FYI: https://gizmodo.com/astronomers-spot-mysterious-10-million-light-year-long-1835301269
"Scientists have detected radio waves emanating from the space between a pair of galaxy clusters—evidence of intergalactic magnetic fields and fast-moving particles in the space between these giant galactic assemblages."
Why do people keep posting random unrelated articles in this thread? This is now twice it has happened in just over a week. I should be reporting this to moderator, but I don't like forcing them to read this section. Some self-moderation can be applied.
I also posted that in the astronomy thread at the time, as it is not even a recent article.
No, unless you have found a magnetic monopole
You're correct. The field from a dipole magnet falls off as 1/r
3 rather than 1/r
2. I will edit my comment. The field strength falls off more rapidly than inverse square once one gets further away than the distance of the two poles of the dipole.
No, unless you have found a magnetic monopole
You're correct. The field from a dipole magnet falls off as 1/r3 rather than 1/r2. I will edit my comment. The field strength falls off more rapidly than inverse square once one gets further away than the distance of the two poles of the dipole.
Something interesting to note is that the Biot-Savart equation gives the magetic field as 1/r^2 for a single charge. However when you integrate a current loop you get the 1/r^3 result. The 1/r^3 of the magnetic field result is actually also the 1/r^3 behavior of being outside a dipole electric field. The magnetic field lines actually represent velocity dependent potential lines. You can think of the magnetic field as representing the superposition of all possible dipole electric fields, depending on the observers velocity vector, combined with (relativistic electric field tilting which is another effect I didn't go into).
I noticed if you integrate the Biot-Savart equation from infinity to a distance from the source, integrate[f(r) ,infinity ,r] and get the magnetic field at that location, then assume that sum of the magnetic field is traveling at the speed of light - so v x sum(B) = E, you get the electric field of light. The real kicker is your assuming the magnetic field of a single charge behaves as 1/r^2. The integration of the field from infinity gives the electric field of light which behaves as 1/r . Lights energy as 1/r^2 but its field as 1/r and is why is propagates across the universe.
If that's right then it might be that light is the universes way of keeping track of every change in the magnetic field in the universe.
Or that light is depositing the magnetic field over the universe as it travels.
Also whats interesting is that because light is from the magnetic field then dQ/dt radiation is a separate matter.
It would propagate with the electric field in the direction of travel, very unlike normal light. I think generally of much less magnitude but I think that might depend on the device that generates it and the magnitude of change in charge.
This is the first source of any kind I've found at least which gets deep in the weeds about the curl.
Notice that the gravitational field is no longer irrotational in S, which express the content of the gravitational analogue of Faraday’s law. Since ∇ × G (does not equal) 0, it might seem that the gravitational field is not conservative anymore. This is only apparent, however, since we shall see in sections 9 and 10 that the gravitational fields have, besides an energy, also a momentum associated, so that the spacetime momentum of the fields is conserved in any inertial reference frame
Everything after, "this is only apparent" is why I'm posting, because until yesterday I've never thought of it this way.
Source:
https://arxiv.org/abs/1608.00815
If that's right then it might be that light is the universes way of keeping track of every change in the magnetic field in the universe.
Or that light is depositing the magnetic field over the universe as it travels.
Speaking of off topic, you have repeated this observation of yours multiple times in multiple threads. It really does not contribute anything to this topic, and it isn't an interesting observation, because it is well known that anytime charges accelerate, they emit radiation, and this radiation propagating at the speed of light therefore coincides with the speed of light delayed propagation of information that the charge has accelerated. The energy and momentum carried by the radiation is what allows energy and momentum to be balanced when distant charges interact with the change in the fields. Your observation about the magnetic field is a partial recognition of what happens hear, but you are missing that the change in the electric field is also communicated, and that for this context, you really would be better off considering that the electromagnetic fields are a single object, since whether they are electric or magnetic fields depends on the reference frame.
Also whats interesting is that because light is from the magnetic field then dQ/dt radiation is a separate matter. It would propagate with the electric field in the direction of travel, very unlike normal light. I think generally of much less magnitude but I think that might depend on the device that generates it and the magnitude of change in charge.
As I already explained to you:
https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=36911.msg1917955#msg1917955There is no such thing as any form of electromagnetic radiation where the electric field is partially in the direction of propagation. You are confusing the moving of the electric field because a charge is moving with the actual radiation.
If that's right then it might be that light is the universes way of keeping track of every change in the magnetic field in the universe.
Or that light is depositing the magnetic field over the universe as it travels.
