Why Magnets Are Dark Matter Machines - A hypothesis
I have developed an hypothesis on how magnets work but this time I dare to differ from mainstream science. So I am going to be a kind of heretic here, excuse me. Don't ask me for a proof since this is just an hypothesis.
I’ve been thinking about a theory opposing current mainstream beliefs, on how a magnetic field actually emanates from the Bloch Wall region of a magnet outward.
It makes more sense to me than the Bloch wall being the result in the difference of complimentary pairs.
The field has to begin somewhere.
Magnet photo
https://tinyurl.com/yav8ly5b
Block Wall Domain region photo of magnet when viewed with a magnetic viewer (with dark green the two poles of the magnet left and right and the light green line in the middle the Bloch domain wall of the magnet):
https://tinyurl.com/ybssr37f
If you think about it, magnets have their magnetic domains inside their mass turned unidirectional (pointing to the same direction).
So ask yourself how an isotropic event can produce an anisotropic complementary outcome phenomenon namely the two magnetic poles of the dipole magnet?
Between where lies the unbalance here which will produce the magnet?
The answer I submit is between the normal matter of the magnet and the dark matter which occupies the same space where the physical magnet is.
The combined coulomb charge of the magnet domains facing to the same direction produces an unbalance between the normal matter of the magnet and the dark matter field which manifests a disturbance of the else at rest, dark matter unipolar magnetic field.
This disturbance ripple of the dark matter magnetic field is then emanating from the magnet's Bloch wall region outwards.
The focal point of the disturbance is on the Bloch domain wall region (or line) of the magnet, there where the node of the disturbed dark matter field lies upon at the center of the normal mass of the magnet.
I bet, that in a non-uniform mass distributed magnet, where the center of mass of the magnet is not at its geometrical center, the Bloch line will be shifted to where the the center of mass of the magnet is located in space.
So it's like throwing a little stone at the calm surface of a pond. You can't see the disturbance waves exactly at the point of impact (the node is located there).
Also the disturbance will remain as long the coulomb electric charge, responsible for the normal matter - dark matter imbalance caused, remains inside the magnet.
So then why we don't see magnetic poles forming all around a magnet physical object?
My intuition says, because dark matter is organized in parallel one dimensional strings. It is like guitar chords. Not crossing each other.
Dark matter is the fabric of space itself. No dark matter, no space [1]. These are the pixels of our universe and they must be therefore directly correlated with Planck length.
As a final note, if you want to find dark matter don't look further than the Bloch domain wall of a magnet.
Emmanouil Markoulakis
TEI of Crete
project page: https://www.researchgate.net/project/A-Synthetic-Magnetic-Unipolar-Array-Not-a-Dirac-Monopole
References:
Article Dark Matter: The Source of Space and Time
[1]
With reference working papers RESEARCHGATE that I have, my analysis physically the mathematics of zero point, also suggests what you are proposing. Essentially permutation combination technique of thought along with mathematical quantification infers that dark matter might exist in the aether magnetic monopoles, that you are calling as unipolar. They appear as the dark matter until curling magnetism with dipolarity creates fluctuating oscillatory magnetic dipole field originating electric field to electromagnetic light matter.
I hope that grand theory physics conference proposals 2020 that I have input in these forums might be necessary to discuss & debate these topics.
Here's the thing- magnetism is just collimated gravitons, -dark matter just an offshoot of gravity -subtle but true
Dear Professor Rajan Iyer,
That's great news, usually if different faculties or disciplines have the same intuitions via a blind fault test (I don't have knowledge of these papers you are referring, these were my genuine thoughts I submit), it means that it might be that we are close to the truth.
Can you please provide me with these particular references? I would be obliged.
Also I urge you to read carefully this paper here, that should be really front page on Nature magazine and you should invite the paper and his author @Keith Lyon (Keith Lyon) to this conference:
Article Dark Matter: The Source of Space and Time
We need pioneers and the so called heretics to achieve the next breakthrough. Heretics within science are good for science and science progresses only by dispute.
Kind Regards,
Emmanouil Markoulakis
Technological Educational Institute of Crete
Dear Professor Rajan Iyer,
I have found all the references I need here in your working paper:
Working Paper Signal/Noise Analysis with Poisson Laplace Maxwell Helmholtz...
