Christianity is heading for a full allegorization

[polymath257]

I guess you deleted a quote tag and the formatting is messed up. The forum software should not allow an unpaired quote tag.
I think I understand. A neutron has 2 poles, sort of like a bar magnetic.
Aren't electrons and protons dipoles as well?

No. Electrons are electric monopoles and have no magnetic moment at all.

But the shape of the magnetic field around a beam of electrons/proton is circular and perpendicular. So, it is possible to use a uniform magnetic field to exert a force on a beam of electron/proton.
Source:
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hba...agcur.html

Yes. The 'shape' of the magnetic field around any current is circular around the direction of the current.

And, yes, a magnetic field produces a force on a moving charge. But this is NOT due to the interaction of the magnetic fields. It is a direct action of the magnetic field on a moving charge. Look up the Lorentz force law.

So, perhaps, that is the shape of the magnetic field around each individual electron.
This would also mean that one electron pushes on another electron because of the individual magnetic field and their individual charge. So a beam of eletron always diverges.

A beam of electrons will diverge because of the *electric* force being repulsive between two like charges. That is NOT due to any magnetic field.

[HappySkeptic]

I guess you deleted a quote tag and the formatting is messed up. The forum software should not allow an unpaired quote tag.
I think I understand. A neutron has 2 poles, sort of like a bar magnetic.
Aren't electrons and protons dipoles as well?

No. Electrons are electric monopoles and have no magnetic moment at all.

Note true.  They have a magnetic dipole moment owing to their spin.

[polymath257]

No. Electrons are electric monopoles and have no magnetic moment at all.

Note true.  They have a magnetic dipole moment owing to their spin.

Damn. You are right.

[Jehanne]

Note true.  They have a magnetic dipole moment owing to their spin.

Damn. You are right.

Well, at least atheists admit when they are wrong.

[Ferrocyanide]

I guess you deleted a quote tag and the formatting is messed up. The forum software should not allow an unpaired quote tag.
I think I understand. A neutron has 2 poles, sort of like a bar magnetic.
Aren't electrons and protons dipoles as well?

No. Electrons are electric monopoles and have no magnetic moment at all.

But the shape of the magnetic field around a beam of electrons/proton is circular and perpendicular. So, it is possible to use a uniform magnetic field to exert a force on a beam of electron/proton.
Source:
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hba...agcur.html

Yes. The 'shape' of the magnetic field around any current is circular around the direction of the current.

And, yes, a magnetic field produces a force on a moving charge. But this is NOT due to the interaction of the magnetic fields. It is a direct action of the magnetic field on a moving charge. Look up the Lorentz force law.

So, perhaps, that is the shape of the magnetic field around each individual electron.
This would also mean that one electron pushes on another electron because of the individual magnetic field and their individual charge. So a beam of eletron always diverges.

A beam of electrons will diverge because of the *electric* force being repulsive between two like charges. That is NOT due to any magnetic field.

I ran into this interesting article.

Source:
https://sitn.hms.harvard.edu/flash/2018/...particles/


There is also this
Source:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electron_magnetic_moment

The electron is a charged particle with charge −1e, where e in this context is the unit of elementary charge. Its angular momentum comes from two types of rotation: spin and orbital motion. From classical electrodynamics, a rotating electrically charged body creates a magnetic dipole with magnetic poles of equal magnitude but opposite polarity. This analogy does hold, since an electron indeed behaves like a tiny bar magnet. One consequence is that an external magnetic field exerts a torque on the electron magnetic moment depending on its orientation with respect to the field.

But besides that magnetic moment caused by spin, I think a stationary electron or an electron that is moving at the same velocity as a detector is said to NOT have a magnetic field.
So, a magnetic field is a relative thing.
If we have a stationary detector and a current is going through a wire (or vacuum), then we can detect a magnetic field that is circular around the wire (perpendicular to the wire direction).

The magnetic field becomes detectable since the detector and electrons are NOT moving at the same velocity.

The Lorentz force law seems to be for such cases, where the particle itself doesn’t have a magnetic field.

This creates an interesting situation. If I draw a cross on the ground.
If I number the end points of the cross as 1, 2, 3, 4.
If I place a stationary electron at the center of the cross.
If I move my detector from point 1 to 3, I would detect a circular magnetic field perpendicular to line segment 1..3
If I move my detector from point 2 to 4, I would detect a circular magnetic field perpendicular to line segment 2..4

What if I have 2 detectors and I move one from 1 to 3 and the other from 2 to 4.
Each detector would detect a completely different magnetic field.

I don’t know if I was clear enough.

[polymath257]

The electron is a charged particle with charge −1e, where e in this context is the unit of elementary charge. Its angular momentum comes from two types of rotation: spin and orbital motion. From classical electrodynamics, a rotating electrically charged body creates a magnetic dipole with magnetic poles of equal magnitude but opposite polarity. This analogy does hold, since an electron indeed behaves like a tiny bar magnet. One consequence is that an external magnetic field exerts a torque on the electron magnetic moment depending on its orientation with respect to the field.