Speaking of off topic, you have repeated this observation of yours multiple times in multiple threads. It really does not contribute anything to this topic, and it isn't an interesting observation, because it is well known that anytime charges accelerate, they emit radiation, and this radiation propagating at the speed of light therefore coincides with the speed of light delayed propagation of information that the charge has accelerated. The energy and momentum carried by the radiation is what allows energy and momentum to be balanced when distant charges interact with the change in the fields. Your observation about the magnetic field is a partial recognition of what happens hear, but you are missing that the change in the electric field is also communicated, and that for this context, you really would be better off considering that the electromagnetic fields are a single object, since whether they are electric or magnetic fields depends on the reference frame.
What is interesting is subjective. It was on topic because it was discussed if the magnetic field drops off as 1/r^2. In the biot savart equation for a single charge the magnetic field does.
Also whats interesting is that because light is from the magnetic field then dQ/dt radiation is a separate matter. It would propagate with the electric field in the direction of travel, very unlike normal light. I think generally of much less magnitude but I think that might depend on the device that generates it and the magnitude of change in charge.
As I already explained to you:
https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=36911.msg1917955#msg1917955
There is no such thing as any form of electromagnetic radiation where the electric field is partially in the direction of propagation. You are confusing the moving of the electric field because a charge is moving with the actual radiation.
This was some what exotic and I probably didn't have to include this.
I was referring to the idea that you can make a phased array that seems to radiate in a direction in which radiation should not radiate. In the direction of charge motion. Normally radiation is perpendicular to the direction of charge motion. The electric field would be in the direction of travel. image below.
topic is here:
https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=36911.msg1919418#msg1919418 but goes back a ways.
I don't think its all that important here, but I don't think anyone knows what is important when it comes to how propulsion is being induced if it is and even if propulsion is being induced so exploration of topics is some what natural. Inhibiting it inhibits creative thinking.
If that's right then it might be that light is the universes way of keeping track of every change in the magnetic field in the universe.
Or that light is depositing the magnetic field over the universe as it travels.
Speaking of off topic, you have repeated this observation of yours multiple times in multiple threads. It really does not contribute anything to this topic, and it isn't an interesting observation, because it is well known that anytime charges accelerate, they emit radiation, and this radiation propagating at the speed of light therefore coincides with the speed of light delayed propagation of information that the charge has accelerated. The energy and momentum carried by the radiation is what allows energy and momentum to be balanced when distant charges interact with the change in the fields. Your observation about the magnetic field is a partial recognition of what happens hear, but you are missing that the change in the electric field is also communicated, and that for this context, you really would be better off considering that the electromagnetic fields are a single object, since whether they are electric or magnetic fields depends on the reference frame.
What is interesting is subjective. It was on topic because it was discussed if the magnetic field drops off as 1/r^2. In the biot savart equation for a single charge the magnetic field does.
Also whats interesting is that because light is from the magnetic field then dQ/dt radiation is a separate matter. It would propagate with the electric field in the direction of travel, very unlike normal light. I think generally of much less magnitude but I think that might depend on the device that generates it and the magnitude of change in charge.
As I already explained to you:
https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=36911.msg1917955#msg1917955
There is no such thing as any form of electromagnetic radiation where the electric field is partially in the direction of propagation. You are confusing the moving of the electric field because a charge is moving with the actual radiation.
This was some what exotic and I probably didn't have to include this.
I was referring to the idea that you can make a phased array that seems to radiate in a direction in which radiation should not radiate. In the direction of charge motion. Normally radiation is perpendicular to the direction of charge motion. The electric field would be in the direction of travel. image below.
topic is here: https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=36911.msg1919418#msg1919418 but goes back a ways.
I don't think its all that important here, but I don't think anyone knows what is important when it comes to how propulsion is being induced if it is and even if propulsion is being induced so exploration of topics is some what natural. Inhibiting it inhibits creative thinking.
Dear dustinthewind,
Perhaps you are looking for something like this.
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/287250565_Focused_electromagnetic_doughnut_pulses_and_their_interaction_with_interfaces_and_nanostructures"2. The‘focused doughnut’ pulse
The FD pulse was first established as a solution to the homogenous Maxwell’s equations by Hellwarth and Nouchi [13]. As space-time non-separable solutions to Maxwells equations, FD pulses can be classified in TE and TM field configurations"
For their generation there is a proposal here
https://arxiv.org/pdf/1707.06088
What is interesting is subjective. It was on topic because it was discussed if the magnetic field drops off as 1/r^2. In the biot savart equation for a single charge the magnetic field does.
