What is your explanation for the Mpemba effect?

originally posted by: More1ThanAny1
a reply to: Bedlam

I highly disagree. The electron is indeed a magnet. So to is the proton.

This just goes to show how little you know about this subject.

Well, let's say I do the occasional bit of work in the field, and my horrific misconceptions about electrons not being magnets has served me well, and generally agrees with all the other people whose work also functions handily.

So far, I've seen magnetic fields curve the trajectories of moving charges. But never attract or repel them. And for some reason, that's played out in devices from Hall effect sensors to CRTs to particle accelerators. It's amazing how that works.

The stupid stoopies who think like me even have these idiotic things like "the right hand rule" to easily determine which way a magnetic field will deflect a moving charge and stuff. Imagine how they'll all feel when they discover that electric charges are actually magnetic monopoles!

a reply to: Bedlam

Perhaps you missed the part where I explained that I have a different set of theories were there are only two fundamental forces; attraction and repulsion. You are still stuck in your paradigm where there are four fundamental forces (or more depending on how 'cutting edge' you are).

I've only used the term "magnetism" in this case because it describes a set of interactions that are very similar with the magnetism you are familiar with.

Your understanding gets you to a certain point, and that is ok. My understanding gets me much further, and still explains how things like Hall effect sensors and CRT monitors work.

Maybe you should ask me about it one day.

originally posted by: More1ThanAny1
You are still stuck in your paradigm where there are four fundamental forces (or more depending on how 'cutting edge' you are).

Over here in MY paradigm, you can do neat things that predict outcomes and they actually happen, at least most of the time.

Can yours derive Maxwell? It's a basic sort of test, although a lot of other models can (K-K for instance) and then fail elsewhere.

I've only used the term "magnetism" in this case because it describes a set of interactions that are very similar with the magnetism you are familiar with.

Ah. Neologisms are fun.

Your understanding gets you to a certain point, and that is ok. My understanding gets me much further, and still explains how things like Hall effect sensors and CRT monitors work.

Maybe you should ask me about it one day.

Perhaps you can explain why magnetic fields don't attract charges, but why they DO cause deflection of moving ones, since you've sort of made electric and magnetic fields co-identical. And I don't mean the QFT version where you find out they're coupled through some sort of relativistic chicanery.

originally posted by: Bedlam
Can yours derive Maxwell? It's a basic sort of test, although a lot of other models can (K-K for instance) and then fail elsewhere.

Yes, it sure can derive Maxwell. The new paradigm doesn't take everything away, it mostly adds to the old.

originally posted by: Bedlam
Perhaps you can explain why magnetic fields don't attract charges, but why they DO cause deflection of moving ones, since you've sort of made electric and magnetic fields co-identical. And I don't mean the QFT version where you find out they're coupled through some sort of relativistic chicanery.

My pleasure.

+ Let us first consider the case of a static charge within a magnetic field. The magnetic field does not attract the electron in this case (old paradigm).

This happens because the electron has no velocity, and because the electron is both attracted and repelled from the source of the magnetic field equally, which cancels out any movement toward or away from the source (new paradigm).

You have to think of an electron like it is a superconductor of magnetism. We can call it a supermagnetor. The electron's magnetic axis will align with external magnetic field, and as long as the electron has no velocity it will perfectly attract its North pole towards the South, and repel its South pole from the North, and that will cancel out any movement. Also keep in mind that the object that is creating the magnetic field is sharing its magnetic force with the electron which is also a magnet, so they both form one magnet. This all takes place only when the electron is stationary because the North and South poles are equal in strength. This equality creates the illusion that the magnetic field has no affect on the electron.

+ Now let us consider the case where the electron is moving parallel or antiparallel to the magnetic field. The electron continues along the same direction and the same velocity as though the magnetic field has no impact on it.

This happens because the electron has velocity, and because of that velocity the electron's magnetic field experiences a type of Doppler Effect which is best described as a Liénard–Wiechert field. While moving, the electron's magnetic axis will remain aligned with the external magnetic field, however because of it's velocity one pole of the electron's magnetic field will be compressed, and the other pole will be decompressed. Whichever pole is compressed will interact with the external magnetic field of the source the most, and whatever pole is decompressed will interact with the external magnetic field the least. This forms an inequality between both magnetic poles of the electron.

Say you have a source magnet with North pole pointed left and South pole pointing right. Then you have an electron moving towards the magnet, aligned with the source magnetic field.

Magnet < --- Electron
[N / S] < --- ((((N/S) ) ) ) )

Since the North pole of the electron is compressed it is the strongest part of the electron's magnetic field. So it is attracted to the South pole of the magnet proportionally to its velocity.