No need to get you into trouble providing me the references I asked.
Thank you.
Allow me to archive your previously mentioned conclusion as one of the most concise and close to the truth statements of pioneering science there is today:
quote
"Essentially permutation combination technique of thought along with mathematical quantification infers that dark matter might exist in the aether magnetic monopoles, that you are calling as unipolar. They appear as the dark matter until curling magnetism with dipolarity creates fluctuating oscillatory magnetic dipole field originating electric field to electromagnetic light matter."
My Respects,
Emmanouil Markoulakis
TEI of Crete
Here is a video from my previous research:
Article Real Time Visualization of Dynamic Magnetic Fields with a Na...
Video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fGcvh4Rb0G4
The black strip line at the center of the transmitting VLF signal antenna rod under magnetic viewing is essentially the region centered around the Bloch domain wall of the antenna's propagating magnetic field. Observe the phonons like behavior of the Bloch wall. The conclusions are yours.
Dear Prof.Markoulakis,
We think it has to do with the Principal discovered by us by experimenting on e-stock exchange data on the BSE that mathematical-statistically the classical magnetic lines of force have String Field Properties because of their" information-energy coupling" and "Vector Diffeoropy of Embeddings" of the Mallick, Hamburger & Mallick (2016, 2017), Mallick (2018) on www.researchgate.net/profile/Soumitra_Mallick type, which is an uniform closure property resulting from an interactive String Field Quantum Mechanism and String Matching Algorithm like planetary magnetic fields synchronous or perhaps even asynchronous in spacextime resolutions by the DBranes spacextime calculus field Quantum String Theoretic Tensor result discovered by us (c/o Ramanujan-Hardy- Mallick-Hamburger-Mallick school of Mathematical Sciences Thinking Differential String Theory www.researchgate.net/profile/Soumitra_Mallick). It is not a classical tensor result because in spacextime it is a information-energy coupled vector space (conditional) therefore oit satisfies our conjectured "Juno Probe Field Match" with gravitons as discovered by our research in AGGNNNetworks Fields. We have hereby described the nature of the String Theoretic Genetic Econophysical (Modern Experimental Mathematical Physics) Laws & Methods discovered by us, if you or your coleagues care to take a look.
Soumitra K. Mallick
for Soumitra K. Mallick, Nick Hamburger & Sandipan Mallick (RHMHM School).
Dear Professor Dr. Soumitra K Mallick ,
It is an honor to have you here. Thank you for your interest and all the invaluable information you presented and we certainly will do study this information and reference it in our research.
My Respects,
Mr. Emmanouil Markoulakis
TEI of CRETE
Thank you Profs. Markoulakis and Prof. De Mees for those kind words and willing to consider our explanation. Knowledge creation is a very risky profession and we at least Sandipan (my son undergrad) and I are never quite sure about our nonconventional approach to science although we always try to "get our fingers dirty" so to say and search forward. Thanks for your words of encouragement. This is our entreprise and we have Dr. Hamburger with us and also all our affiliations.
Soumitra K. Mallick
for Soumitra K. Mallick, Nick Hamburger & Sandipan Mallick for RHMHM School
Dear Thierry De Mees ,
Thank you for your important input and bringing the dark matter issue at the cosmological scale.
Kind Regards,
Emmanouil Markoulakis
I think Thierry is right < I agree with you if you do not consider magnets from electromagnetism (E-M) but from gravitomagentism (G-M) >, as light does not interact with dark matter. more: what about unification of forces?
" I agree with you if you do not consider magnets from electromagnetism (E-M) but from gravitomagentism (G-M) >, as light does not interact with dark matter. more: what about unification of forces? "
Thank you Paul Pistea for you input.
Let me clarify a point in my initial question text. When I was mixing up center of mass of magnet and its Bloch wall domain being located at exact this region I was actually referring to the mass as a coulomb charged mass and was not considering the gravitational properties of the mass. I was merely pointing out that the more massive the magnet is the more the potential accumulated charge inside it will be and that the center point of of the total coulomb charge of the magnet coincides with the gravitational center of mass of the magnet.
