advertisement


Electricity Doesn't Flow Through Wire

Marchy, my man.

That's the prototype vehicle I'm working on. I'm just about ready to go public, but I haven't decided on the company's name. Tesla's already been taken by that Musk bloke, but I want something that sounds as high-tech and futuristic.

Maybe Magnamatic or Magnacar. I dunno, I kinda suck at marketing.

Joe

Joe, you should sue these guys.

https://www.magnadrive.com/
 
Joking aside I believe the real problem with discussing this topic is that most on pfm haven't studied modern physics.

This was said at the end of the 19th Century "There is nothing new to be discovered in physics now. All that remains is more and more precise measurement." Its not known who actually said this first but its been attributed to Kelvin as its possible author.

Then in the 20th century Einstein tied together the work of several scientists with his theories of relativity and quantum mechanics. Physics that requires the use of these theories is known as modern physics. Working with modern physics is a big jump over classical as the maths and concepts are much harder to grasp. For example we talk about the spin of an electron and whether the magnetic moment is + or - and then also model the same mathematically as wave motion surrounding the nucleus of an atom. Surely both can't be correct unless there is something really wrong with quantum mechanics. Note we have to work with mathematical models. Two simple experiments show that light is both a particle and a wave. One uses a photo multiplier tube to count the arriving particles and the other a pair of slits that generates interference patterns as do waves. Classical physics just can't handle this type of problem.

Here is a simple introduction to the quantum world



Enjoy,

DV
 
Let me put it this way... If a permanet magnet picks up a piece of non magnetised material, and then holds on to it.. then surely some energy is involved? So the question becomes.. where does that energy come from? It seems to me that the energy does not reside in the magnet. It is not, in other words..some sort of 'battery', as permanent magnets do not generally 'run out of magnetism', unless maybe heated, or subjected to shock or whatever.
So.. if the 'energy' employed by the magnet to do it's thing does not come from within the magnet.. then where from?


The magnetic field of the magnet stores some energy which was required to create it. When the magnet grabs something and pulls it toward the magnet some energy is converted into the kinetic energy of movement. Then lost as heat when the item clangs into the magnet and stops. You have to put energy back into the system to pull them apart again, and that takes you back to the starting conditions in terms of energy.

BTW from the POV of General Relativity 'magnetic fields' are what elsewhere in physics are called 'fictitous forces'. They exist because electron sources (e.g. electrons) are moving in your rest frame. Movement here includes going around in circles or rotating.
 
Science is really interesting,

DV

What I find interesting FWIW is that the concept of 'coherence' in classical wave theory is rather stranger than generally assumed. The textbooks simply don't seem aware of this, so it never crops up when taught. Just one aspect of this crops up in the 'How long is a photon?' article I did a while ago. But that's nothing compared to what interferometry of *thermal* sources can turn up! 8-]
 
Science is really interesting,

DV

Science does not answer the important questions, but it is technologically useful. I did the double slit experiment myself in 1967 and the explanation of the results was not forthcoming. There was much discussion of collapsing wave functions. Relativity was introduced along with quantum physics. All very magical.

Where is the real ex-plan-ation of consciousness, electricity, life, fashionable dark energy and dark matter, the 'big bang' and quantum physics? There is a lot of enthusiastic speculation but no definite answers, just more questions.

In my old age I am studying metaphysics which is an interesting hobby and helps under-standing important questions and under-standing possible answers.
 
Science does not answer the important questions, but it is technologically useful. I did the double slit experiment myself in 1967 and the explanation of the results was not forthcoming. There was much discussion of collapsing wave functions. Relativity was introduced along with quantum physics. All very magical.

Where is the real ex-plan-ation of consciousness, electricity, life, fashionable dark energy and dark matter, the 'big bang' and quantum physics? There is a lot of enthusiastic speculation but no definite answers, just more questions.

In my old age I am studying metaphysics which is an interesting hobby and helps under-standing important questions and under-standing possible answers.

The double slit experiment with Buckminster Fullerene 'Bucky Balls' is a beauty.
 
^And then you have Feynman and QED
Yes. I have that book QED and have studied it several times. It answered one of my questions about partial reflections. I have several of Feynmans books, I love "Surely you are joking Mr Feynman" especially where he learns how to seduce females into bed!

Cheers,

DV

PS My copy of the QED book was published in 1990 so I checked t'web to see if it had been updated in the past three decades. Blow me down its now available as a free download - a different cover though and I think my penguin copy is nicer http://www.mysearch.org.uk/website3/pdf/FeynmanQED.pdf
 
Last edited:
The magnetic field of the magnet stores some energy which was required to create it. When the magnet grabs something and pulls it toward the magnet some energy is converted into the kinetic energy of movement. Then lost as heat when the item clangs into the magnet and stops. You have to put energy back into the system to pull them apart again, and that takes you back to the starting conditions in terms of energy.

