the wave function a wave of matter: that is the amount of matter determining, in a differential way, the mechanical action, and thus driving the electron along its trajectory. We suppose that this matter can be described with very small grains as compared to the mass of the electron as well as of the proton, and that they move with the speed of the light in the vacuum. So the motion is the result of exchanges of matter in the form of grains. This conception leads to consider the electromagnetic field proportional to the density of mass around the proton”

Dear Gokaran and All,

Thank you for your detailed answer.

Although I agree with many of your arguments I must object to some others, specially about the N-S pole direction convention of force lines (I don't know if this has even any meaning in a loop essentially, other than denoting spin direction in an otherwise as they say static field LOL!).

Our observation of dipole magnetic fields with a quantum magneto optic device has shown a "slightly" different picture for magnetism.

Let me please elaborate.

The fundamental mistake of today's physics is that it fails to comprehend that nature makes the one entity by joining two halfs 1/2, in a counter geometry.

Actually very similar to the Riemann hypothesis and analytic continuation (see figures above)

In our research recently (new publication bending) we have observed using the ferrolens [1][2] [wiki links: https://en.everybodywiki.com/Ferrolens] and made measurements that magnetic field of a dipole permanent magnet consists of two vortex rings each residing on each pole of the magnet and looping their individual ellipsoid flux lines trajectories between each pole of the magnet and the middle of the magnet where its domain wall is located thus it s ground potential state.

The two polar torus are axially joined back to back at the the domain wall of the magnet and counter geometry skew angles on their flux lines trajectories indicating counter spin behavior (see fig.1 below).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vortex_ring

These second, discovered source vortex hyperbola fields are essentially monopolar fields each, since a hyperbola vortex, whirlpool, terminates always at its apex on a singularity point. The two counter vortex apex singularity points are located at the domain wall where there are joined forming the final dipole field of the magnet.

These two joined singularities could also be possible candidates for opposite magnetic charge monopoles but not in a free state but in a dipole interaction configuration. There is no divergence and ∇ . B = 0, more like curved-space magnetic monopoles.

[https://journals.aps.org/prd/abstract/10.1103/PhysRevD.45.R2586]

In this newly observed two joined hemispheres structure for dipole magnetic fields, gyromagnetic ratio is preserved since the two hemispheres essentially form a sphere.

This vortex field of every magnet we call Quantum field of magnet [https://en.everybodywiki.com/Quantum_field_of_magnet], was not made visible using ferromagnetic methods and sensors which can depict only the "deep" field of the magnet (see fig.2) and not its second coexisting vortex field.

As an analogy lets say that the field imprint we were seeing all these years the last 200, for example with the iron filings is nothing more as the inward suction field of the two monopolar vortices. Using modern quantum optic devices like the superparamagnetic ferrolens this new field geometry is now made available.

Also there is no difference between the poles of a magnet and the opposite polarity poles of two magnets joined. The phenomenon and field geometry holds and is the same in both cases.

In this new model of the Quantum field of the magnet there are no flux lines conventionally going from North to South pole. Both poles flux lines loop between the pole centers and the middle ground potential state of the magnet where the domain wall is located. Domain wall now plays a very significant role in the field of the magnet. Polarity of the poles is determined by their counter geometrical spin trajectories direction.

All these years monopoles (joined) were right under our nose on every magnet.

(see analogy using the two joined whirlpools modons model https://www.researchgate.net/post/Are_dipole_magnetic_fields_modons )

(see figure https://drive.google.com/file/d/1K7R0rCxAQi-rj1Eyu0F--zd3X_maWmSn/view?usp=sharing)

More amazingly the vortices polar planes observed are perpendicular to the inward flux dielectric flow towards the domain wall in the field (see fig. 3).

Thus with this second flow all this years hidden field of a magnet the need for a separate Electric field description and concept is now unnecessary and EM can now fully explained using pure magnetic fields where E and M are actually the two perpendicular flux fields of a magnetic dipole. Thus meaning that even the electron is nothing more now than a "tiny dipole magnet" with relative high outward vortex flaw flux and suppressed inward dielectric flow falsely mistaken as a point like monopole. This explains also why they can not measure any electric dipole moment in the electron. [https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/electron-spherical-electric-dipole-moment/]

Fig 1. Magnetic dipole flux as shown with the ferrolens (see inner θ theta pattern) https://drive.google.com/file/d/1cDO42GCI4oD85xd_-R_EnKRGCPrUqcmI/view?usp=sharing

Fig 2. Classic Maxwell-Faraday imprint of magnetic field using iron filings. https://drive.google.com/file/d/1QocBIWoRsyOhWteVe6q3P3qF78DRhqv5/view?usp=sharing

Fig 3. EM described as the two perpendicular flows of flux on a magnetic dipole field as observed by the ferrolens. https://drive.google.com/file/d/1DZtmt8tbFGG6UC2AqWK6siaX6cUd4fY7/view

I hope this was helpful.

Emmanouil

References

[1] Markoulakis, Emmanouil; Konstantaras, Antonios; Antonidakis, Emmanuel (2018). "The quantum field of a magnet shown by a nanomagnetic ferrolens". Journal of Magnetism and Magnetic Materials. 466: 252–259. arXiv:1807.08751 📷. doi:10.1016/j.jmmm.2018.07.012. ISSN 0304-8853

Article The Quantum Field Of A Magnet Shown By A Nanomagnetic Ferrolens

[2] Markoulakis, Emmanouil; Rigakis, Iraklis; Chatzakis, John; Konstantaras, Antonios; Antonidakis, Emmanuel (2018). "Real time visualization of dynamic magnetic fields with a nanomagnetic ferrolens". Journal of Magnetism and Magnetic Materials. 451: 741–748. arXiv:1712.05436 📷. Bibcode:2018JMMM..451..741M. doi:10.1016/j.jmmm.2017.12.023

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

Dear Emmanouil,

Glad to see that you are in sync with the idea that both reverse processes constitute the de facto irrefutable material proof that electrons and positrons are made of the very same energy and are of the very same electromagnetic nature as photons.

If you can become comfortable with the idea that "kinetic energy" has to be a "physically-existing-substance", and if you carefully read, and maybe re-read this next paper to complete comprehension, titled "The Hydrogen Atom Fundamental Resonance States", I guarantee that you will end up with a clear understanding of what magnetic fields are made of:

http://file.scirp.org/Html/17-7503469_84158.htm

Because you then should be able to relate it to your own experiments and to the experiment I carried out in 1998, described in this paper that you already know, titled "On the Magnetostatic Inverse Cube Law and magnetic monopoles":

http://www.gsjournal.net/Science-Journals/Research%20Papers-Mechanics%20/%20Electrodynamics/Download/2264

and to the confirming experiment carried out by Kotler et al. in 2014, titled "Measurement of the magnetic interaction between two bound electrons of two separate ions":

https://www.nature.com/articles/nature13403.epdf?referrer_access_token=yoC6RXrPyxwvQviChYrG0tRgN0jAjWel9jnR3ZoTv0PdPJ4geER1fKVR1YXH8GThqECstdb6e48mZm0qQo2OMX_XYURkzBSUZCrxM8VipvnG8FofxB39P4lc-1UIKEO1

With respect to SRT, yes it does contradict SRT, because it can easily be proven that SRT is not Maxwell equations compliant, because it ignores the fact that charged particles making up atoms are electrically charged, which makes it impossible in SRT to deal with the increase in energy that mandatorily occurs when electronic orbitals are forced to adiabatically contract towards their nuclei during the so-called "relativistic length contraction", as if this confirmed electromagnetic process did not exist:

The proof is described starting on page 2 of this paper, titled "Gravitation, Quantum Mechanics and the Least Action Electromagnetic Equilibrium States"

https://www.omicsonline.org/open-access/gravitation-quantum-mechanics-and-the-least-action-electromagneticequilibrium-states-2329-6542-1000152.pdf

If you become comfortable with the idea that kinetic energy is a physically existing substance, then you may like to see how all other aspects of particle physics can be addressed from this perspective, in total conformity with Maxwell.

