search
top

Discussion on magnetic and kinetic energy



Discussion on magnetic and kinetic energy

When you are inter­ested in physics you must read “Unbe­liev­able”!

How is it be pos­si­ble that the mag­netic energy of an elec­tron is the kinetic energy as well?

The answer to that ques­tion is that both forms of energy are dif­fer­ent pre­sen­ta­tions of the same “dynamic” energy.

If an elec­tron moves and col­lides with another par­ti­cle the change in kinetic energy is trans­ferred from one par­ti­cle to the other. The kinetic energy of the elec­tron changes, because the elec­tron moves now with a dif­fer­ent speed. The mag­netic energy also has to change, because the charge of the elec­tron now also moves with a changed velocity.

The same argu­ment is valid when an elec­tron (elec­tric cur­rent) loses mag­netic energy through mag­netic induc­tion. The elec­trons slows down and loses kinetic energy.

When we con­sider the for­mu­las for mag­netic energy of an elec­tric cur­rent and the kinetic energy of a mass we find there are sim­i­lar­i­ties. The mag­netic energy of a cur­rent is [Joule], while the kinetic energy of a mov­ing mass is [Joule].

Con­sider an elec­tric cur­rent, where the elec­trons move twice as fast then the induced mag­netic energy Wm will be four times as large and so is the kinetic energy of the mov­ing elec­trons in the cur­rent. Both for­mu­las, for the mag­netic and kinetic energy, are con­sis­tent with the pre­sen­ta­tion of equiv­a­lence for kinetic and mag­netic energy.

The log­i­cal con­se­quence of the equiv­a­lence for mag­netic and kinetic energy is, that every mass that moves pos­sesses kinetic energy, also pos­sesses mag­netic energy!

The mov­ing pro­ton and mag­netic energy
The pro­ton is, like the elec­tron, a sin­gle charged (+Qe) par­ti­cle. The observ­able dif­fer­ence between the pro­ton and elec­tron is the oppo­site sign of the charge and the dif­fer­ence in mass. In chap­ter “The Pro­ton and Neu­tron” we see that the intrin­sic energy of the mass of a pro­ton can be expressed by the equation:

Where the mass of a pro­ton Mp is accounted by the elec­tro­sta­tic energy for half the mass and for the other half by mag­netic spin energy. Rp is the radius of the bulb shaped proton.

The mag­netic energy of the induced mag­netic field (Wm) by the mov­ing pro­ton will accord­ingly be:

The mov­ing hydro­gen atom and neu­tron
The pro­ton is a pos­i­tive charged par­ti­cle. The mov­ing pro­ton must posses mag­netic energy. But if kinetic energy is the same as mag­netic energy, any mov­ing mass must posses mag­netic energy!

The hydro­gen atom pos­sesses no elec­tric field out­side the radius of the mol­e­cule. All elec­tro­sta­tic energy and there­fore all magnetic/​kinetic energy of the mov­ing hydro­gen atom con­cen­trate in the atom, between elec­tron and proton.

The charge of a sep­a­rated mov­ing elec­tron and pro­ton is not shielded, as it is in the hydro­gen atom. The sep­a­rated elec­tron and pro­ton there­fore have a much larger range in which the elec­tric fields are present and can inter­act with other charged par­ti­cles when there is rel­a­tive move­ment. The elec­tro­sta­tic field in the hydro­gen atom, and there­fore the kinetic/​magnetic energy, is con­tained in the space between the pro­ton and the electron.

For the mov­ing hydro­gen atom the same argu­ments as for the mov­ing elec­tron and pro­ton are valid. The kinetic energy of the hydro­gen atom is the induced mag­netic energy by the mov­ing elec­tro­sta­tic field between pro­ton and elec­tron. Out­side the hydro­gen atom there is no elec­tro­sta­tic field or dielec­tric dis­place­ment, so out­side the atom there is no mag­netic field or energy. The magnetic/​kinetic energy is con­fined to the area of the elec­tric field, between pro­ton and elec­tron, in the hydro­gen atom.

