Hi Kieth, You wrote: Orbital electrons contribute a negligible amount to the field of a ferromagnet. In addition, when we apply an external field to the system you describe, the result should be a field opposing the applied field. We measure just the opposite in a ferromagnet, that is in fact why we bother with ferromagnets at all.
- Yes, the electron fields are responsible for the magnetic effects we - see in most ferromagnetic materials which are characterized by a - gyromagnetic ratio close to 2. Interestingly, in the so called - spin orbit coupled materials with gyromagnetic ratios closer - to 1 the electron orbital magnetic contribution is in fact quite large - but still smaller than the electron direct contribution. In some - crude experiments with one of these materials the magnetic response - seemed slower with much lower saturation than in commercial ferrites. - Possibly the slow response was due to the large crystal/domain - sizes in the material I tested but the orbital component would also - probably respond more slowly than flipping an electron. I have - seen materials in a microwave materials catalog with a gyromagnetic - ratio of .6 . This would imply an even stronger orbital contribution. As a prelude to CoE problems, let's start with just that last point. Why do the electron spins in a ferromagnet line up _with_ the applied field rather than the more energetically favorable _against_ the applied field? This is a pretty basic property of ferromagnets that seems not to admit to any easy explanation. - Electromagnetically, the current loop model predicts this behavior. - Look at the magnetic forces between the loops. Side by - side loops repel but on axis loops attract and increase the field - as they move closer. Two thin disk PMs output mechanical - energy as they move closer and provide a final touching total magnetic - field energy almost twice the initial field energy of the two - separate magnetic fields added together. - The interesting factor is that I find no mention in textbooks of - the fact that it also implies that the current loop must source - energy as the magnetic field increases and absorb it when the - field deceases. For the orbital field contribution at least, this - implies that it may be possible to measure the dynamics - of orbital energy transfer using this effect. To me this energy - source/absorption is strongly suggestive of a coupling to ZPE - as the basis of both orbital and electron stability. I built - a mathcad model from Puthoff's hydrogen orbit ZPE absorption - model stability paper. The numbers are mind blowing. IIRC - the radiation intensity ,if Maxwell's equations applied, is - about 10E30 watts for a single hydrogen atom. It makes one - realize just how large an elephant we have swept under the rug - with the QM assumption of no radiation. The model confirmed - Puthoff's calculation that the absorption from the standard - QM ZPE would equal this radiated amount at the accepted - orbital radius. I have some partly baked ideas on why we do not - detect this radiation and how Puthoff's model could be extended - to higher Z atoms. The extended model also suggests the existence of - many "Hydrino" like states for hydrogen. Yep, even classical physics would say the orbit model is wrong w/ respect to ferromagnets. And it is these considerations that led Dirac to the very concept of the magnetic monopole. I agree that the basic newtonian principle that a body in motion tends to stay in motion is valid, although an macroscopic electrified body in orbital motion will most definitely radiate EM waves, something which the electron seems not to do, so orbital type models must be gross approximations at best. - QM assumes the huge violation of classical electromagnetic laws away - without any alternative physical model. Perhaps the Sakarov/ Puthoff - ZPE energy balance orbital model can be extended to explain atomic - stability without the magic wand assumptions of QM. George Holz Varitronics Systems