Here is the electron going the other direction:

Magnet --- > Electron
[N / S] --- > ( ( ( ( (N/S))))

Since the South pole of the electron is compressed it is the strongest part of the electron's magnetic field. So it is repelled from the South pole of the of the magnet proportionally to its velocity. This creates the illusion that the magnetic field has no affect on the electron.

+ Now let us consider the case where the electron is moving perpendicular to the magnetic field. The electron will move in a circular path.

This happens because the electron is not moving toward or away from the source magnet, so the North and South poles are not compressed or decompressed unequally on that axis. The electron acts like a stationary charge described earlier, and is attracted and repelled equally both directions which cancels out any movement toward or away from the source magnet. However, since the electron does have velocity perpendicular to the magnetic field, there is a compression and decompression of the electron's magnetic field on the electron's magnetic axis. This means one half of both the North and South poles are compressed, and the other half of both North and South poles are decompressed. There exists an inequality that causes the magnetic strength of one side of the electron to be stronger than the other side, but both North and South poles are equally strong.

This inequality in the electron's magnetic field causes the electron to be attracted towards the strongest region of the source's magnetic field. However, the electron's velocity causes the electron to pass through and or around the region, and enter into an orbit with centripetal force.

+ Now let us consider the case where the electron enters the magnetic field at an angel (theta). The electron will travel in a helical orbit.

This can simply be explained by combining the parallel and perpendicular explanations above. Not only is the electron moving parallel to the magnet, it is also moving perpendicular, causing the electron's magnetic field to be compressed and decompressed both parallel and perpendicular to the magnetic field.

My crude text based graphics above are a bit inaccurate, so here is some crude whiteboard graphics.



This can also explain the Stern–Gerlach experiment. If the electron is moving too fast, and the magnetic field is not very strong, the electron will not get stuck into orbit, it will just deflect.

originally posted by: Bedlam
Over here in MY paradigm, you can do neat things that predict outcomes and they actually happen, at least most of the time.

I was thinking of saying it seems like the people who follow anti-mainstream paradigms never seem to build things, but that's not entirely true. Sometimes they do build things. If people actually believed the mainstream paradigms were true, machines like these might never have been built:

www.rarenergia.com.br...

Finally, we would like to affirm that there is no doubt about the existence of energy in the Earth’s gravity and we can capture and make use of this energy for any activities we choose, and that does not oppose laws of thermodynamic or any other scientific principle that we know.

It's true that water falling over the edge of a dam has energy that can be extracted into hydroelectric power, we do it all the time. Unfortunately the folks citing these principles don't really understand why they can't extract power from this machine the same way.

So instead of saying the "alternate paradigm people" never seem to build things, I need to amend that to say they never seem to build things that actually work any differently than mainstream physics predicts in any kind of reliable and repeatable experiments. I noticed they never posted a video of it actually working (not surprising since it will never do what they expected it to do).

originally posted by: More1ThanAny1
+ Now let us consider the case where the electron is moving perpendicular to the magnetic field. The electron will move in a circular path.

The path is curved but not necessarily circular, since every charged particle when accelerated irradiates energy in the form of electromagnetic waves, but if the electron velocity is low enough the radiated energy may be low enough so a circle will be a good approximation. If the velocity is higher or the magnetic field weaker there might be no circle if the electron is merely deflected slightly as it passes through the magnetic field.

This inequality in the electron's magnetic field causes the electron to be attracted towards the strongest region of the source's magnetic field.

What if you set up the magnetic field so it's relatively uniform? The electron still curves and there is no "strongest part of the field". Also this explanation completely ignores the direction of the curvature and doesn't explain that at all.

Someone agree with me.

www.sciencealert.com...

pubs.acs.org...

An explanation for the question why warm water freezes faster than cold water is given on a molecular basis.

www.sciencenews.org...

Dieter Cremer of Southern Methodist University in Dallas and colleagues studied the strengths of hydrogen bonds in simulations of clusters of water molecules. “We see that hydrogen bonds change when warming up water,” says Cremer. The strength of hydrogen bonds depends on the arrangements of nearby water molecules. In simulations of cold water, both weak and strong hydrogen bonds were observed, but in higher temperature simulations, a larger percentage of the hydrogen bonds were strong, because “the weaker ones are broken to a large extent,” Cremer says.

Cremer and colleagues realized their new understanding of hydrogen bonds could explain the Mpemba effect. As water is heated, weaker bonds break, and groups of molecules form into fragments that can realign to form the crystalline structure of ice, serving as a starting point for the freezing process. For cold water to rearrange in this way, weak hydrogen bonds first have to be broken.