Thanks for that. A sensible answer. :)
 
Science does not answer the important questions, but it is technologically useful. I did the double slit experiment myself in 1967 and the explanation of the results was not forthcoming. There was much discussion of collapsing wave functions. Relativity was introduced along with quantum physics. All very magical.

Where is the real ex-plan-ation of consciousness, electricity, life, fashionable dark energy and dark matter, the 'big bang' and quantum physics? There is a lot of enthusiastic speculation but no definite answers, just more questions.

In my old age I am studying metaphysics which is an interesting hobby and helps under-standing important questions and under-standing possible answers.

I'd say it is at least arguable that science has actually answered a lot of questions and given at least practical and working explanations for electriciity, life and consciousness.

So for the most part we no longer put mental health issues down to the influence of evil spirits and demons. We mostly recognise illness and disease as having rationally identifiable causes, such as bacteria, viruses or other influencing factors such as nutrition/environment etc. We have also developed treatments and cures for many illnesses.

In the physics, we have largely working explanations of electricity, chemistry and those aspects of physics which impact on our daily lives. Few of us now believe that the Earth is the Centre of the Universe, or that it is flat.
It's true that when it comes to astro-physics, particle physics etc...we are a long way from answers. I'll go so far as to admit that what I understand of all that has me asking whether, if we were to start again.. maybe we ought not to start from here....

Thing is. Science has discovered rational explanations for many things which were previously the realm of witchdoctors, shamen, fraudsters etc. What's more, science has come up with models and techniques which are repeatable. It has also not escaped my notice that many religions fought tooth and nail against the findings of science. Some still do.

Which brings me to metaphysics. I have no problem with metaphysics at all. It seems to me to be as valid as any other branch of philosophy. Unfortunately it has about the same chance of developing 'proofs' of anything. Interesting.., thought provoking, doubtless informative, for those who have the interest and capacity to study it.. but then what? I'd like to think that people who care about human knowledge would look to both Physics and Metaphysics to get as close as possible to understanding both 'reality' and consciousness/'being', but I can't escape the feeling that metaphysical ideas will be hijacked by those who want to use them to 'prove' their religion, their atheism or whatever..not in a search for truth, but a search for power, control and influence.

One thing that seems dangerous to me is that many seem to latch onto half baked and half understood metaphysical ideas and use them to 'beat up' science. This IMHO is the root of much of the tripe flying about on the internet and generally challenging science. This is especially worrying when it comes to the current situation with Covid, anti vaxxers, science deniers etc.

Just sayin' :)
 
One of my favourite books of all time. I bought in 1989 and have since serially pressed it in to the hands of various friends and acquaintances over the years, with evangelical zeal.

I love the section where he sets up ad hoc experiments to understand the ants' behaviour.

If I were ever teaching an introductory course on scientific method in my discipline (and god knows knows, some of my colleagues need one), this would be the set text, alongside Ben Goldacre's Bad Science
 
Yes. I have that book QED and have studied it several times. It answered one of my questions about partial reflections. I have several of Feynmans books, I love "Surely you are joking Mr Feynman" especially where he learns how to seduce females into bed!

I like the books like 'joking'. But dislike the Lectures series. They tend to work well with bright students who'd learn anyway. But tend to confuse poorer students in some cases.
 
Thing is. Science has discovered rational explanations for many things which were previously the realm of witchdoctors, shamen, fraudsters etc. What's more, science has come up with models and techniques which are repeatable. It has also not escaped my notice that many religions fought tooth and nail against the findings of science. Some still do.

Agreed but the thing is that something like the idea of archetypes from the Jungian narrative resonates, and is healing. Science offers mechanical drug treatments which are useful and repeatable but do not address the existential dilemma ( as I know from personal experience).:)
 
Since it is almost 40 years since I last got involved with studying Jung, I had to remind myself of the 'Archetypes'. Put simply, I just view them as a variation, though possibly an early one.. on the numerous dimensions of personality which are invoked in personality testing even to this day. But if you find them useful, I see no harm.

I have to say I generally found the 'Third Force' Psychologists, such as Jung, Fromm et.al as much more in line with my own political and social views, whilst adding useful insights. But, I have to ask whether these people were working in metaphysics, or psychology, and which is which?

I was also impressed by Karen Horney, who told much of it 'like it is'.and especially by the simple device of defining Neurosis as a mismatch between an individual's expectations and their individual experience.

I'd still argue that whilst philosophy and all of its subsets including psychology and metaphysics provide useful ways of analysing the human condition.. they go no closer to definitive explanations, than does mainsteam science.

As ever. more questions than answers.
 


advertisement


Back
Top