Therefore the Bloch spatial location will always follow the center of mass (or else center of total charge) of an magnetic object and not its geometrical center. This holds true under the condition that the magnetic material was initially magnetized under a uniform electric field during the magnetizaion process.
So, no my hypothesis is not about gravitomagnetism which is predicting ridiculously small almost negligible values and forces.
My hypothesis essentially is that electromagnetism is a product of the interaction of light matter (our visible universe) with dark matter.
And that the statement charged light matter (electromagnetism) is not interacting with dark matter I submit is false. Electromagnetism IS THIS INTERACTION!
However, I submit what gravity is? I don't know.
Kind Regards,
Emmanouil Markoulakis
"What is Dark Matter in the first place?"
The monopole magnetic field or else magnetic charge.
The hunt for the the elusive magnetic charge particle will lead the way for the discovery of dark matter.
Dear Thierry De Mess,
That's actually a strong point you have made. Thank you for this new info for me.
However, allow me please to make my final note on this matters. Macroscopic events and phenomena can not fully explained without first understanding the quantum phenomena and mechanisms underlying them I believe. Therefore we all can hypothesize forever until the first experimental quantum information comes out for these matters.
Until then we all are in the dark. I submit.
My Respects,
Emmanouil
Dear Thierry,
Gravitimagnetism can not explain these phenomena and definitely not the magnetic field of a magnet. The problem with gravitomagnetism is quantitative and resuls to relative tiny almost negligible values and definitely can not replace dark matter as an explanation in a cosmological scale. As an example for these problem with gravitomagnetism please look here:
https://web.stanford.edu/~oas/SI/SRGR/notes/Gravitomagnetism.pdf
Dear Thierry,
The NASA team that has performed Gravity Probe B experiment announced that the experiment was a failure. I'm wondering if they meant the experiment itself was a failure or the theory they set out to prove was wrong.
According to their explanation for the reason for the failure, they blamed on the electrostatic charge accumulated on the surface of the gyros. I don't know how electrostatic charges can be built up in the vacuum of the outer space. Something is not quite right. But by looking at the Lissajous curves making out the number 8 instead of number zero consistently from all of the gyros, I think the experiment was a success but the theory they set out to prove was wrong. In fact I believe it was a spectacular proof that electromagnetism didn't make out to be a correct theory.
On the other hand, if you assume that a rotating hemisphere make a dipole gravity, the number 8 Lissajous curve is explained perfectly that is coming from the two oppositely superposed hemispheres which is basically the key point of the theory of dipole gravity.
Eue Jeong
This is from the Vision-Space project. I can't summarise all the issues so am just planting this in Emmanouile's question without introduction which is a bit rude I guess.
Vision-Space would suggest that we are failing to pick up a form of magnetic induction that takes place as EMR travels through a magnetic field (or other medium).
If we consider that each retinal cell (Muller?) is a form of magnetic sensor and that the retina acts as a dish receiver maintaining temporal alignment then we can presumably consider the potential of that apparatus acting as a form of artificial collective unit necessary in the formation of imaging from data inducted from EMR.
Ie. the data incident from the environment is realised as individual values that without the appropriate receiver and collection architecture/apparatus would be meaningless (noise).
This requirement for ‘apparatus’ is of course also true of the photographic optically structured picture but we just forget the reality of the situation. We accept the picture frame and plate as a given – a non-factor in the imaging process – it's accepted as just naturally occurring enactment space.
We then assume that vision involves ‘picture space’ where as in fact it's based on ‘image space’, a field structure. Image space is essentially established by our requirement as complex bio system to passively interface with the magnetic component of EMR presenting as values within the appropriate architecture.
Our intensity-based photo-receptors are a secondary evolutional development.
Our current picturing technology is helping to ensure that our secondary system is becoming ever more concentrated upon and relied upon. The ‘process’ is stressing our biological constitution and maybe impacting our cultures and social interactions?
We are building an artificial environment for ourselves here on earth. This is not a benign clean ‘virtual reality’ it's a simulation and from which we develop a deficient reality in which we will interact and behave differently the deeper we are immersed within it. We need a balanced imaging system through the development of perceptual technologies based on knowledge of our perceptual structure.