When a pro­ton and an elec­tron fuse to a neu­tron, dur­ing the fusion process the poten­tial elec­tro­sta­tic energy of pro­ton and elec­tron is trans­ferred to kinetic energy (mag­netic energy). Although fused, the pos­i­tive and neg­a­tive charges of pro­ton and elec­tron still oscil­late in the neu­tron, so the elec­tro­sta­tic field between both charges still exists, only now con­cen­trated and there­fore con­fined in the neutron.

The neu­tron does not posses an elec­tro­sta­tic field we can observe, because the oscil­la­tion fre­quency of the neu­tron is far too high (approx. 2.1026 Hz chap­ter “The Pro­ton and Neu­tron”) to be detected. Not being detectable does not mean that the equiv­a­lence of mag­netic and kinetic energy for a neu­tron would not be valid.

Com­ment added Novem­ber 2007
When J.J. Thom­son (1881) derived that the EM-​theory could not explain the elec­tro­mag­netic mass of an elec­tron, dur­ing which he bru­tally vio­lated the energy con­ser­va­tion law, no one ques­tioned the cor­rect­ness of his con­clu­sions. His false analy­sis was com­pletely copied by QM and served them as proof that the EM-​theory was inad­e­quate to describe ele­men­tary par­ti­cles. Feyn­man copied Thomson’s mis­take in his Lec­tures on Physics to which arti­cle I refer above.

Why did QM-​physicists never ques­tion Thomson’s fun­da­men­tally false derivation?

The answer to this ques­tion is to my knowl­edge the relent­less faith of physi­cists in Maxwell’ equa­tions. Maxwell’s equa­tions describe the inter­re­la­tion­ship between the elec­tric field, the mag­netic field, the elec­tric charge, and elec­tric cur­rent. Although Maxwell’s equa­tions are math­e­mat­i­cally cor­rect, appar­ently no physi­cist ever ver­i­fied whether these equa­tions are also valid in phys­i­cal sense!

Appar­ently QM-​physics from the end of the 19th cen­tury until today is noth­ing more than math. As long as derived math­e­mat­i­cal equa­tions look nice and seem intu­itively not to vio­late fun­da­men­tal physics laws they are accepted as phys­i­cally cor­rect. At least one can say that QM han­dles “the­o­ries” over the last cen­tury in an improper sci­en­tific way.

Nowa­days many (top-​) sci­en­tists know that QM incor­rectly dis­qual­i­fied the EM-​theory as being inad­e­quate to describe ele­men­tary par­ti­cles. Actu­ally by now they know the QM-​approach is the fun­da­men­tally flawed theory.

Know­ing this these sci­en­tists should, if they were sci­en­tists liv­ing up to the moral and eth­i­cal stan­dards of their pro­fes­sion, address the mis­takes. They decide how­ever that their per­sonal inter­est is of more impor­tance than the moral and eth­i­cal stan­dards of their profession.

Next chap­ter: The pho­ton

When you are interested in physics you must read “Unbelievable“!

How is it be possible that the magnetic energy of an electron is the kinetic energy as well?

The answer to that question is that both forms of energy are different presentations of the same “dynamic” energy.

If an electron moves and collides with another particle the change in kinetic energy is transferred from one particle to the other. The kinetic energy of the electron changes, because the electron moves now with a different speed. The magnetic energy also has to change, because the charge of the electron now also moves with a changed velocity.

The same argument is valid when an electron (electric current) loses magnetic energy through magnetic induction. The electrons slows down and loses kinetic energy.

When we consider the formulas for magnetic energy of an electric current and the kinetic energy of a mass we find there are similarities. The magnetic energy of a current is  [Joule], while the kinetic energy of a moving mass is  [Joule].

Consider an electric current, where the electrons move twice as fast then the induced magnetic energy Wm will be four times as large and so is the kinetic energy of the moving electrons in the current. Both formulas, for the magnetic and kinetic energy, are consistent with the presentation of equivalence for kinetic and magnetic energy.