All published papers from this perspective can be accessed via this unpublished index:

http://www.gsjournal.net/Science-Journals/Research%20Papers-Unification%20Theories/Download/2460

Best Regards

André

Dear Gokaran and André,

Thank you for your wisdom and knowledge shared here. Obviously you are much more experienced than me in the field and your words and research are cherished by me and most valuable.

I will extensively study these.

Kind Regards,

Emmanouil

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vortex_ring#/media/File:Vortex_ring.gif

quete: "Magnetic lines do form a closed LOOP. You can check it by doing standard experiment. Also, magnetic lines goes from South-pole to north-Pole in magnetic material (Origin of North and south pole arises due to pure quantum mechanical effect. Of-course we have assigned North if anything flow anticlockwise, and south if flow clockwise). If this is not the case you will NEVER able to explain two very stable state of magnetic materials., and why there is a hysteresis loop associated with Magnetic materials! "

Yes of course I know field lines form loops and also ellipsoid as we observed with the ferrolens as the field being a toroidal vortex ring which by definition consists of loops trajectories.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vortex_ring

(see also above figure)

My comments on this were merely for criticizing mainstream and and their contradiction about describing the field as static but then assigning arrows of energy flow and motion. How stupid is that?

North pole is a ccw as we observed a cw centripedal flow vortex where South pole cw vortex

Also both counter spin vortices are generated (cause) due the net result of the spinning domain wall disk of a permanent dipole magnet field which spins rotating the whole field of the magnet (side field view) cw like a lighthouse on sea. The frequency of rotation we theorized to be for 1 pico Joule of energy at the range of 19X10^21 Hertz thus 19 zettahertz assuming the magnet to be a quantum harmonic oscillator.

Dear All,

I find at least one other who, more or less, thinks as I do. The author is addressing the somewhat contentious@ issue of plate tectonics:

"Let us all keep in mind that the present accomplishments of human wisdom (such as lithospheric plate theory) are doomed to be revisioned-enriched-modified-and maybe overcomed by the future new revolutionary or not ideas. This is an endless procedure which the current topic cannot escape, luckily, thanks to scientific way of thinking.

Kind regards

Ioannis Alexandridis"

The magnetic field is nothing more than the electric field warped by the effects detailed in the theory of special relativity. Einstein explained this is his famous paper "On the Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies". https://biblio.wiki/wiki/On_the_Electrodynamics_of_Moving_Bodies . There are university websites that explain it in ways that are easy to visualize, like this one: https://web.archive.org/web/20050308191412/http://galileo.phys.virginia.edu:80/classes/252/rel_el_mag.html

or this one:

https://readingfeynman.org/tag/relativity-of-electric-and-magnetic-fields/

So then the question becomes: What is the electric field? I think it is an electrostatic pressure gradient associated with a whirlpool of aether we call a charged particle. This is kind of similar to how a low pressure weather system has a pressure gradient. Aether is that stuff that all particles are spun from and all electromagnetic waves propagate through that was factored out of our equations and so we assumed it must not exist when it actually does. Something is there that gives empty space a specific coefficient of capacitive permittivity and inductive permeability.

Discovery of Quantum Field Of Magnet. Figure above of nested double torus. Image credits: Article Consciousness in the Universe is Scale Invariant and Implies...

Figure below: 2D diagram of Quantum field of magnet representation. Blue is the Electric field E and red the magnetic field M. Essentially the visualization of Riemann conjecture and analytic continuation. (caution! In the above 2D diagram North and South poles of magnetic field, red, are spatially located at the same positions where the electric charges are located, blue. Fields are perpendicular at any point. Both fields represent essentially the two distinct perpendicular flaws of the same single field, namely the newly discovered Quantum field of a magnet).

Dear All,

This is the model which more closely represents our overall observations with the quantum optic device called ferrolens of a static dipole magnetic field, and experimental discovery of a new field geometry we call Quantum field of magnet, in its totality which includes both modalities of the field thus M and E.

It is a nested double torus like the layers of an onion extending through Euclidean space.

The two counter geometry toroidal hemispheres represent the two poles of the magnetic field. The equator of the sphere is the domain wall of the magnet. The whole thing has an cw spin (side view) with for an observer facing the North pole seeing a ccw torus vortex centripetal spin and on the South pole (down hemisphere) a cw vortex centripetal spin. Frequency of rotation is is at the 10^21 Hz range.

The torus hemispheres are the magnetic vortex fields and magnetic centrifugal flow (MCFFL) or radiation thus what you they call magnetism M as we observed them with the ferrolens. Whereas the inward second flow of the field, centripetal inwards hyperbola flow of magnetic flux (MCPFL) is what they call (di)Electricity E.

As you can see MCFFL ⊥ MCPFL --> M ⊥ E.

Therefore there is no need for discrete separated descriptions and for M and E. Both are different perpendicular flaws of flux of the same field, namely, the Quantum field of the magnet.

The inward electric dipole hypebola flux is not shown in the superparamagnetic ferrolens which its view terminates as two black holes on the center of each magnetic pole (eye of tornado) North and South pole.

Ironically, this inner hyperbola flow through the core is shown when ferromagnetic sensors are used like iron filings!! Which can show the "deep" field. Mistakenly, all these last 200 years we assumed that iron filings were showing magnetism M where in reality they were showing Electricity E!! I submit.

The two hyperbola counter vortices join their apex (tips) at the center of the domain wall disk. The point at the center is a singularity. We don't know really what is there, we assume that it is two magnetic Dirac monopoles of opposite polarity joint into a dipole completing the Quantum field and unifying E and M as one single field.

Yes, dipole magnetism is possible made up of two opposite polarity magnetic monopoles joint together.

Notice also that we strongly believe that there is no electric monopole charge particle in nature. Mistankenly the electron is regarded as a monopole. From the above description it comes naturally that electron is nothing more than one more tiny dipole magnet falsely taken as a monopole because its very relative low point like inward flux flaw. This is also the reason we believe they can not find any electric dipole moment on the electron.

Emmanouil

References

Markoulakis, Emmanouil; Konstantaras, Antonios; Antonidakis, Emmanuel (2018). "The quantum field of a magnet shown by a nanomagnetic ferrolens". Journal of Magnetism and Magnetic Materials. 466: 252–259. arXiv:1807.08751 📷. doi:10.1016/j.jmmm.2018.07.012. ISSN 0304-8853

Can incoherency occur between electric & magnetic photon field to produce monopole situation originally, perhaps gradient with inertia condition, & that will provide an automatic coherency driving force to effect electromagnetic photons? It may tell about progenitor to induce energy with matter in real coordinate exactly

Dear Behnam

Your comment "Briefly, classical electromagnetic (electric + magnetic) fields are the coherent states of photons. The latter are the spin-1 bosons mediating the interaction between the charged particles in quantum electrodynamics" may very well be true, but, in the context of Emmanouil's original question, what does it mean?