On the face of it the energy 'missing' - the energy our instrumentation is failing to interface with - would be significant!
Dear John,
Your input, views, and reasoning is very important for me and out of the box thinking, Thank you.
My Respects,
Emmanouil
Dear Hans van Leunen,
Thank you Sir for your invaluable and very specific formal expertise explanation of why magnets operate on dark matter.
My Respects,
Emmanouil Markoulakis
Unfortunately for me the issues is in the tile. Reality is a relationship we form with the real. The physically real exists but we have to observe it because the act of observation also involves our relationship to EMR. Until we understand how that is accomplished we are not doing physics, we are playing at it. Conception expanded out without this understanding in place however detailed will not perform adequately - high complexity with a ceiling? We create the math it is not a thing in itself.
This does not mean that we can observe (perception) all of what is physically real but we have to understand what's involved in us being objective (perception) in order that we can deploy this unique and penetrative understanding at remote scales.
We need the math that governs the formation of the relationship that generates reality (perception) because with out it we are partially blind.
Why does not belong to the question. So remove it. Then the answer is simple: No.
in my opinion while speaking of quaternions a 4-dimensional space is implicitely needed.
For me Paul the 4 dimensional space is necessary if it's a requirement to keep the faith with the 3rd party ontology and direct observation via technology developed by the approach and for the purpose. This actually generates a hall of mirrors, high degrees of complexity that have to be projected upon the physically real and a ceiling that can't be crossed for want of the relevant equipment. The 'concept' of 3rd party observation has reached as far as it can. It's not obsolete of course but should be handled with care and understanding!
Implicit spatial awareness suggests something different, that EMR develops two space-times with the 'measure' being in neither. The measure requires inference. i.e. it requires a sentient being correctly equipped to perform the task.
Do I have any proof for this?
a. Our instrumentation has not been developed to correctly interface with the situation so its records are not going to be of much use.
b. We as sentient beings, use both data-potentials to form experiential reality that can be intuitively substantiated and modelled. However, this work is dismissed as subjective and inadmissible.
Vision-Space is an attempt to get beyond this situation by creating the perceptual technologies that would operate in a way commensurate with us developing a working understanding of the relationship we form with the real (reality). IF this is developed it can be deployed to revolutionise out information display systems and the way we interface with them but also lead to data-capture technologies from which the form of 'proof' that science can operate with is generated.
We are embedded in the universe in ways that our current technology isn’t. I don't think we should be surprised about that. So we should not be surprised by QM?
Hi Theirry - What I know about astronomy could easily be written on a pin head.
The point is that the standard model requires the stuff (DM)? What's interesting here is that researchers agree that the approach taken to get us to the standard model with the requirement for DM is clearly inadequate. So the question is 'how' is it so inadequate for this requirement to manifest? This has to be something quite fundamental and probably related to how we conceptualise the issues based on what our current instrumentation feeds us. We need to visualise things differently. I think this is going to relate to a reevaluation or re-envisioning (sorry that's a non-word) of the magnetic component of EMR in some way and how that relates to our understanding of gravity.
I can detect within my field of vision a data-structure and processes that provide information pertinent to the local environment that can't be derived from simple optical projection. As far as I can work this through, they are likely to involve a data potential that's derived from the magnetic component of EMR and 'processed' in an entirely different way to the data-potential arriving at the photoreceptors. The 'dark data potential with it's covert processing system' providing us with a form of 'implicit' spatial awareness. For this to be viable some charge/force would need to be accruing as light travels through a magnetic field to be passively inducted at the retina. This force/charge reflecting the distance the magnetic component traveled from the last surface it encountered to the retina. I.e the magnetic component effectively traveled through a medium or acted as though it did?
- Could the absence of us (I mean our current instrumentation!) detecting this force/charge be what is leading to the requirement for DM?
- Could the way for us to come to terms with the situation lie with us modelling visual awareness and working out how it comes about so we can then deploy the understanding in new technology?
dear John, de facto more dimensions means nothing more than that one has to use functionals of complex functions; not terms/values depending on no variable (like mass, energy, gravity, etc.) as physicists use to.
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Geoscience
- Cartography
- Mapping