[snip] Stephen A. Lawrence wrote: > > > Paul wrote: >> >> 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. > > Absolutely! The "magnetic fields do no work" mantra fails. It is false.
I wonder why so many physicists still cling to such a false idea that the B-field does no work. >> > 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. > > It appears that in terms of accounting for the energy, one must treat > permanent magnetic fields and fields from currents differently. It's interesting electron spin is in units of Ampere Meters^2. And what's a current carrying wire loop? It's current flowing in a wire, and the diameter of wire has area. > The permanent ones are just a "given" -- they may or may not contain energy > but if they do, we can't get it out. The ones associated with currents > are a different story; we pump energy in when they're formed and we get > it back out when they collapse. Who knows, perhaps one day we'll learn to get the energy in both cases. Perhaps that's what Steorn accomplished. To within experimental error evidence indicates the charge radius of the electron is found to be zero. IOW, measure twice as close to that so-called point charge and the E-field doubles. According to QM the E-field goes to infinity, as the electron is claimed to have no physical extend beyond the Poynting vector. That's a whole lot of energy (infinite) stored in that tiny little particle, LOL. How odd is that. >> 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? > > :-) I have no idea. > > I don't know what causes the field of a permanent dipole, either. > > I can write a potential function for its behavior in the field of a > permanent magnet, and that convinces me that a permanent magnet motor > can't be OU. But I can't tell you where the energy is before the magnet > starts to move. > > I also can't answer this one: If two permanent magnets accelerate > toward each other, does the gravitational field of the system increase > as a result? (Hmmm, maybe I'll post that to sci.physics.relativity -- > should be good for a few confused responses, anyway...) You mean sci.physics.relativity.pub? I'd like to know where physicists such as Ed Witten hang out online. :-) >> > 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. > > As far as I know, according to current theory it can't slow down. It > can't speed up, either. It has just one speed. In fact it seems kind > of inaccurate to call it "spin" at all, but that's just my opinion and I > already admitted I don't understand quantum mechanics. > > > >> >> 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. > > I don't think so. The linear motion of the electron is not at issue; > its dipole, which is providing the energy here, is due entirely to its > "spin". Yes, understandably, but I'm just trying to come up with ideas to meet the demands of conservation of energy. I'm sure there must be some genius QM physicists out there that have an answer. So far haven't met any with an answer, but I would expect some silly answer such as, "Oh yeah, the energy comes at the cost of information. The probability of knowing the electrons location decreases." ;-) Regards, Paul Lowrance ____________________________________________________________________________________ The fish are biting. Get more visitors on your site using Yahoo! Search Marketing. http://searchmarketing.yahoo.com/arp/sponsoredsearch_v2.php