But besides that magnetic moment caused by spin, I think a stationary electron or an electron that is moving at the same velocity as a detector is said to NOT have a magnetic field.
So, a magnetic field is a relative thing.
If we have a stationary detector and a current is going through a wire (or vacuum), then we can detect a magnetic field that is circular around the wire (perpendicular to the wire direction).

The magnetic field becomes detectable since the detector and electrons are NOT moving at the same velocity.

The Lorentz force law seems to be for such cases, where the particle itself doesn’t have a magnetic field.

This creates an interesting situation. If I draw a cross on the ground.
If I number the end points of the cross as 1, 2, 3, 4.
If I place a stationary electron at the center of the cross.
If I move my detector from point 1 to 3, I would detect a circular magnetic field perpendicular to line segment 1..3
If I move my detector from point 2 to 4, I would detect a circular magnetic field perpendicular to line segment 2..4

What if I have 2 detectors and I move one from 1 to 3 and the other from 2 to 4.
Each detector would detect a completely different magnetic field.

I don’t know if I was clear enough.

Yes, these are relativistic effects. In a fully relativistic treatment of E&M, the electric and magnetic fields merge into a tensor called the Faraday tensor. This is similar, but deeper, to the merger of energy and momentum into the energy-momentun vector.

Just like relative motion can lead to different measurements of time intervals or lengths, it can also lead to different measurements of energy or electric and magnetic fields. In particular, a static electric field in one reference frame will have a magnetic component in a different reference frame (and vice versa).

The Faraday tensor is the same, the components differ in each reference frame.

---

Damn. You are right.

Well, at least atheists admit when they are wrong.

I completely spaced about the spin.

I now have to go wear a hair shirt and flagellate myself.

[Jehanne]

I completely spaced about the spin.

I now have to go wear a hair shirt and flagellate myself.

All scholars make mistakes, no exceptions. Still, not as bad as the physicist Dr. Gerald Schroeder, a graduate of MIT, who, in his book, "The Science of God", stated that kinetic energy is proportional to mass times velocity. Of course, the late Professor Antony Flew was influenced by Dr. Schroeder's work in converting to deism.

[HappySkeptic]

But besides that magnetic moment caused by spin, I think a stationary electron or an electron that is moving at the same velocity as a detector is said to NOT have a magnetic field.
So, a magnetic field is a relative thing.
If we have a stationary detector and a current is going through a wire (or vacuum), then we can detect a magnetic field that is circular around the wire (perpendicular to the wire direction).

The magnetic field becomes detectable since the detector and electrons are NOT moving at the same velocity.

The magnetic moment remains, regardless of velocity (because you can't stop an electron from spinning), but yes magnetic fields caused by moving charges are proportional to the rate of flow of charge.

Electric and magnetic forces have been unified.  You can write a transformation that will transform any electric and magnetic field when the reference frame changes.

As a physicist, I think of the magnetic field as a fictitious thing - a result of the Lorentz Transformations (Special Relativity) acting on an electric field.  There is no such thing (barring the discovery of a magnetic monopole) of a magnetic field being primal.  It is always a result of moving (or spinning) charges relative to the measurement frame.

[Ferrocyanide]

But besides that magnetic moment caused by spin, I think a stationary electron or an electron that is moving at the same velocity as a detector is said to NOT have a magnetic field.
So, a magnetic field is a relative thing.
If we have a stationary detector and a current is going through a wire (or vacuum), then we can detect a magnetic field that is circular around the wire (perpendicular to the wire direction).

The magnetic field becomes detectable since the detector and electrons are NOT moving at the same velocity.

The magnetic moment remains, regardless of velocity (because you can't stop an electron from spinning), but yes magnetic fields caused by moving charges are proportional to the rate of flow of charge.

Electric and magnetic forces have been unified.  You can write a transformation that will transform any electric and magnetic field when the reference frame changes.

As a physicist, I think of the magnetic field as a fictitious thing - a result of the Lorentz Transformations (Special Relativity) acting on an electric field.  There is no such thing (barring the discovery of a magnetic monopole) of a magnetic field being primal.  It is always a result of moving (or spinning) charges relative to the measurement frame.

Yes, in reality there is the magnetic moment of the electron like you said, so this contributes to a magnetic field.

so, this means that the original Lorentz force equation might need an adjustment
F = qE + qv cross B

F = force
q = charge (the electric field of the particle. This is used as a sign value and also a quantized value)
E = electric field (external electric field)
q =  charge (This is used as a sign value and also a quantized value)
v = velocity of the particle
B = external magnetic field.

so, I think that equation needs to be adjusted to take into account that some particles have a magnetic dipole moment.

From the discussion about neutrons with polymath, it looks like a non-uniform magnetic field can be used to change the direction of neutrons, so the same applies to electrons/protons.
If we just stick q = 0 into the Lorentz force equation, it gives
F = 0

which isn’t right. So, the Lorentz force equation is just a simplified equation.