Wednesday, September 1, 2010

Lattice Interactions, Part V



In Part IV, I wrote that Ezekiel's wheel likely symbolizes the electric field that surrounds charged particles. I also introduced the concept of elementary mass and hypothesized that it is equivalent to the mass of the electron. I was going to explore this concept further in this post but I think it's best that I do it some other time. In this post, I would like to explain how a charged particle creates a magnetic field and why it occurs only when the particle moves in the three familiar dimensions. In the process, I expose some of the crackpot nonsense that has been passing for science. Please read the previous installments before continuing.

Relativistic Garbage

Physicists teach us that only a moving charge can generate a magnetic field but they never explain why in a manner that makes any sense. In fact, there is reason to believe that this is not true at all, that it is possible to have a magnetic field without an electric charge. Sure, relativists try to BS one another with their length contraction non-explanation, which is not really an explanation since nobody knows why length contracts in the first place. However, the rest of us have enough sense to know that a point particle such as the electron cannot possibly have a length. Relativists will counter-argue that by length contraction, they are not referring to the moving particle but to the observed distance between moving charged particles. The tale is that this observed contraction makes the net charge appear bigger. However, this argument fails because a single moving charged particle will generate a magnetic field as well.

Furthermore, the relativistic magic does not explain why neutrons, which have no electric charge, can generate a magnetic field. Neutron stars, for example, are known to have an exceedingly strong magnetic field. Of course, the standard circular refrain is that a neutron consists of charged particles and that it is these charged particles that generate the field. To which I respond that the electric charge of the neutron is completely canceled, therefore its magnetic moment could not possibly have anything to do with the charges. As you can see, modern physics is resting on a huge mountain of crap. There is no end to it. Needless to say, we can promptly and safely dump the entire relativistic explanation for magnetism right back into the relativistic garbage heap from which it emerged. There may be some truths to relativity but this is certainly not one of them.

Quark Quackery

It is not hard to understand the reason that physicists insist without proof that only a charged particle can generate a magnetic field. The political correctness within the physics community is such that they must support relativity at all costs. In other words, unless you are prepared to kiss the giant collective ass of relativity, your career as a physicist will come to quick end, period. In my opinion, the unification of electric and magnetic interactions into a single phenomenon called electromagnetism has been a disaster because it has forced a mindset on researchers that has prevented them from considering or even seeing alternatives. Brainwashing is a bitch because it can ruin progress in science for centuries.

The truth is that there is no reason to suppose that a charged particle must also have a magnetic component. Likewise, there is no reason to believe that a magnetic particle must have an electric component. In the end, it all depends on whether or not they have electric or magnetic faces or both. But what can one say about quarks, those strange hypothetical particles of quantum physics that, we are told, have fractional charges? Are such hideous creatures even possible? The answer is a resounding no, of course. I have maintained that the charge of a particle is the result of its orientation in the fourth dimension and how this affects its interactions with the lattice. I mean, how can a particle have a fractional orientation? The quark concept is another one of those things that, like quantum superposition and virtual particles, physicists strongly believe in without actually observing them. Scientists love to bash religious folks for having faith while being guilty of the same.

Let's Face It

So why does a particle generate a magnetic field only when it is moving? It certainly has to do with lattice interactions but why is there a need for the particle to move in one or more of the three familiar spatial dimensions in order to generate a magnetic field? My hypothesis is that it happens for the same reason that an electric field is generated when a particle with an electric face moves in the fourth dimension. But why does a stationary electron not generate a magnetic field even though it has at least one magnetic face? It seems that, even if two particles have a face in common, they cannot interact unless one of them underwent a discrete jump in that dimension (see Physics: The Problem With Motion for more on particle discrete motion).

Let me rephrase this so as to make it as clear as possible. An electron generates an electric field by interacting with e-seraphim, not just because it has an e-face, but also because it is moving in the e-dimension, aka the fourth dimension. Its motion in the e-dimension does not generate a magnetic field even though the electron has at least one magnetic face. It must be moving in the direction it is facing in other to cause an interaction with seraphim of the same face. But why? I have an idea. I'll explain in Part VI.


miller said...

One would hope that if you were mounting a serious criticism of electrodynamics, you could do better than citing me. I write popular physics explanations. It's pedagogy, not rigorous argument, duh.

In the case of a single moving electric particle, the field lines themselves are Lorentz contracted, and therefore strengthened in the direction perpendicular to motion. You can figure this out by understanding how the electromagnetic field tensor boosts, but this is too mathematically difficult to appear in popular explanations.

Louis Savain said...


I am willing to temporarily concede the point you make about the field lines being contracted (I have other objections but they can wait). However, this does not explain the fact that neutrons can create a magnetic field. I guess you forgot to address this criticism and decided instead to appeal to the magical power of mathematics.

You sound like some of the physics crackpots from academia (e.g., the little con artist in the wheelchair) who insist that the mathematics of general relativity does not forbid time travel. Math is a favorite refuge of academics whenever they feel the need to BS the lay public. I am so not impressed.

miller said...

Wires are electrically neutral, and yet they create magnetic fields. No contradiction has been shown.

I am not your personal physics tutor, so you only get one correction before I lose interest.

Louis Savain said...

Miller writes:

Wires are electrically neutral, and yet they create magnetic fields. No contradiction has been shown.

Seeing that you are a graduate physics student, I was expecting a more sophisticated response from you but this takes the cake. Bravo. And all along I was under the impression it was the moving particles within a wire that create a magnetic field?

I am not your personal physics tutor, so you only get one correction before I lose interest.

Miller, I really don't give a shit whether or not you lose interest. You and the entire physics community can kiss my ass. How about that?

PS. Don't even try to reply to this comment. It is purely for my own benefit. I will block your stupid crap from now on.

Joseph said...

I was wondering why I didn't understand the wire comment. Thanks for clarifying. lol

Louis Savain said...


The physics community is like any other organized gang. The only way to belong in the gang is to kiss as much ass as possible. The new recruits must show their loyalty by defending their turf against outsiders like me at all costs, even if it makes them look like idiots. Personally, I admit that I love it. It's the rebel in me.