No, the question had already been answered for how real magnetic fields drop off. The question was off topic, because it was prompted by an off topic article that Notsosureofit posted. (and no, editing in a question did not suddenly make it on topic, as Star One pointed out, there is a separate thread on this site where the article would be on topic.)
Also, there is no such thing as "biot savart equation for a single charge." The Biot-Savart law only applies to steady currents. A single charge by definition cannot be a steady current. Again, I already explained this in the post I previously linked.
This was some what exotic and I probably didn't have to include this.
I was referring to the idea that you can make a phased array that seems to radiate in a direction in which radiation should not radiate. In the direction of charge motion. Normally radiation is perpendicular to the direction of charge motion. The electric field would be in the direction of travel. image below.
topic is here: https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=36911.msg1919418#msg1919418 but goes back a ways.
It isn't exotic, it is simply wrong. The electric field of electromagnetic radiation is always perpendicular to the direction of propagation, and an accelerating charge generally radiates in all directions (there will typically be nulls, but those are only in exact specific directions, even slightly off from them there would be some field.)
I don't think its all that important here, but I don't think anyone knows what is important when it comes to how propulsion is being induced if it is and even if propulsion is being induced so exploration of topics is some what natural. Inhibiting it inhibits creative thinking.
Pointing out that something is wrong isn't "inhibiting creative thinking." It is simply avoiding wasting time on things that cannot produce the desired result. Pointing out that off topic discussions are off topic is basic application of the forum rules.
What is interesting is subjective. It was on topic because it was discussed if the magnetic field drops off as 1/r^2. In the biot savart equation for a single charge the magnetic field does.
No, the question had already been answered for how real magnetic fields drop off. The question was off topic, because it was prompted by an off topic article that Notsosureofit posted. (and no, editing in a question did not suddenly make it on topic, as Star One pointed out, there is a separate thread on this site where the article would be on topic.)
Also, there is no such thing as "biot savart equation for a single charge." The Biot-Savart law only applies to steady currents. A single charge by definition cannot be a steady current. Again, I already explained this in the post I previously linked.
This was some what exotic and I probably didn't have to include this.
I was referring to the idea that you can make a phased array that seems to radiate in a direction in which radiation should not radiate. In the direction of charge motion. Normally radiation is perpendicular to the direction of charge motion. The electric field would be in the direction of travel. image below.
topic is here: https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=36911.msg1919418#msg1919418 but goes back a ways.
It isn't exotic, it is simply wrong. The electric field of electromagnetic radiation is always perpendicular to the direction of propagation, and an accelerating charge generally radiates in all directions (there will typically be nulls, but those are only in exact specific directions, even slightly off from them there would be some field.)
A single charge doesn't radiate in all directions. It doesn't radiate in the direction it's accelerated or directly behind (see Purcell image below). A charge accelerated in direction x radiates E field like sin(theta). Nor does the Biot-savart equation give a magnetic field directly in front or behind and behaves similarly. It might not seem like the Biot-Savart equation should give the electric field for light but it does.
That device image I linked
https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=45824.msg1962383#msg1962383should give a phased array effect across the dielectric in the direction of the charge acceleration in which no radiation should be radiated. If there is any such radiation from it, the electric field would point toward or away from the device charged panels which is what's so interesting about it.
http://physics.weber.edu/schroeder/mrr/MRRtalk.htmlI guess this is off topic though, or is it?
I don't think its all that important here, but I don't think anyone knows what is important when it comes to how propulsion is being induced if it is and even if propulsion is being induced so exploration of topics is some what natural. Inhibiting it inhibits creative thinking.
Pointing out that something is wrong isn't "inhibiting creative thinking." It is simply avoiding wasting time on things that cannot produce the desired result. Pointing out that off topic discussions are off topic is basic application of the forum rules.
It isn't exotic, it is simply wrong. The electric field of electromagnetic radiation is always perpendicular to the direction of propagation, and an accelerating charge generally radiates in all directions (there will typically be nulls, but those are only in exact specific directions, even slightly off from them there would be some field.)
A single charge doesn't radiate in all directions. It doesn't radiate in the direction it's accelerated or directly behind...
Apparently you decided to just not read what I wrote. I moved the bold to the part that you ignored. Since based on your apparent lack of understanding of this topic you may need some additional clarification: "direction of propagation" does not mean the direction the electron is accelerating in, but the local direction of propagation of the electromagnetic wave.
Nor does the Biot-savart equation give a magnetic field directly in front or behind and behaves similarly. It might not seem like the Biot-Savart equation should give the electric field for light but it does.