The sciences are shrouded in jargon that has no meaning but to the privileged few that may or may not have an inkling of what it is they are talking about. If a work of science can't answer in understandable language a straightforward question without resorting to the protective covering of jargon, that work is of no value to humanity.

Now it may well be that the question itself is unanswerable because it is not understandable in its own right and, perhaps, in itself, has misused the prevailing jargon. Then be forthright in saying so or otherwise answer the question as posed, but don't put forth a string of jargon-ridden gobbledygook as a substitute for promoting real understanding by the questioner.

So, back to the question: Of what is the magnetic field composed?

The magnetic field is not composed of green cheese because the moon already has gobbled that up. It is not composed of iron filings because iron filings are visible and the magnetic field is not. It goes from north pole to south pole; is that not a clue?

Recommend Share

Dear Gokaran Shukla,

Thank you for your confirmation and extensive analysis on your last post to me.

I believe your research is very much true and I will study it intensively.

In my opinion physics took a wrong turn for the last 100 years or so, it had however many successes but due the intrinsic limitations of the dominant model adopted it came now at a dead end covering only 4% of the total distance. There is still 96% of unknown in our Universe.

Merely this due the fact of an old habit we inherent from the past, to represent everything in 2D because is convenient. This can lead to many misunderstandings of physical phenomena and explanations given.

We have to think more in 3D Euclidian space.

With the aid of powerfull 3D simulation programs today and the recently advancement of real time quantum optic devices and technology we have now the unique opportunity to directly observe the quantum world generating more accurate 3D models to describe it and therefore limiting assumptions on the new theories produced.

quote: Also space is perfectly stationary. Space is NOT expanding.

I am sure our Universe has boundary conditions. They say it is expanding but the speed of light is constant over the eons. This of course can work only with the empty space concept and that is the exact reason why they say the space is empty.

But with the introduction of an omnipresent medium filling Euclidian space this can not hold anymore with the passage of time. Imagine our universe as a drop of water splashed on a surface. The water drop on the surface will expand over time changing its elasticity and therefore the propagation speed of waves inside it will slow down as it expands with time.

Either the above is correct or as you have put it, the volume of the drop remains constant like a cell with a outer membrane on an organism and therefore the speed of energy propagation inside it is the same over time.

Kind Regards,

Emmanouil

Dear Benham,

You wrote: "Briefly, classical electromagnetic (electric + magnetic) fields are the coherent states of photons. The latter are the spin-1 bosons mediating the interaction between the charged particles in quantum electrodynamics."

It is not so. The spin of electromagnetic particles relates to the magnetic aspect of elementary electromagnetic particles as a function of the inverse cube of the distance separating them, not to their electric aspect, as confirmed by the Kotler et al experiment:

https://www.nature.com/articles/nature13403.epdf?referrer_access_token=yoC6RXrPyxwvQviChYrG0tRgN0jAjWel9jnR3ZoTv0PdPJ4geER1fKVR1YXH8GThqECstdb6e48mZm0qQo2OMX_XYURkzBSUZCrxM8VipvnG8FofxB39P4lc-1UIKEO1

Best Regards

André

Dear Rajan,

It was experimentally proven in 1998 that magnetic fields for which both poles physically coincide repel with a force twice weaker than magnetic fields for which both poles are physically separated within each magnet, which, when correlated with the fact that since electrons always behave point-like in scattering experiments, both poles of their internal magnetic fields can only also physically coincide:

http://www.ijerd.com/paper/vol7-issue5/H0705050066.pdf

Note that this paper was published 1 year before the Kotler et al experiment.

Anybody can easily reproduce this experiment to verify for himself.

In 2014, the Kotler et al experiment confirmed that electrons repel with a force half of that of magnetic fields of magnets within which both poles are physically separated:

https://www.nature.com/articles/nature13403.epdf?referrer_access_token=yoC6RXrPyxwvQviChYrG0tRgN0jAjWel9jnR3ZoTv0PdPJ4geER1fKVR1YXH8GThqECstdb6e48mZm0qQo2OMX_XYURkzBSUZCrxM8VipvnG8FofxB39P4lc-1UIKEO1

This proves experimentally that the magnetic fields of electromagnetic particles such as the electron and the electromagnetic photon are time-wise monopoles, meaning that they are not simultaneously present at the same moment in point-like behaving electromagnetic particles , but in cyclic timewise alternance.

Moreover, this was confirmed by the Barnett and Einstein-de Haas experiments 100 years ago:

http://ijerd.com/paper/vol6-issue12/B06120711.pdf

Best Regards

André

A question which "... science can not answer ... " ?

This estimation is involved with the question of what physics as a science is considered to be. The idea or illusion of a principal "empty space" considered as a "continuum" has never been "proven" by experiments. Alternative ideas in favor of a principal "non-empty space" are usually not welcome. However, "space" can also be thought as a huge cluster of dipoles of "dyons", where at some places massive objects ("matter") or massless objects ("radiation") or both reside. More about the idea of "dyons" see the comprehensive text book "Magnetic Monopoles" by Yakov M. Shnir.

There is no statics in physics, i.e. rest or uniform motion, it is just an approximation. Physics is about accelerations, so there cannot be a sole electric or a sole magnetic field, but just the electromagnetic field, i.e. the photon.

Then one may discuss the purpose of introducing the field. After all, the only thing we observe is force. I wrote a book about that describing how classical electrodynamics may be formulated from the force perspective. Indeed, in this way the origin of the magnetic dynamics is clear, it is a pure motional consequence of the electric force, i.e. a relativistic effect. This means that magnetism is fictitious, in the same manner as coriolis and centrifugal forces.

So in order to understand magnetism, the field concept is superfluous. The only thing needed is the fact that "interactions take time", mediated at the speed of light. Link to book:

Book Electrodynamics: The Field-Free Approach

Dear Emanouil,

You have made an interesting question, I have been thinking lot about in last few months independently from the science community’s explanation:

Take a look onto the next article:

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/327201504_Gravity_a_paradym_shift_in_reasoning

Pg 11. , Fourth paragraph

There you find an alternative explanation, which can give some explanation to your question.

You have something similar in the next paragraph:

* It is my opinion that a magnetic field is not made up of any known particle field at all. I think of a magnetic field as being a direct deformation of physical space. All pure fields must work this way. They must be mechanical deformations of space. You can think of space being a low density, high tension solid elastic. The magnetic field is a mechanical deformation of space itself.*- and before made sentence…

You have thought in such a direction, how you made, … And if you have chance try to remake the experience made in eighteen, seventeen century and try to interpret in such a way,

Best Regards,

Laszlo

Dear Laszlo

If the magnetic field produces a physical deformation of space why then doesn't it affect all particles passing through it rather than just those magnetic particles?

A mass like the sun produces a gravitational field that deforms space that affects all things within its sphere of influence whether magnetic or not.

Dear Dwight,

You have made an Interesting question… My response is that the process which connects to your question has connection with the process which is used by metal detector.

Another thing - I am supposing - that in the immediately nearby space of active current conductor has to exist same attraction force like in case of Earth… I did not use the Sun because, the mentioned process mentioned by you has to acts on to its surface differentlyt: the radiation pressure is bigger than its gravity attraction for this exist an buoyancy effect something similar like at fluids (Archimedes' principle) (take it only supposal)

Best Regards

Laszlo

Dwight Hoxie,

Congratulations! A very smart reply!

