Stephen A. Lawrence wrote: [snip] >> You mean sci.physics.relativity.pub? I'd like to know >> where physicists such as Ed Witten hang out online. :-) > > The news group "sci.physics.relativity". It's crawling with total > loonytunes with just a few real physicists. Ed Witton doesn't sound > familiar; I don't think he hangs out there (probably has more sense).
Well you should recognize the name Ed Witten. He's the guy who took all the nightmarish flavors of the superstring theories and created M-theory! :-) He's almost worshipped in the physics community. [snip] >> 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." ;-) > > Actually as I think about this it seems like the overall field strength > and, hence, field energy must decrease as two dipoles approach (due to > the fields of the two dipoles "mostly canceling"). I don't know if the > reduction in field energy matches the gain in mechanical energy but it > might. No, no, no. Two magnetically aligned dipoles increase the net magnetic field. > That, on the other hand, leads to problems in the case with two > electromagnets, where the same reduction in total field strength must > occur, _but_ where we've already paid the energy bill by overcoming the > back EMF in the coil as it moves through the field.... Again, you have it backwards. See above comment. Regards, Paul Lowrance ____________________________________________________________________________________ Need a quick answer? Get one in minutes from people who know. Ask your question on www.Answers.yahoo.com