No, it simply does not. When I say that you are "simply
wrong" I am quoting from Griffith's Introduction to Electrodynamics referring to exactly the incorrect claim that you are making by trying to generalize the Biot-Savart law to point charges and non-steady state currents.
I guess this is off topic though, or is it?
This you are correct on, we are off topic.
I was investigating the ways a torsional pendulum can be fooled using Lorentz forces when I had the idea to build four short (10 cm) electrodynamic tethers that are supplied with ~1.25A of current each. In the ~45 uT geomagnetic field in my lab, that should produce ~22.5 uN of thrust. What I am really interested in is how tightly I can pack the 4 tethers and still produce usable thrust before they begin interfering with one another. The mount is adjustable so I can move the tethers closer to one another.
This will be my first working "propellantless thruster" as it is an electrodynamic thruster based on real physics. It will also provide us some data on Lorentz forces and how they influence torsional pendulums. The pendulum needs to be aligned certain ways, with current flowing certain ways before these forces become an issue.
I had to rotate the balance 180 degrees as the B-field at one end of the enclosure was distorted because of something in the wall. The B Field at the other end was oriented properly as shown below.
An interesting experiment. However it is impossible to generate a tether-like force that way. You have a current loop, not a tether. Where the red and black wires join up again in the bundle you have net current flow that is in the opposite direction as your "tether". You would need freely moving ions to complete the circuit. In space ions are available to do that. There is no method of producing a force with a DC current loop. You can only generate a torque. That torque may interfere with the "force" transducer used with a torsion pendulum apparatus, giving a false positive for a force being produced. Some experimenters have tried using mumetal to bias a current loop and thereby unbalance the torque. Some have claimed part of a current loop can be shielded by enclosing it inside a superconductor tube. None of those ideas work. A current loop can't be so easily fooled into acting like something it is not. It will always produce a torque.
An interesting experiment. However it is impossible to generate a tether-like force that way. You have a current loop, not a tether. Where the red and black wires join up again in the bundle you have net current flow that is in the opposite direction as your "tether". You would need freely moving ions to complete the circuit. In space ions are available to do that. There is no method of producing a force with a DC current loop. You can only generate a torque. That torque may interfere with the "force" transducer used with a torsion pendulum apparatus, giving a false positive for a force being produced. Some experimenters have tried using mumetal to bias a current loop and thereby unbalance the torque. Some have claimed part of a current loop can be shielded by enclosing it inside a superconductor tube. None of those ideas work. A current loop can't be so easily fooled into acting like something it is not. It will always produce a torque.
So the first test yielded something.
I agree, electrodynamic tether is not what this is and that was a bad word choice on my part. It is a specially shaped DC current loop that was inspired by PotomacNeuron and some of your work, actually. I used the right hand rule to run the wires in certain directions with respect to the local B-field to create a net movement in one direction.
At 45 uT, 5A (1.25A each), and 10 cm x 4 of wire I was predicting ~22 uN in the best circumstances (no interference from other wires or their force contribution was calculated).
7.65 uN was detected in the expected direction.
I'm not claiming this is thrust, as a torque is highly suspected. We need to calculate the expected torque on a DC current loop with those parameters above. Or we can check experimentally by running a single long wire in a loop on the pendulum and see what that yields at 5A.
An interesting experiment. However it is impossible to generate a tether-like force that way. You have a current loop, not a tether. Where the red and black wires join up again in the bundle you have net current flow that is in the opposite direction as your "tether". You would need freely moving ions to complete the circuit. In space ions are available to do that. There is no method of producing a force with a DC current loop. You can only generate a torque. That torque may interfere with the "force" transducer used with a torsion pendulum apparatus, giving a false positive for a force being produced. Some experimenters have tried using mumetal to bias a current loop and thereby unbalance the torque. Some have claimed part of a current loop can be shielded by enclosing it inside a superconductor tube. None of those ideas work. A current loop can't be so easily fooled into acting like something it is not. It will always produce a torque.
So the first test yielded something.
I agree, electrodynamic tether is not what this is and that was a bad word choice on my part. It is a specially shaped DC current loop that was inspired by PotomacNeuron and some of your work, actually. I used the right hand rule to run the wires in certain directions with respect to the local B-field to create a net movement in one direction.
At 45 uT, 5A (1.25A each), and 10 cm x 4 of wire I was predicting ~22 uN in the best circumstances (no interference from other wires or their force contribution was calculated).
7.65 uN was detected in the expected direction.
