sci.physics.electromag

"FrediFizzx" wrote in message
news:6434mmF29ppvrU1@mid.individual.net...
> "Bill Miller" wrote in message
> news:eUWCj.24983$cQ1.17660@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
>>
>> "FrediFizzx" wrote in message
>> news:642osbF28tj9cU1@mid.individual.net...
>>> "Bill Miller" wrote in message
>>> news:aJVCj.24673$cQ1.6014@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
>>>> The title of the post pretty much says it all.
>>>>
>>>> The participants of this list seem to have fairly clear agreement that
>>>> the primary *cause* of magnetic fields is the motion of charges.
>>>>
>>>> With a few hold-outs, most folks seem to (finally) understand that an E
>>>> field does not *cause* an H field. (Those that disagree: p-l-e-a-s-e
>>>> read Jefimenko's "Causality" before jumping in to dispute this
>>>> statement.)
>>>>
>>>> OK. So far, so good.
>>>>
>>>> A permanent magnet has associated with it a magnetic field whose
>>>> characteristics seem to be indistinguishable from those of a magnetic
>>>> field that is caused by the motion of charges.
>>>>
>>>> Where the H--- does the H come from? How do we know?
>>>
>>> Well, I think we pretty much know that it comes from atomic alignment of
>>> their electron's orbital angular momentum. So there is "local" motion
>>> of charges all coordinated.
>>> IOW, the atomic magnetic moments point in
>>> the same direction and all add up. I don't think many physicists would
>>> disagree with that.
>>>
>>> Fred
>
>> OK
>>
>> That answers the first part. Kinda
>
> What is the second part that it doesn't answer?
>
>> You said that the effect is local.
>>
>> How local is local? Atoms? Molecules? Magnetic domains? Blobs?
>
> I do believe I said "atomic" above. However, keep in mind that atomic
> "motion" of electrons is dealt with by quantum physics.

I'm perfectly happy to have someone use quantum physics to explain this.
Also, my question still stands.

To clarify. I can imagine a magnetic material in which every atom has
somehow gone into "lock step" with every other other one. I would expect
that would be a pretty powerful magnet. I can imagine a magnetic material
that contains just a pair. Pretty weak.

How are these alignments arrayed? What causes them to become arrayed?

Some permanent magnets appear to, indeed, be permanent. It is
hard-to-impossible to degauss them. Others, like soft steel, are
self-degaussing and their field (there's THAT word again) "decays" with
time. Presumably if we know what mechanisms cause the permanence, we can
understand and why they decay and vice-versa. Do we know why they decay (or
don't)?
>
>> How do we know that the theory that you are postulating is correct? IOW
>> what measurements have been done to validate the statement you have made?
>
> It's not my theory

I did not say it was your theory. I carefully tried to avoid that situation
by saying "the theory that you are postulating."

>and I would imagine

*imagine?!*

I'm sorry, Fred, but this is not an answer that is even close to acceptable!
Over the last year or two, I have made some kinda outrageous claims about EM
theory on this list. In every instance, I believe I have backed up those
claims with references to documentation that is clear and readily available.
(In fact, I hope you are reading one of those references now!)

> you could find experimental references in a good solid state physics book.

Which ones? Author's names? Page references?

>And I would also imagine

THAT word again!

> that hard drive companies especially IBM should have some experimental
> evidence for you.

If they do, how likely is it that I could write them and they would send it?

What about some_available_ references that show in a clear and unambiguous
way that the theory you postualted is valid?

Otherwise, its about as valid as phlogiston!

Cheers,

Bill
>
> Best,
>
> Fred Diether
> Co-moderator sci.physics.foundations