I have to apologize. I did not receive notices from Polywell and thought the discussion has ended. Furthermore my books have sold so well that I was busy nearly full time mailing them off. I will receive the second printing on Tuesday 9 November.
zDarby wrote:zDarby wrote:Not just a law: When you move an electric field, you get a magnetic field.
I meant to say "electric charge" not "electric field".
You were correct in the first instance: When an electric-field changes with time it DOES induce a magnetic field. When a solitary charge moves with a constant speed it does not induce a magnetic field since there is no electric-field energy around a solitary charge.
when a solitary charge passes you by with a constant velocity there is also no magnetic field.
This is counter to what I thought I knew about experimental evidence. Can you site an experiment that shows this is the case? ... It is my understanding a solitary moving charge *does* exhibit a magnetic field. I could easily be wrong, but that's what I understood to be true. I shall try to find an example in experiment.
Show me your experimental evidence. There exists NO such experimental evidence just as there exists no experimental evidence that there is an electric field around a solitary charge. It is you who have to supply the experimental evidence.
Maxwell's equations are great! They perfectly describe what happens when two electric charges are moving compared to eachother. But they describe a law, not a theory. Which is to say, they describe what happens, not why.
That is correct: Maxwell's equations are ONLY valid BETWEEN charges and BETWEEN charges moving relative to each other. This is why there cannot be a magnetic field formed by a solitary moving charge.
When earlier I spoke of photons, I was quoting current physics dogma. As flawed as it is, current dogma does portray a why --a theory-- for the magnetic field.
Where does current dogma describe a WHY. You could have fooled me!
What I'm asking is if you have a preferred theory --again, not a 'what' but a 'why'; or, if you prefer: not a description but an explanation-- for magnetic fields?
The why will come when we abort the ridiculous "principle of complementarity" which is responsible for causing a barrier between Einstein's general theory of relativity and "quantum mechanics". In my book I explain why we cannot yet fully understand why owing to the stupidities inherent in the Copenhagen interpretation.
Ok. just to make sure I understood you correctly:
Superconductivity in chilled mercury is the effect of a singular wave.
But superconductivity in your diamond substrate is of many different waves tunneling in concert, if not in unison.
The term tunneling is also based on Copenhagen. Tunneling does NOT occur. What happens is that a wave borrows energy(delta)E for a time interval (delta)t to scale a barrier: I call this barrier jumping. Barrier jumping is the mechanism by which all traditional superconductors (also mercury) transfer charge.
Are you saying that you did expose it to a magnetic field and nothing interesting happened?;
Yes, and in terms of barrier jumping it is clear that it must be so.
Well, first to be certain that what you expect to happen is, in fact, what happens. After all, when things don't do what you expect them to, that's when exciting new insights take place!
Exactly: this what happened when I extracted electrons from a diamond up to the point where the electric-field MUST be zero; and instead of the current falling to zero it kept on flowing.
But, just as importantly, comparing the magnetic field strength and polarity to the flow of current will tell you what the relationship is between the charge carriers and the current. And you'll have measured the data experimentally, not calculated it theoretically. I got the impression you had already done this. Was I wrong?
As far as the electron phase extracted from the diamond is concerned, this phase is the first REAL demonstration of Bose Einstein Condensate formed by electrons. It has no separate electrons, just like a laser beam has no separate photons. Thus the electrons transfer current by means of a non-local mechanism. In the traditional superconductors there are separately identifiable charge-carriers and if you do your measurements correctly you find that they are all fermions and can therefore NOT form a Bose-Einstein Condensate.
Yeah. I don't know what the hell I was thinking when I wrote that. I'll chock it up to it being late, or something.
I am glad that you responded on this. This is exactly the reason why a Bohr atom cannot have a magnetic moment. If you choose the electron circling the proton as generating the magnetic moment, you get an opposite magnetic moment to the one you obtain when you decide that it is the proton circling the electron. In fact it is both the proton AND the electron circling their mutual center of mass. Thus the total current is zero so that according to Ampere's law there cannot be a magnetic moment.