I'm not claiming this is thrust, as a torque is highly suspected. We need to calculate the expected torque on a DC current loop with those parameters above. Or we can check experimentally by running a single long wire in a loop on the pendulum and see what that yields at 5A.
I'll have to take some of what I said back. If the current loop was half on the pendulum and half off it you could see an unbalanced for e on the pendulum. However if the batteries and all wiring are situated on the pendulum, only torque will be produced.
I'll have to take some of what I said back. If the current loop was half on the pendulum and half off it you could see an unbalanced for e on the pendulum. However if the batteries and all wiring are situated on the pendulum, only torque will be produced.
Running a single (non-shaped) DC current loop also shows the same order of displacement, but about half as much. My guess is that the shaped DC loop is longer and has more "winds" which causes a stronger field and increases the torque.
Superluminal Travel from Quantised Inertia by Mike McCulloch:
https://www.tsijournals.com/articles/superluminal-travel-from-quantised-inertia.pdf
The effects of quantized inertia have not been observed in particle accelerators which accelerate particles to close to the speed of light. This could be because these particles travel along circular trajectories and are therefore highly accelerated, making QI less apparent.
What about linear particle accelerators like SLAC?
McCulloch spends half a page describing the math to show why circular accelerators don't show QI. He seems unaware of linear accelerators such as SLAC. By his own statement, linear accelerators show his QI theory is incorrect.
Superluminal Travel from Quantised Inertia by Mike McCulloch:
https://www.tsijournals.com/articles/superluminal-travel-from-quantised-inertia.pdf
The effects of quantized inertia have not been observed in particle accelerators which accelerate particles to close to the speed of light. This could be because these particles travel along circular trajectories and are therefore highly accelerated, making QI less apparent.
What about linear particle accelerators like SLAC?
McCulloch spends half a page describing the math to show why circular accelerators don't show QI. He seems unaware of linear accelerators such as SLAC. By his own statement, linear accelerators show his QI theory is incorrect.
The paper doesn't reference the emDrive at all, so the only relevance to this thread is that as you point out, applying critical thinking to the paper shows the the theory is wrong, and therefore can be removed from the list of plausible theories that predict a working emDrive. (As far as I can tell, that list is currently empty.)
Since the paper is about an FTL drive, it would be appropriate to make a new thread for it, if anyone cared to discuss it in depth. However, from what I have looked at so far in the paper, it would just become a list of problems with McCulloch's theory.
This is the first source of any kind I've found at least which gets deep in the weeds about the curl.
Notice that the gravitational field is no longer irrotational in S, which express the content of the gravitational analogue of Faraday’s law. Since ∇ × G (does not equal) 0, it might seem that the gravitational field is not conservative anymore. This is only apparent, however, since we shall see in sections 9 and 10 that the gravitational fields have, besides an energy, also a momentum associated, so that the spacetime momentum of the fields is conserved in any inertial reference frame
Everything after, "this is only apparent" is why I'm posting, because until yesterday I've never thought of it this way.
Source:
https://arxiv.org/abs/1608.00815
Interesting point of view and a strong affirmation at page 13 footnote, about the non existence of classical magnetic monopoles and the balance of forces over all possible inertial frames of reference.
But at realm of condensed matter there are evidences of collective effects producing "magnetic monopoles".
One of the things that always bothers me about the EM Drive, and the Mach Thruster as well, is that if I think of it as a matching network the required Q would be of the order of 10^16.
Problem is its been proposed maybe even the EM drive works becuse of quantized inertia. You see no one really know if it works why it works.
You are missing the fact that if it doesn't work (as the best evidence currently indicates) then no correct theory can ever explain it working.
This is why I asked meberbs the question above about how were were off topic, or are we? He thinks we are, but how do we even know some strange form of unusual quadrapole propulsion that passes through the cavity isn't some possible form of thrust.
I don't "think" we are off topic, it is a fact that we are. Your proposal has no stated relation to the emDrive. the recent papers have no stated relation to the emDrive. Saying "but it is new physics" doesn't matter, unrelated new physics is unrelated. Also, your proposal actually doesn't incorporate any new science, so it is well known that it does not have a chance of being relevant.
Statements about "maybe it is the Mach effect" don't add value any more than "maybe it is magic" or "maybe it is aliens." To add value there would have to be a specific relation pointed out, and there is a separate thread for updates on the Mach effect anyway.
Anyway, guess what else is off topic: Arguing about what is off topic.
It would propagate with the electric field in the direction of travel, very unlike normal light. I think generally of much less magnitude but I think that might depend on the device that generates it and the magnitude of change in charge.