Sofia

Dear Dwight,

It is well known and understood that detectable macroscopic magnetic field of all magnets is due to the addition of forced parallel alignment of the individual magnetic fields of unpaired electrons in atoms of the magnets material. Clearly described and explained in the CRC Handbook of Chemistry and Physics, 84th Edition 2003-2004, CRC Press, New York. 2003, p.12-117,

To my knowledge, no deformation of space occurs in the surroundings of magnets.

It would be very surprising if the magnetic field of the Sun or of any planet would not obey the very same laws of nature that we can observe and verify here on the Earth, and that electrons would behave differently in atoms making up the mass of the Sun simply because they are located far from us.

Best Regards

André

@ André Michaud,

Your answer is a surprise to me: you know to perfection that the magnetic field propagates in vacuum too. So, which electrons are in vacuum?

With best regards!

Dear Sofia,

Maybe this is just a matter of interpretation.

From observation of activity in the corona of the Sun. It is well established that hundreds of billions of tons of matter are expelled each day that migrates in the whole solar system. The so-called "solar winds" have been measured as expelling in the order of 6.7 billion tons of material per hour, not even counting the coronal mass ejections (CME) that are known to eject each day up to 125 times more material than the solar winds.

Analyzed in this paper titled "The Corona effect":

http://www.ijerd.com/paper/vol7-issue11/A07110109.pdf

Whose main source of data is this outstanding Markus Aschwanden textbook "Physics of the Solar Corona", Springer, 2006, that I recommend to anybody wishing to become more closely acquainted with the Sun's magnetic field.

So there seems to be plenty of electrons and all types of ionized atoms moving about in vacuum to sustain an ambient magnetic field. More "ambient" like the magnetic field of magnets possibly, rather than "propagating" as you conclude.

Best Regards

André

If we assume all matter and radiation in the Universe to be vibrations of a scalar omnipresent inert medium filing Euclidean space then all frequencies or standing waves are superimposed and coexist altogether.

If frequency difference is very large then we can practically assume that these frequencies are isolated and don't affect each other. Resonance of two spatial regions occurs only when frequencies are close enough in value or match.

It all becomes so more clear and easier to explain as soon as you adopt the wave structure of matter (WSM) in a scalar inert field vibrating.

Emmanouil

The fact that the magnetic field propagates through vacuum, shows that vacuum is not EMPTINESS. On average, the vacuum is said to be neutral, but it has fluctuations, particles and anti-particles popping out of the vacuum and returning to it.

I saw a page in Wikipedia, saying the following:

"The electron has no known substructure[1][76] and it is assumed to be a point particle with a point charge and no spatial extent. The issue of the radius of the electron is a challenging problem of the modern theoretical physics. The admission of the hypothesis of a finite radius of the electron is incompatible to the premises of the theory of relativity. On the other hand, a point-like electron (zero radius) generates serious mathematical difficulties due to the self-energy of the electron tending to infinity."

(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electron#Fundamental_properties)

On another page I saw:

"The apparent paradox in classical physics of a point particle electron having intrinsic angular momentum and magnetic moment can be explained by the formation of virtual photons in the electric field generated by the electron. These photons cause the electron to shift about in a jittery fashion (known as zitterbewegung),[93] which results in a net circular motion with precession. This motion produces both the spin and the magnetic moment of the electron.[9][94] In atoms, this creation of virtual photons explains the Lamb shift observed in spectral lines"

(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electron#Virtual_particles)

Dear László,

Gravity can be perfectly explained by vortex hydrodynamics. This is a well known fact and a strong indication that we are inside a medium we ironically call empty space.

Abandoning the Universal medium was the biggest mistake science did the last 100 years and now it's struggling its way with over complicated theories and models which frankly remind me more of science fiction.

Essentially our Universe is fluidic.

Also the dogma that gravity only attracts is frankly BS.

Same spin direction gravity vortices will repel holding a constant separation.

In our planet we don't see this phenomenon holding two objects close together in our hands because first interaction gravitational forces are two weak for objects with relative so small masses and secondly the dominant gravity vortex of our planet is sucking everything to its center.

Kind Regards,

Emmanouil

Dear Sofia,

You wrote: "The fact that the magnetic field propagates through vacuum, shows that vacuum is not EMPTINESS. On average, the vacuum is said to be neutral, but it has fluctuations, particles and anti-particles popping out of the vacuum and returning to it."

Again, maybe this is just a matter of interpretation.

The observed fact that the magnetic field in vacuum has fluctuations may simply mean that charged particles "are present" in vacuum, as the activities in the solar corona confirm, not that they may be popping in and out of existence. There is no need for such an unexplainable process when a perfectly logical and verified source of these charged particles has been "observed".

Note that wikipedia pages are not peer-reviewed sources, and can be edited by just about anybody. The most determined will win the day.

The electron is not actually "known" not to have a substructure. What is known is that it has not yet been determined conclusively whether or not it has such an inner substructure.

The concept of point-like electron with zero radius is just a mathematical concept to mathematically represent the electron in equations, just like the whole masses of the Moon and the Earth are treated as if they were point-like in equations meant to calculate their trajectories about their common center of mass and about the center of mass that they share with the Sun.

What we know about the electron, is that it is electromagnetic in nature and that it "behaves" as if it was point-like in all scatterable encounters with other point-like behaving charged particles.

Being "electromagnetic" means that it has both an electric aspect and a magnetic aspect. We know this conclusively due to confirming experiments very well known for its electric charge and also since the Kotler et al experiment for its magnetic aspect.

The fact that it behaves point-like doesn't mean in any way that it is a mathematical point with no dimensions, just like the Earth is not. It simply means that no unbreachable limit was ever met at some distance from their centers in all mutual collision experiments between electrons carried out in high energy accelerators, however close they came to their mutual centers before rebounding.

Since they are electromagnetic in nature they are bound to have an "electromagnetic" inner structure to explain these two different types of behavior that they have been experimentally shown to display.

Best Regards

André

What is a magnetic field made out of? You are closer to metaphysics than you are to science. Anything else you can answer, how it is set up, how to detect it, motion of charged particles in, etc, but not that.

We know what it is made of. It can be easily proven that it is simply made of ¨kinetic energy¨, whatever kinetic energy may be.

We know this from the sequence of momentum kinetic energy induced in accelerating electrons (as in a Coolidge tube), that escapes as electromagnetic photons in the X-ray range when these electrons are captured by ions on the cathode, for example, in the case of the Coolidge tube, and from the 13.6 eV electromagnetic bremmsstrahlung photon escaping when an electron is captured by a proton to form a hydrogen atom.

And we know from countless experimental confirmations that electromagnetic photons having energy in excess of 1.022 MeV are easily converted to pairs of massive electron and positron, and we also have countless experimental confirmations that pairs of electron and positron can easily be reconverted back to electromagnetic photons.

If the electron is made of kinetic energy, so its magnetic aspect can only be made of the same "substance", whatever it may be.

Not believing constantly repeatable experimental evidence is of course each individual's choice. But not believing it will not make the constantly experimentally repeatable confirmed evidence go away.

@ André Michaud

NO, André, NO, this is a confusion. In the beginning I didn't uderstand what you present so much that solar corona. Only in the end I saw what you want to say.

The material that stars shoot into the space make the vacuum imperfect. I mean, for obtaining very high vacuum we have to do our experiments UNDERGROUND, for having even the neutrinos stopped (in fact, I heard that neutrinos can pass through all the Earth diameter - so small is their reaction cross section).

The quantum vacuum is not the imperfect classical vacuum of which you speak. The quantum vacuum contains no real particles, not even neutrinos. QFT says that the classical absolute vacuum is not NOTHING. So-called "virtual particles" pop up from it, for a very short time, and then return to it. These are so-called "vacuum fluctuations".

