Hello Stephen, IMHO this is an interesting topic.
Stephen A. Lawrence wrote: > > > Paul wrote: >> Stephen A. Lawrence wrote: >> [snip] >> > It's certainly complicated; too complicated to >> solve easily >> > and too complicated to model mentally with a simple >> picture. >> >> Very true! That's why computers are so wonderful. IMHO the future of >> science is held within the computer, as they are great with >> mathematics, speed, and memory. Simulations will break us free from >> the limitations of the paper >> written equations and reveal higher truths of reality. :-) >> >> >> >> [snip] >> >> >> >> Energy Violation #3: >> >> Consider the intrinsic electron spin, which we'll >> call >> >> ES. Ferromagnetic atoms have unpaired ES, and >> therefore create a net >> >> appreciable >> >> magnetic field outside the atom. Consider two such >> atoms that are >> >> magnetically >> >> unaligned. Now allow the two atoms to align. We >> know from atomic scale >> >> experimentation from >> >> companies such as IBM that during avalanches the >> magnetic atoms rotate >> >> in magnetic >> >> alignment. Typically this can take a few >> nanoseconds in >> >> non-electrically conductive magnetic >> >> materials, and much slower in electrically >> conductive magnetic >> >> materials (due to >> >> eddy currents). Understandably this releases >> energy. On a larger >> >> scale, if we hold two >> >> PM's (Permanent Magnets) that are magnetically >> unaligned, we know they >> >> want to rotate so >> >> they become magnetically aligned. If we allow the >> two PM's to rotate >> >> they will gain >> >> angular kinetic energy as they rotate. In fact, if >> there's no friction >> >> the two PM's will >> >> continue to vibrate back and forth due to momentum >> and magnetic >> >> attraction. We gain kinetic >> >> energy, but also note that the net magnetic field >> actually increases >> >> as the two PM's >> >> rotate and align. According to the above equation, >> that also >> >> constitutes energy. >> > >> > Interactions between permanent dipoles are >> conservative, as I've >> > observed before in this NG. The action of a >> magnetic field on a >> > permanent dipole can be described with a potential >> function. >> >> You left out a world of detail. The net magnetic field >> from two nearby ***aligned*** magnetic dipole moments *increases*. The >> net magnetic >> field from two nearby ***opposing*** magnetic dipole moments *decreases*. > > I am well aware of that. > >> >> Also you need to acknowledge the kinetic energy gained >> when two dipoles rotate to align. > > Yes, I'm well aware of that. > > As I said in my previous message, the action of a permanent magnetic > field on a permanent dipole can be described by a potential function > given by the dot product of the dipole and the field: > > -mu <dot> B > > (sorry, there's no "\cdot" character in flat Ascii.) > > This single function accounts for both linear forces _and_ torques on > the dipole. If you move a permanent dipole around in a fixed (but > spatially varying) magnetic field, the forces and torques it feels are > given by the gradient of the above potential function. The net energy > gained or lost is given by the change in that potential function. When > you return the dipole to its starting position (and orientation) the net > work done will be zero. > > Of course, whether both magnets move at once or we nail one down and > allow the other to move, the same thing holds, just as in the case of > two weights connected by a spring it makes no difference whether we move > both at once or just one at a time. > >> Again, if we replace the magnets with air core >> electromagnets then we *CLEARLY* see it drains energy from the current >> source. > > Yup, the analysis is rather different when we use an electromagnet. In > that case the work done comes from current in the coil. > > I did not say this was _simple_. I just said it was conservative. > >> You need to >> ask yourself why two air core electromagnets that are rotating due to >> magnetic >> attraction gain kinetic energy while *increasing* the net magnetic >> field. You need to >> understand why that drains energy from the current source. The answer >> is simple. It drains >> energy from the current source because there is a gain in KE and net >> field energy. > > Exactly, and if you work out the details it balances. > >> If we replace the air core electromagnets with permanent magnets we >> still gain KE >> and an increase in net magnetic field. > > Yes we do. And in this case, as I already said, the action is > conservative; we can't get work out of it. > >> So you need to ask yourself where that energy >> comes from. > > I'm well aware of that. Good, then you do acknowledge there is *real work* being done while two magnetic dipole moments rotate toward alignment. > But you might just as well say, where does the > energy "come from" when something falls off a table? There is a big difference? In the magnet example there's a way of replicating the magnetic dipole moment by using an air coil. IOW, we have technology that generates magnetic fields. We know it requires energy to create a magnetic field. We know it requires energy when two coils accelerate toward each other due to their own attraction-- essentially two magnetic fields overlapping to some degree. As far as something falling from a table ... I'm not aware of gravity field generating device to measure the consumed energy. If there was such an electro-gravity device then we could measure the consumed power from the source while some mass (object) is accelerating toward the device. :-) Perhaps it would or would not consume energy from the source. > In the case of a permanent dipole in a permanent B field, the energy was > apparently there all along, in the form of the -mu*B potential energy > function. Again that's not the point! Energy may be in different forms, but energy is energy regardless if it is potential or kinetic energy. Point being that energy is *indeed* being added to kinetic and field energy, but we cannot point to any source and say, "Yeah, that's where it is definitely coming from." We can assume it comes from within the electron or whatever is attached to the electron. For all we know there could be some unknown higher dimensional aspect to reality-- a sea of unknown energy that sustains elementary particles, perhaps akin to how the ocean may sustain a hurricane. I want to know from where that energy comes from. Where is that source? > If you want to ask more than that, then you're asking why the > electron's B field is quantized, I wouldn't go so far as to say that, but understandably that's a QM thing. I very much question many QM concepts such as the so-called photon. On one of my lists is a relatively simple radio frequency experiment to see if the sub-photon exists. > and why its spin can't "slow down", Ahh, now we talking. I've asked many QM physicists if spin may slow down. Some don't know how to answer such a question. Most say "No." The more honest ones say they don't know and encourage a test to verify. Another option I've tossed around is perhaps ZPE or some unknown sea of energy. Another option is perhaps there's a decrease in electron velocity. The electron must always be in motion, correct? Therefore, there's always room for the electron to slow down. Regards, Paul Lowrance ____________________________________________________________________________________ Be a PS3 game guru. Get your game face on with the latest PS3 news and previews at Yahoo! Games. http://videogames.yahoo.com/platform?platform=120121
