At 3:05 AM 12/4/4, Harry Veeder wrote:
>Since it is acceptable to question conservation laws on this forum,
>perhaps CF is possible because the charge on subatomic particles is not
>conserved in all contexts.
Here are some additional old posts you might find of interest on this
subject, though more along the lines of "magnetic charge".
Gravity, Electromagnetism, Maxwell
Horace Heffner - 4/16/97
The following are some (gravity related) personal opinions and a follow-up
of discussion of an earlier thread regarding Maxwell's laws with Daniel T
(the empiricist) and Robert Stirniman. Also, some experiment ideas at the
end.
Any protracted discussion of gravity is likely to be a discussion of
electromagnetism (EM) and issues of "free energy". This is because:
1. The understanding of fields and the mathematics of vector fields
developed largely as a result of electromagnetic theory
2. Much of the effort to understand gravity is centered in developing a
unified field theory, i.e. linking gravity to EM effects, and vice versa.
To the degree that effort is successful, a study of gravity *is* a styudy
of EM, and vice versa. Gravity is considered by some researchers to be,
wholly or in part, a second or third order EM effect, thus the term
"electrogravity."
3. Our senses only operate with electromagnetism (e.g. touch, sight,
hearing, smell, etc.), so our perceptions and direct measurements of the
effects of gravity or any physical thing can only be derived through
effects of that thing on electromagnetic entities.
4. Classical EM is totally embodied in and deriveable from the vector form
of Maxwell's laws. EM fields conserve energy. Any mechanism that does not
conserve energy in our EM world is likely to violate Maxwell's laws, as any
process operating consistently with Maxwell's laws will not.
5. Much of the interest in gravity is really more an interest in
antigravity and/or gravity sheilding (especially in this newslist.)
Anitgraivity, if it exists in the forms typically envisioned, denies
conservation of energy, and very possibly light speed limits to travel
velocities.
6. A result of all the above is that it is reasonable to search for keys to
antigravity in the arena of any data or EM theories which stand contrary to
Maxwell's laws. This arena is surprisingly large, and growing. It is also
confusing due in part to the arkane or non-conventional vocabulary and in
part due to mathematical complexity. I have only touched the surface of
the literature in this strange but fascinating and wildly speculative
world. I can only speak from an amateur non-expert viewpoint, but initial
impressions of EM outside of Maxwell are that there are probably a number
of bogus theories, nonsensical theories, and unfathomable theories, maybe
some good and workable theories, certainly a lot of "mainstream rejected"
theories, and lots of very interesting experimental data.
- - - - - - - - - -
At 1:17 PM 4/3/97, I wrote under the thread name "Planets; Elements; Magnetics":
"I think B dot dS = 0 is totally equivalent to the statement there is no
monopole. Ignoring the question of whether this Maxwell's equation is
indeed a law -- if it is a law, it is equivalent to the statement that
there are no free monopoles."
"All this is a consequence of the postulates (assumptions) of Maxwell's
laws, which of course would need to be revised in the face of the discovery
of a monopole. The existence or not of such a particle is a fact of nature
while the rest are assumptions."
"It does seem to me fitting that Maxwell's Laws be called such because the
other EM principles can be derived from them, so although they were a
culmination of a long search and a summation of many principles discovered
by others, they seem to me to have a very fundamental compact distilled
quality. Just opinion."
"About the monopoles, though, they could only exist in pairs and be
consistent with B dot dS = 0 if they at all times occupied exacly the *same
point* in space. Otherwise, you could always have a way to place the
envelope S around one and exclude the other. However, this being the case
that they are always co-centered, they would therefore then always
represent a scalar field, unless acted upon by a charged particle or EM
field in the viciniy."
- - - - - - - -
In regard to the above issues, Robert Stirniman brought to my attention
"Advanced Electromagnetism Foundations, Theories and Applications", edited
by Terrence W. Barrett and Dale M. Grimes, World Scientific Publishing,
1995. Of particular interest is the article "Six experiments with Magnetic
Charge", V.F. Mikhailov, p. 593 ff., which discusses a modern look at the
work of Felix Eherenhaft (1879-1952).
Eherenhaft performed the magnetic equivalence of a Millikan's oil drop
experiment in the hopes of isolating magnetic monopoles and measuring
magnetic charge. Surprisingly, Eherenhaft had positive results, obtaining
a value for magnetic charge in the range of 10^-9 to 10^-14 Gauss*cm^2.
Because this did not agree with Dirac's theorized value of 3.29x10^-8
gauss*cm^2, interest waned in Ehrenhafts work.
Mikhailov created 10^-5 to 10^-6 cm dia. ferromagnetic aerosols by
electrospark sputtering. This was accomplished by use of current
interrupter iron contacts in argon at one atmosphere. Helmholtz coils
provided a uniform magnetic field. The falling aerosol was placed in an
intense light beam and viewed with a microscope. The initial experiment
showed a roughly equal number of both N and S monopoles. Switching the
field of the Helmholz coils reversed the lateral motion of the magnetically
charged particles. It was noted that increasing *either* magnetic field
intensity or light intensity increased the lateral rate of travel.
Many of the particles were electrically and magnetically charged, permiting
a comparison of the electrostatic quantum to the magnetic quantum of
charge. Mikhailov found agreement with Eherenhaft that the quantum of
magnetic charge is g = (a)(e)/6 = (1/3)(a^2)(gD) = 5.84x10^-13 gauss*cm^2,
where Gd is the charge of Dirac's theoretical monopole, a is the fine
structure constant a = (1/137).
The monopoles of Eherenhaft and Mikhailov are not monopole particles in the
conventional sense, however. Mikhailov states: "Magnetic charges
(monopoles) are experimentally observed only in the presence of two
components: light and ferromagnetic particles. It seems therefore, that
magnetic charges are created a a consequence of of an interaction between
photons ans ferromagnetic particles, and moreover, such charges cannnot
exists without these physical conditions: without light a particle loses
magnetic charge almost instantaneously."
- - - - - - -
Some observations in regard to Mikhailov's experiments:
1. Lateral motion observed in a uniform magnetic field, regadless of light
direction, appears to be a clear violation of Maxwell's laws, regardless of
other conclusions drawn by Mikhailov. The existence of a monopole of
course also denies the law being the orginal subject, namely B dot dS = 0.
2. The magnetic charge, though apparently produced in pairs, is not
conservative in that the dual requirements for existence imply you can
separate the N and S particles, turn off the light which sustains, say, the
S particles, leaving only the N particles. (Save a sufficient number and
you can lift off the North magnetic pole! 8^)
3. There might just possibly be a convenient way for amateurs to experiment
with this. There now exist ferrofluids which could be used in Millikan
style experiments. Since sputtering would not be involved, it might be
necessary to artificially charge the drops when atomizing the ferrofluid.
Bill Beaty posted 9/23/96 that ferrofluid might be available from
Ferrofluidics Inc. I checked and found <http://www.fero.com>, email:
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, phone 603-883-9800. They sell 30 ml kits for prototyping
loudspeakers.
Regards,
Horace Heffner