The situation can be compared with an engine extracting energy between two reservoirs. One canot go with the extraction below the level of the lower reservoir. And though, the lower reservoir is not empty.

You see, there are people who look at the concept of quantum vacuum as at fairy tales. But there are phenomena that is impossible to explain without this concept. Therefore, pleasant or unpleasant we have to consider this concept.

The very question of this thread, the fact that the classical vacuum transmits magnetic field, shows that it is not NOTHING.

With kind regards,

Sofia

Simply saying that it stores energy density is not the same as saying what it is.

Electrical fields also store energy density.

You really dont know what kinetic energy is...usually applies to particle motion, not fields.

An electron made out of kinetic energy, NO. An electron can simply have kinetic energy, In a magnetic field written as (1/2m) (p-qA)**2, where B is the curl of A

It will also have mass energy.

Do not further confuse people please.

I am not confusing anybody. Quite the contrary.

As discovered by Paul Marmet in 2003, the magnetic field of the electron represents exactly half the energy of which its rest mass is made, as analyzed in this paper published in 2007 in the same engineering journal of the Kazan State University where Marmet had his related paper published in 2003:

http://www.gsjournal.net/Science-Journals/Research%20Papers-Relativity%20Theory/Download/2257

"Fields" do not store energy density. They are only mathematical representations that Gauss conceived of to "mathematically represent" electromagnetic energy.

It can also be proven that half its carrying energy is also electromagnetic in nature, accounting for its relativistic mass increment.

Here are the E and B fields equations for the electron rest mass energy:

Dear Sofia,

You wrote: " The very question of this thread, the fact that the classical vacuum transmits magnetic field, shows that it is not NOTHING."

Yes. The fact that magnetic energy can be observed to be present in vacuum shows that electromagnetic energy is present in vacuum since the electric and magnetic aspects of energy cannot be dissociated from each other, and consequently that the physically existing charged particles and ions that we know exist have to be present also to account for this magnetic energy.

André

I think that you have got it wrong. "Kinetic energy" is the term that we apply to the energy of motion, nominally the motion of a particle. In Newtonian mechanics the kinetic energy of a particle is 1/2 m v2, where m is the mass of the particle and v is the velocity of the particle relative to a stationary reference frame (usually the laboratory). For a particle at rest there is the inherent "rest-mass energy" m c2, where again m is the mass and c is the velocity of light. "Potential energy" is latent energy that a particle has by virtue of its position in a field, like gravity, acting on the particle. These terms and designations are of our creation and were coined to describe the essence of physics in Newton's era (except for the then unknown rest-mss energy) but they do find extension into the physics of our era.

To describe quantitatively the motion of particles we introduced the concepts of mass, energy, momentum, etc. and divided energy into categories, kinetic, potential, etc for our convenience. Whether physics or philosophy we are faced with the problem of somehow seeing beyond our constructs to give them fundamental meaning.

And so it is with our other creations like magnetic, electric, electromagnetic and gravitational fields; we seek a deeper meaning for these entities and that is what the question at hand regarding the "magnetic field" is all about. However, whatever it be that constitutes the magnetic field, and it may be "energy", it is not "kinetic energy" as we have defined the term.

André

A moving electron possesses kinetic energy by virtue of its motion and it generates a magnetic field by virtue of its electric charge. The same should be true for a moving proton should it not? Does a static electron or proton generate a magnetic field? They both have magnetic moments by virtue of their spin and they both are charged so there arises a magnetic field but it is not associated with their kinetic energy of motion if they are not moving. Protons are composed of quarks and the electron nominally is indivisable, that is, they each are distnctly different animals, but they both produce magnetic fields when stationary. To me this suggests that a magnetic field is an entity undefinable in terms of any particular particle but is a distinct entity in own right.

@ André ,

Please read more attentively what people write. I didn't say that

"the magnetic field in vacuum has fluctuations"

I said that the vacuum has fluctuations, i.e. there are particles that pop out of the vacuum, and then return to vacuum.

"There is no need for such an unexplainable process"

Of course there is no need, when we speak of two different things. I speak of the fact that the vacuum - perfect vacuum from classical point of view - transmits the magnetic field, while you speak of non-vacuum i.e. the solar wind of particles.

"Note that wikipedia pages are not peer-reviewed sources"

I noticed how much stupidity can contain peer-reviewed articles, and even, sometimes, written by great names. Of course, it's not general. There are many peer-reviewed articles which are GREAT, because the the authors know physics and are responsible on what they write.

The citation from Wikipedia contained the sentence

"The admission of the hypothesis of a finite radius of the electron is incompatible to the premises of the theory of relativity."

Do you understand why a finite radius is incompatible with the relativity? Or do you ignore it as not being peer-reviewed?

"The concept of point-like electron with zero radius is just a mathematical concept to mathematically represent the electron in equations, just like the whole masses of the Moon and the Earth are treated as if they were point-like in equations meant to calculate their trajectories about their common center of mass and about the center of mass that they share with the Sun."

I refer you again to the statement that non-zero electron radius is in conflict with the relativity.

Dwight

I agree with everything you say, except that a stationary charged particle will only give rise to an electrical field only, at least macroscopically. For a magnetic field you need a current.

Juan Weisz,

While I absolutely agree with the physical explanations you give, it surprises me the sentence "Do not further confuse people please." Andre is not badly intended, he says what he knows. Why are you hard with him?

Now, kinetic energy is a property associated with movement, while the electron has charge and magnetic dipole even when at rest. The pions π+ and π- have mass and electric charge and have no magnetic dipole. While π0 has mass but no charge and no magnetic dipole, and even when it is in movement, i.e. has kinetic energy, it won't have a magnetic dipole.

With kind regards,

Sofia

Dear Dwight,

I have not gotten it wrong. I perfectly understand how the concept of "kinetic energy" was understood before Marmet's discovery.

Understanding in physics evolves as discoveries are made. I simply understand it now in light of this further progress that you obviously are not aware of.

No need to explain to me what 1/2 m v2 and c mean. If you are curious of how Marmet's discovery allows upgrading Newton's 1/2 m v2, to full-fledged relativistic electromagnetic status, you will find the derivation in this paper titled "From Classical to Relativistic Mechanics via Maxwell":

http://www.gsjournal.net/Science-Journals/Research%20Papers-Relativity%20Theory/Download/3197

"Potential energy" is an antiquated classical mechanics concept that has no meaning in electromagnetism.

Marmet revealed the direct connection between the magnetic field and the classical concept of mass, and contrary to what you think from the current classical perspective, it can only be kinetic energy.

The electron does not possess momentum-kinetic-energy by virtue of its motion, as you say, but by virtue of the fact that it is an electrically charged elementary particle, and because of this, it is adiabatically induced with this momentum-kinetic-energy/mass-increment as a function of the inverse of the distance separating it from other electrically charged particles. Ref, Maxwell's first equation, that is, Gauss's equation for the electric field, which is a simple generalization of the Coulomb law.

It does not "generate" a magnetic field by virtue of its electric charge. It "possesses" a magnetic field by virtue of the fact that it is a charged electromagnetic elementary particle, whether it is moving or not.

The proton is not an elementary particle. It is a "system" of elementary particles that are stabilized into this least action electromagnetic configuration, each of which is a charged elementary electromagnetic particle just like the electron, with identical electromagnetic inner structure but with slightly different mass, charge, and magnetic characteristics.