The logical consequence of the equivalence for magnetic and kinetic energy is, that every mass that moves possesses kinetic energy, also possesses magnetic energy!

The moving proton and magnetic energy
The proton is, like the electron, a single charged (+Qe) particle. The observable difference between the proton and electron is the opposite sign of the charge and the difference in mass. In chapter “The Proton and Neutron” we see that the intrinsic energy of the mass of a proton can be expressed by the equation:

Where the mass of a proton Mp is accounted by the electrostatic energy for half the mass and for the other half by magnetic spin energy. Rp is the radius of the bulb shaped proton.

The magnetic energy of the induced magnetic field (Wm) by the moving proton will accordingly be:

The moving hydrogen atom and neutron
The proton is a positive charged particle. The moving proton must posses magnetic energy. But if kinetic energy is the same as magnetic energy, any moving mass must posses magnetic energy!

The hydrogen atom possesses no electric field outside the radius of the molecule. All electrostatic energy and therefore all magnetic/kinetic energy of the moving hydrogen atom concentrate in the atom, between electron and proton.

The charge of a separated moving electron and proton is not shielded, as it is in the hydrogen atom. The separated electron and proton therefore have a much larger range in which the electric fields are present and can interact with other charged particles when there is relative movement. The electrostatic field in the hydrogen atom, and therefore the kinetic/magnetic energy, is contained in the space between the proton and the electron.

For the moving hydrogen atom the same arguments as for the moving electron and proton are valid. The kinetic energy of the hydrogen atom is the induced magnetic energy by the moving electrostatic field between proton and electron. Outside the hydrogen atom there is no electrostatic field or dielectric displacement, so outside the atom there is no magnetic field or energy. The magnetic/kinetic energy is confined to the area of the electric field, between proton and electron, in the hydrogen atom.

When a proton and an electron fuse to a neutron, during the fusion process the potential electrostatic energy of proton and electron is transferred to kinetic energy (magnetic energy). Although fused, the positive and negative charges of proton and electron still oscillate in the neutron, so the electrostatic field between both charges still exists, only now concentrated and therefore confined in the neutron.

The neutron does not posses an electrostatic field we can observe, because the oscillation frequency of the neutron is far too high (approx. 2.10^26 Hz chapter “The Proton and Neutron”) to be detected. Not being detectable does not mean that the equivalence of magnetic and kinetic energy for a neutron would not be valid.

Comment added November 2007
When J.J. Thomson (1881) derived that the EM-theory could not explain the electromagnetic mass of an electron, during which he brutally violated the energy conservation law, no one questioned the correctness of his conclusions. His false analysis was completely copied by QM and served them as proof that the EM-theory was inadequate to describe elementary particles. Feynman copied Thomson’s mistake in his Lectures on Physics to which article I refer above.

Why did QM-physicists never question Thomson’s fundamentally false derivation?

The answer to this question is to my knowledge the relentless faith of physicists in Maxwell’ equations. Maxwell’s equations describe the interrelationship between the electric field, the magnetic field, the electric charge, and electric current. Although Maxwell’s equations are mathematically correct, apparently no physicist ever verified whether these equations are also valid in physical sense!

Apparently QM-physics from the end of the 19th century until today is nothing more than math. As long as derived mathematical equations look nice and seem intuitively not to violate fundamental physics laws they are accepted as physically correct. At least one can say that QM handles “theories” over the last century in an improper scientific way.

Nowadays many (top-) scientists know that QM incorrectly disqualified the EM-theory as being inadequate to describe elementary particles. Actually by now they know the QM-approach is the fundamentally flawed theory.

Knowing this these scientists should, if they were scientists living up to the moral and ethical standards of their profession, address the mistakes. They decide however that their personal interest is of more importance than the moral and ethical standards of their profession.

Next chapter: The photon

top