Hi George, You write: - 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.
The "big three" Fe Ni Co all have gyromagnetic ratios around 2, iron being the material we were discussing. I looked at Bozorth to verify the above statement, and he describes a short history of measurement of G listing Barnett in 1914 as having experimentally discovered the value 2, then Einstein-de Haas in 1915 listed as publishing the value as 1. Needless to say, if that is correct we have another egregious Einstein blunder to sweep under the table (grin). Stewart and Beck (1918-1919) and all subsequent researchers confirmed Barnetts number, of course. Your comments about low G materials were very interesting. I'm not quite sure what to make of values below 1. I'm tempted to say that the electron spin in such a case would be actively cancelling the orbital rotation, but I'm just guessing here. You further write: - 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 same argument could be made for electric dipoles in a dielectric as for magnetic ones, yes? And yet we see the opposite results. Either I'm being thick-headed here or the world is in denial about this... I'd be delighted if we could thrash this one out. - 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. Hmmm... and we see the opposite, at least over the whole cycle. Energy is stored in the inductor when we charge it up, and released when discharged. - 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. Ain't that the truth! The amperian model is fine for some things, but it's about as accurate as the bohr model of the atom... Postulating these things away ( as is done in QM ) is just another step backwards IMHO. - 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. I'll chew on that one for a while. K.