Like the electron, their magnetic fields do not "arise" as you say, but are permanently present, and they are definitely associated with adiabatically induced momentum-kinetic-energy/mass-increment as a function of the inverse of the distance separating them, just like the electron.

There can exist no such thing as charged elementary electromagnetic particle that would not be induced with some momentum-kinetic-energy/mass-increment

Protons are composed of charged elementary electromagnetic up and down quarks that like electron are indivisible, that each are distinctly different animals, as you say, but that all do not "produce" magnetic fields when stationary, but "possess" magnetic fields whether they are moving or not.

There can exist in physical reality no such thing a "stationary" electron, up or down quark. Even when captive in any least action electromagnetic equilibrium state they can only remain moving in axial resonance states within resonance volumes defined by the local electromagnetic equilibrium.

If you wish to understand how the original Newton kinetic energy concept integrates in the now complete description of the electron carrying energy, you will find Marmet's derivation summarized and explained in Sections 2 and 3 of this recently formally published paper, titled "The Hydrogen Atom Fundamental Resonance States":

http://file.scirp.org/Html/17-7503469_84158.htm

You may understand then how the momentum-kinetic-energy half of its carrying energy propels the electron while the equal density electric and magnetic fields of its mass increment, which is the other half of the energy induced as a function of its distance from other charges default-guides it in straight line unless some external factor causes this default equilibrium to vary, in which case its trajectory will be curved in relation to this change in equilibrium, in conformity with the Lorentz force equation.

I am not really expecting that you will study Marmet's derivation and its consequences nor counting on any approval by anybody in the current physics community, but it is nevertheless now available in the formal record at the disposal of the upcoming generation.

Best Regards

André

Dear Sofia,

I did read carefully what you wrote, but what has been observed is that "the magnetic field in vacuum has fluctuations", Ref the Markus Aschwanden textbook I referred to before.

What you said is "I said that the vacuum has fluctuations, i.e. there are particles that pop out of the vacuum, and then return to vacuum."

Which is the theoretical foundation of the Quantum Field Theory, and is theoretical and not an observed condition, contrary to the magnetic field fluctuations.

You wrote " I noticed how much stupidity can contain peer-reviewed articles, and even, sometimes, written by great names. Of course, it's not general."

I think that the same also applies to wikipedia pages.

You wrote " "The admission of the hypothesis of a finite radius of the electron is incompatible to the premises of the theory of relativity."

Do you understand why a finite radius is incompatible with the relativity? Or do you ignore it as not being peer-reviewed?"

Yes I do. It is even incompatible with common sense as well as with experimental evidence.

I never said that it has a finite radius. I said the opposite:

Behaving point-like for an electron "simply means that no unbreachable limit was ever met at some distance from their centers in all mutual collision experiments between electrons carried out in high energy accelerators, however close they came to their mutual centers before rebounding."

Best Regards

André

Dear André and Sofia,

I thank you both for your contributionsI Were it possible I would propose that we get together for conversation and share a bottle of wine.

In the static limit the electromagnetic field doesn't fluctuate. Nor does it propagate: the electromagnetic interaction is non-local. It suffices to actually compute the Green function in the static limit-it's time-independent.

Dear Emmanouil

For many years I poured over the research and the data, asking myself the same questions. What is the magnetic field? what is the electric field?

By using the same approach that space is a tension medium it started to become much clearer.

Please see the article "Space, Relativity, and Quantization" here on research gate. I think you might find some relevant ideas.

@ Dwight Hoxie,

I would gladly come. In my country there is an excellent wine from peaches. What a pity that the geographic distance between us is so big.

With kind regards,

Sofia

Dear Chip Akins,

Thank you for sharing your research.

Very interesting line of work.

I find similarities with our experimental data.

Emmanouil

Dear Juan Weisz

You write..." ...a stationary charged particle will only give rise to an electrical field... "

This is not really correct...

When researching magnetism, we cannot ignore the magnetic field of the electron "at rest".

This magnetic field exists (must exist) because the electron has a magnetic moment. So it is not only the moving of charged particles which creates magnetic fields.

While the motion of charges contributes to the measurable macroscopic magnetic field, magnetism itself is more fundamental than just the magnetic fields we observe from the motion of charges.

" I would gladly come. In my country there is an excellent wine from peaches. What a pity that the geographic distance between us is so big."

What are you talking about??!!... Why you don't just use your transporter to beam up?

"While the motion of charges contributes to the measurable macroscopic magnetic field, magnetism itself is more fundamental than just the magnetic fields we observe from the motion of charges. "

Very true. It's all magnetism after all.

Dear Emmanouil,

I have not answered that question so many years now...

The best candidate I have found til now is my friend's Peter Hahn suggestion here:

http://pcmhahn.wixsite.com/foamyether/forces

Read it, you will love it!

My regards,

Demetris

Dear Dwight,

I usually don't shy away from sharing a bottle of wine in good and knowledgeable company. But like Sofia, distance is in the way for me also.

Best Regards

André

Dear André,

Yes, distance is a problem but one day when we can teleport ourselves around the world at the speed of light or greater it won't be a problem. I've enjoyed our conversation but now I need to actually study your work that I confess I only skimmed. Cheers!.

The internal magnetic field of a nucleon is composed from aligned orbits of photon pairs to a specific axis, complementary orbits. This induces polarity along the axis in a persistent way. To obtain persistent external magnetic fields an atom composed of nucleons must have a condition where these smaller contributing axis are aligned over longer wavelengths. This is complimentary in many aspects to the specific projection geometry of the projected electrons around the nucleus in discussion. Additional absorbed photons provide excitement levels that are inertial states that contribute to both the electron energy state and the external magnetic field local to the atom. In materials sciences we discuss the electron's fields spanning over molecular and crystalline architecture, and to the orderliness of these field arrangements. My own studies require an understanding of these internal magnetic fields that bond nucleons, as it is required in order to study the formation of matter. That set of mechanics will lead to future technical achievements.

This subject is very near and dear to me, to which I have spent the past 6 years focusing upon. I am planning on publishing a Geometric Theory of the Unified Field in 2019. At this time I can relay a couple of discoveries associated with this geometry, in that on one hand a very complex system, yet built upon a very simple and elegant foundation of integers, building upon its initial entry into the universe as the Number 1. What we have defined as “charge” is simply a fallen symmetric state of the natural state of the universe (dark energy), creating a polarized state where all of these forces simply appear attempting to return to its higher self. Gravity is the balm which Dark Energy places upon its irritant of Matter, and the electron is the balm’s active ingredient.

I am fishing for like minded researchers to peer review my paper once released. Please Follow me if interested.

-J.L. Brady

Dear Dwight,

You just reminded me of my teens when after I had already visited about half our galaxy with Keith Laumer, Van Vogt and company, I suddenly learned that c was the limit velocity, strapping me back down to Earth again, looking for a way out. Yes, teleportation was also a great idea. I am getting tempted again reading The Expanse.

I also enjoyed our all out conversation.

If you dig in, just so you don't have to beat about the bush too much looking for where this really hooks up with electromagnetism, it is grounded on Maxwell's initial mutual induction of both E and B fields concept that led to his discovery of the resulting speed of light, and not on the Lorenz conception, that Maxwell disagreed with, that both fields had to be at max at the same time for the wave to propagate, on which current electrodynamics is grounded.

It is this initial Maxwell's view that de Broglie also had for the free moving localized photon and that allowed me to understand why Marmet's derivation makes sense.

A word of caution. If you are not careful, this may also start making sense to you and like me, you risk ending up at odds with the whole community.

Best Regards

André

@ Mark Aaron Simpson

A nucleon is constructed from quarks and gluons, not from photons. As a fellow skilled in QFT, you should kn ow this.

"To obtain persistent external magnetic fields an atom composed of nucleons must have a condition where these smaller contributing axis are aligned over longer wavelengths."

Can you align a meter along a Kg? How you align an axis along a wavelength?

"Additional absorbed photons provide excitement levels that are inertial states . . ."

Would you kindly define an inertial state? There exists inertial frames, inertial movement, momentum of inertia. But what is an inertial state? Inertial movement is a movement influenced by NO FORCES. It's not the situation of an electron in an atom.

Now, the question is "what is the magnetic field made of?". The magnetic field is transmitted by the vacuum where are no objects with axes and wavelengths, no bond nucleons, no inertial states, no crystaline materials.

Chip

Yes, you are actually right, I discounted effects at a single particle level.

When you have the collective effect leading to magnetism it becomes relevant.

At the material level you have to ask what is the net J of the atom, and if you have ferromagnetism , paramagnetism or diamagnetism.

The B field actually loops around with no source or sink, zero inside a superconductor.

Regards, Juan

Dear Chip,

You wrote: "By using the same approach that space is a tension medium it started to become much clearer."

Yes, this is the approach that made sense to Maxwell also.

The reason is that it has long been established that energy can be transmitted via a transverse pulse travelling in a rigid medium, such as shear waves in the ground (S-waves).

If you search the literature and all available references, you will observe that only one type of transverse wave has ever been described and considered.

The same propagation mechanics is assumed for electromagnetic energy in vacuum even though this would imply that it be made of some "rigid substance" (allowing a recall constant) whose "substance" can move transversely, but cannot move longitudinally as the transverse "pulse" propagates longitudinally.

The real issue with this type of wave, is that a rigid substance filling vacuum should be detectable if it was sufficiently rigid for whatever type of pulse to propagate, but since it is required for the very idea of the only known type of transverse "wave" to propagate, an "ether" is assumed to justify the very idea of "electromagnetic waves" transmission, since they are known to be transverse.

A downside of this method is that for all of the energy of a pulse to be accumulated upon absorption, the whole longitudinal length of the wave needs a finite time to progressively "pile in", so to speak, whereas complete instantaneous absorption seems to be observed.

I was wondering if you had looked at the de Broglie localized photons option.

He was looking at reconciling the mutual E and B fields induction of electromagnetic energy with the idea of a localized photon. Since localization implies "longitudinal point-like behavior" of such a moving quantum, this leads to the idea never before considered of a new form of transverse oscillation if the quantum can somehow "self-propel", involving an electromagnetic oscillation in transverse standing mode without any longitudinal "pulse" component, that reduces the "wavelength" of the transversely oscillating "longitudinally point-like behaving" quantum to the distance travelled for the quantum to complete one of its transverse EM oscillation.

This fundamentally is the idea behind de Broglie's "pilot wave" that propels the transversely oscillating quantum, then no underlying medium such as the ether is required.

This would for example easily explain why photons maintain their energy intensity irrespective of the distance travelled, contrary to the spherically expanding EM wave that logically would spread the energy of the point-like source over the whole wave front, and would also explain why laser photons in a beam do not mutually interfere destructively with each other intensity wise even when out of phase, but remain additive.

Best Regards

André

Referring my question thread RESEARCHGATE on my article paper:"A novel model emerging - unified magnetic theory of monopole ferrolenses measurements experimental observations and modified Maxwell equations theory?" 📷SourceMODIFIED MAXWELL EQUATIONS WITH MONOPOLE POINT MAGNETIC SYSTEMS - Article: Full-text available, Oct 2018 by Rajan Iyer, answering q. about ".......one question.......what is the magnetic field made up......" Emmanouil has asked this very elegant question as we've started to understand that perhaps magnetics by themselves may explain the monopole vortex fields being now isolated by Emmanouil and his project team at Antonidakis laboratory. Recently I had the honor to visit their facility and my modified Maxwell equations further addresses that quantitatively with mathematical physics.

My modified Maxwell equations say that monopole magnetics can cancel each other forming electrics. Once it is proved, that will show or be interpretable that monopole magnetics when they come together vector fields may cancel, forming possibly a tensor or scalar field, depending on how north monopole vortex interacts with the south monopole vortex magnetics, acting as source_sink mechanism of energy generation. Also, canceled magnetics reappears as electrics - varying field that will create field magnetism, per original Maxwell equations. The coherent electrics+magnetics thus can produce electromagnetism in the form of photons-phonons.

In terms a quantum field theory, the wave function collapse of vector field generates measurable scalar fields creating real space electromagnetic waves photons &/or phonons. However, an opposite effect with inverse interactions, wave function explosions are quite a possibility generating tensor fields, which aren't measurable most likely. They may form the dark matter dark energy part of the sense-time-space. Hence I propose mathematical modeling quantum field modified Maxwell theory, that are provable once monopole observations & measurements are possible.

This is already going progressively with Emmanouil project team at Antonidakis laboratory and additionally their extended experiments at CERN with advanced techniques using such as SQUID. Predictions from the Modified Maxwell Equations (see also attached file) will extend to the possibility that monopoles may squeeze together without forming the Bloch wall but only vacuum space, since they while canceling out magnetics produce entity hypothetically "excitons" that form electrics & coherent collapse forming electromagnetism will preclude the Bloch wall creation. Many of these correlate to observations that Emmanouil project team have made recently. However, more solid testable proofs will have to emerge to have complete comprehension about "queer" phenomena that many experiments are ongoing revealing.

Although these are not answering question about what magnetic field are made up of they may give more knowledge of whether magnetics alone can account for energy of the universe. Coming up with a viable mechanism by which magnetism explains all the four fields will help towards grand unified field theory of dark & real energy and matter.

Excellent presentation Dr. Rajan Iyer.

(Electron is not an electric monopole charge particle)

Maybe we are not made it clear enough, but our research is based on real time observations of magnetic fields and actual experiments and measurements using quantum optic methods and apparatus.

quote: "Also, canceled magnetics reappears as electrics."

That is very true and evident on all of our observations and experiments contacted (over 3,000 lab hours).

In the two videos below we observe through the ferrolens the torus-vortex polar fields of first a loudspeaker magnet and second a the polar fields close up of a cube magnet. Notice the vortex field displayed in real time by the ferrolens, its view is terminated as a black hole at the center of each pole. These is because ferrolens can only display magnetic radiation outward vortex flux of the Quantum field of the magnet and not the second perpendicular inward axial flux of the field which is the (di)electric flux of the magnet and essential what we used to call today electric field:

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

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

As an analogy look at the joined water whirls called Modon, paradigm. Figure attached (more details on discussion thread here, https://www.researchgate.net/post/Are_dipole_magnetic_fields_modons).

Physics girl demonstration: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pnbJEg9r1o8&t=

In this figure, the two counter spin vortices represent the polar flux vortices of a dipole magnet observed by the ferrolens and the submerged joining green tube created holding the poles together (food coloring material was used to make it visible) represent the Bloch domain wall of the magnet which is essentially the (di)electric field perpendicular to the polar vortices plane.

Of course on the actual magnetic field the poles-vortices are axially joint via the dielectric (green tube) field which is squeezed in the form of a 2D disk plane essentially with zero thickness d, thus the electric dipole moment p in a dipole magnet between its poles is practically always zero, p=qd.

With other words, we can say that in a dipole magnet its electric field (i.e. second flow of magnetic flux as observed with the ferrolens of its Quantum field) always collapses. This is exactly the reason why science can not find any electric dipole moment on the electron which falsely lead them to the conclusion of the monopole nature of the single electron, I submit:

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/electron-spherical-electric-dipole-moment/

Ironically, however mainstream science schizophrenically acknowledges the fact that an electron is also a "tiny" dipole magnet!!... AND THAT AND ONLY THAT AN ELECTRON REALLY IS!! THERE IS NO ELECTRIC MONOPOLE CHARGE PARTICLE IN NATURE!! I SUBMIT.

Theoretically, if we could increase the Bloch domain wall thickness considerably (dielectric disk) in a dipole magnet we possible would be able to produce an electric voltage between the poles of the magnet.

WARNING! THE ABOVE CONCLUSIONS AND RESEARCH ARE CURRENTLY BENDING PUBLICATION.

copyright©Emmanouil Markoulakis&Rajan Iyer TEI of Crete 2018.

References

Article The Quantum Field Of A Magnet Shown By A Nanomagnetic Ferrolens

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

Dear Rajan,

You wrote: " My modified Maxwell equations say that monopole magnetics can cancel each other forming electrics. Once it is proved, that will show or be interpretable that monopole magnetics when they come together vector fields may cancel, forming possibly a tensor or scalar field, depending on how north monopole vortex interacts with the south monopole vortex magnetics, acting as source_sink mechanism of energy generation. Also, canceled magnetics reappears as electrics - varying field that will create field magnetism, per original Maxwell equations. The coherent electrics+magnetics thus can produce electromagnetism in the form of photons"

This is correct. This is what I have been representing with LC equations.

Best Regards

André

Emmanouil Markoulakis, if you have the answer to the question " What is the electric field made up of?", then it should answer your original question about the magnetic field too. There is no difference between electric and magnetic fields: it is the same field. Mathematically, you can use the Lorentz transformations to convert EM fields from one inertial frame to another. This is math. But what essentially happens from the physical point of view and what role SR plays is all described in the attached chart. I hope this can partially help to understand the deep root of magnetic fields. Note that the inverse approach in the chart is what drove Einstein to formulate SR. In other words, the existence of a magnetic field is the direct "visual" proof of space contraction in SR.

Sante R. Scuro,

Sir. The info and idea you shared is acknowledged by us as precious and will be a great assist to us.

Specially the set of spatial EM transformations equations confirming initially a large part of our quantum optic observations and data collected.

How can we please repay you for pointing us to the right direction?

Thank you.

Emmanouil

I am glad to help!

Sante,

this is a lovely answer. It is exactly what I tried to express in my answer earlier but in the field-free approach. I notice on your picture that the essential phenomenon of two identical charges moving in parallel is included. This is all we need to understand magnetism and SR is nothing but magnetism.

It is truly amazing that this simple phenomenon gives us so much info, i.e. everything about magnetism, everything about SR.

IT'S ALL AETHER, NOTHING ELSE. And ordinary matter and radiation are all just vibrations in this Universal fluid. It's all "water".

There would be no harmony if our Universe was not made from the same single primordial substance.

EM

A long time ago, I asked a physics PhD the same question and she replied "physics doesn't attempt to explain what something is, only how it works".

sounds like she didn't know either...

Thank you Emmanouil. Andre, Timm, Sante, & Kjell with your thumbs up comments with specifically precise argumentation to prove magnetic energy emanating from what we have been discussing at this forum's question threads. Quite encouraging also to see that I had been correct about the modified Maxwell equations as guiding mathematical physics to understand black box of nature. Perhaps, together with experimental investigations especially Emmanouil team & Antonidakis Laboratory theoretical analysis eventually will unravel unifying principle proving source sink mechanism operating energy generation in the universe. Although the First Law of Thermodynamics talks about conservation of energy, that energy can't be created or destroyed, there has to be energy source to start the process, then source-sink mechanism consequently ensures such conservation balancing energy of the universe. Hence I am feeling quite confident what we are embarking on will be the correct direction to move toward future!!!!!

I suppose your question is related to electromagnetic field. It couples to electric charges, it is carried by massless quanta called photons, which is a Majorana field having zero charge. At high energy collider experiments it was also discovered that photons can couple to weak charges, though the coupling strength to electric and weak charges are different.

PS. Electric and magnetic phenomena were unified by J. C. Maxwell in the nineteenth century as electromagnetic theory, which was described by Maxwell's equations.

quote: PS. Electric and magnetic phenomena were unified by J. C. Maxwell in the nineteenth century as electromagnetic theory, which was described by Maxwell's equations.

I say magnetism was dichotomized to E and M not Unified as you say by Maxwell because the true nature of magnetism and 3D field geometry was not fully understood at that time. This as a consequence lead us today to the EM duality paradox with many implications to scientific progress and applied limitations of the model developed and adopted hindering us to fully understand related phenomena. There is critical info missing from today's model.

And how could they ? At that time using the poor 2D imprint of the iron filings experiment for magnetism.

If they had at that time quantum optic devices at their disposal the picture would be totally different and so would be the Maxwell equations, I submit.

Emmanouil

Dear Emmanouil

I have found today a good book for you:

I think you will find something useful for you… The author of the book Valeriy Pakulin is from field:

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/328314405_GRAVITATION_Vortex_model_of_microcosm_Quantum_nature_of_gravity_Field_and_substance

Regards,

Laszlo

Dear Emmanouil,

You wrote "I say magnetism was dichotomized to E and M not Unified as you say by Maxwell"

You are absolutely right.

The previously experimentally established electromagnetic equations set was "synthesized" by Maxwell, not "unified", into a theory that allowed to establish as separate and interconnected the observed characteristics of the behavior of electric and magnetic energy observed during experiments.

It was the Lorenz view, that Maxwell disagreed with, that led to the persisting confusion in the community that the magnetic aspect is just a secondary effect emerging form the electrical aspect.

Best Regards

André

quote: "It was the Lorenz view, that Maxwell disagreed with, that led to the persisting confusion in the community that the magnetic aspect is just a secondary effect emerging form the electrical aspect."

How very true this is!

I have now come to the conclusion that one can not express valid scientific arguments about a phenomena without knowing the history of science, the chain of events who formed the today's status quo.

Is Maxwell EM theory and model wrong? Certainly not as long as it gives the right results.

Is Maxwell EM theory incomplete? I believe so. Due its incomplete geometry of its model it imposes limitations for further expansion and development of new theories that would explain many phenomena not yet understood. Before unifying the forces it is α prerequisite I believe we first get rid of the EM schizophrenia.

Dear László,

Very interesting.

Thank you for the tip!

Emmanouil

Hi all,

If you are really interested in EM- phenomena, I suggest that you read a paper on fundamental electro-magnetism that can be found in the project DAON, in RG.

Courage! It's not difficult reading.

Я знаю природу магнитного поля. Но это пока секретная информация. Делаем секретную технику.

СЕКРЕТНАЯ ТЕХНИКА, КОТОРЫЙ ЭТО? ... О НАС.

case fields should be forces, and f=ma, it seems that (at least) they are not virtual particles, as long as they have passed the higgs field (to get mass!). but what is then a higgs-field made of?

@ Vladimir

Есть ли в RG причина не только писать на английском, но и на русском языке?

Is there a reason in RG not only to write in English but also in Russian?

Природа известная. Но это коммерческая тайна.

Nature is famous. But it's a trade secret.