Well, I think we pretty much know that it comes from atomic alignment of
their electron's orbital angular momentum. So there is "local" motion
of charges all coordinated. IOW, the atomic magnetic moments point in
the same direction and all add up. I don't think many physicists would
disagree with that.

Fred

The title of the post pretty much says it all.

The participants of this list seem to have fairly clear agreement that
the primary *cause* of magnetic fields is the motion of charges.

With a few hold-outs, most folks seem to (finally) understand that an
E field does not *cause* an H field. (Those that disagree: p-l-e-a-s-e
read Jefimenko's "Causality" before jumping in to dispute this
statement.)

OK. So far, so good.

A permanent magnet has associated with it a magnetic field whose
characteristics seem to be indistinguishable from those of a magnetic
field that is caused by the motion of charges.

Where the H--- does the H come from? How do we know?

"Bill Miller" <billmillerkt4ye@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
news:aJVCj.24673$cQ1.6014@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
The title of the post pretty much says it all.

The participants of this list seem to have fairly clear agreement that
the primary *cause* of magnetic fields is the motion of charges.

With a few hold-outs, most folks seem to (finally) understand that an E
field does not *cause* an H field. (Those that disagree: p-l-e-a-s-e read
Jefimenko's "Causality" before jumping in to dispute this statement.)

OK. So far, so good.

A permanent magnet has associated with it a magnetic field whose
characteristics seem to be indistinguishable from those of a magnetic
field that is caused by the motion of charges.

Where the H--- does the H come from? How do we know?

Well, I think we pretty much know that it comes from atomic alignment of
their electron's orbital angular momentum. So there is "local" motion of
charges all coordinated.
IOW, the atomic magnetic moments point in
the same direction and all add up. I don't think many physicists would
disagree with that.

Fred
OK

"FrediFizzx" <fredifizzx@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:642osbF28tj9cU1@mid.individual.net...
"Bill Miller" <billmillerkt4ye@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
news:aJVCj.24673$cQ1.6014@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
The title of the post pretty much says it all.

The participants of this list seem to have fairly clear agreement
that the primary *cause* of magnetic fields is the motion of
charges.

With a few hold-outs, most folks seem to (finally) understand that
an E field does not *cause* an H field. (Those that disagree:
p-l-e-a-s-e read Jefimenko's "Causality" before jumping in to
dispute this statement.)

OK. So far, so good.

A permanent magnet has associated with it a magnetic field whose
characteristics seem to be indistinguishable from those of a
magnetic field that is caused by the motion of charges.

Where the H--- does the H come from? How do we know?

Well, I think we pretty much know that it comes from atomic alignment
of their electron's orbital angular momentum. So there is "local"
motion of charges all coordinated.
IOW, the atomic magnetic moments point in
the same direction and all add up. I don't think many physicists
would disagree with that.

Fred

OK

That answers the first part. Kinda

You said that the effect is local.

How local is local? Atoms? Molecules? Magnetic domains? Blobs?

How do we know that the theory that you are postulating is correct?
IOW what measurements have been done to validate the statement you
have made?

The title of the post pretty much says it all.

The participants of this list seem to have fairly clear agreement that the
primary *cause* of magnetic fields is the motion of charges.

With a few hold-outs, most folks seem to (finally) understand that an E
field does not *cause* an H field. (Those that disagree: p-l-e-a-s-e read
Jefimenko's "Causality" before jumping in to dispute this statement.)

OK. So far, so good.

A permanent magnet has associated with it a magnetic field whose
characteristics seem to be indistinguishable from those of a magnetic field
that is caused by the motion of charges.

Where the H--- does the H come from? How do we know?

On Sat, 15 Mar 2008, Bill Miller wrote:

The title of the post pretty much says it all.

The participants of this list seem to have fairly clear agreement
that the
primary *cause* of magnetic fields is the motion of charges.

With a few hold-outs, most folks seem to (finally) understand that an
E
field does not *cause* an H field. (Those that disagree: p-l-e-a-s-e
read
Jefimenko's "Causality" before jumping in to dispute this statement.)

OK. So far, so good.

A permanent magnet has associated with it a magnetic field whose
characteristics seem to be indistinguishable from those of a magnetic
field
that is caused by the motion of charges.

Where the H--- does the H come from? How do we know?

This is a nice little mystery in (classical) physics! Sure, we can say
there is an "Amperian equivalent current" around the magnet, but ???

But I think it comes down to: experimentally/observationally, we find
that there is no magnetic (monopole) charge to be found, but many
materials have a non-zero magnetic dipole moment. Even diving into
quantum mechanics, all we get is the magnetic dipole moment as some
magic physical quantity tacked onto "electron".

"Bill Miller" <billmillerkt4ye@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
news:eUWCj.24983$cQ1.17660@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...

"FrediFizzx" <fredifizzx@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:642osbF28tj9cU1@mid.individual.net...
"Bill Miller" <billmillerkt4ye@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
news:aJVCj.24673$cQ1.6014@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
The title of the post pretty much says it all.

The participants of this list seem to have fairly clear agreement that
the primary *cause* of magnetic fields is the motion of charges.

With a few hold-outs, most folks seem to (finally) understand that an E
field does not *cause* an H field. (Those that disagree: p-l-e-a-s-e
read Jefimenko's "Causality" before jumping in to dispute this
statement.)

OK. So far, so good.

A permanent magnet has associated with it a magnetic field whose
characteristics seem to be indistinguishable from those of a magnetic
field that is caused by the motion of charges.

Where the H--- does the H come from? How do we know?

Well, I think we pretty much know that it comes from atomic alignment of
their electron's orbital angular momentum. So there is "local" motion
of charges all coordinated.
IOW, the atomic magnetic moments point in
the same direction and all add up. I don't think many physicists would
disagree with that.

Fred

OK

That answers the first part. Kinda

What is the second part that it doesn't answer?

You said that the effect is local.

How local is local? Atoms? Molecules? Magnetic domains? Blobs?

I do believe I said "atomic" above. However, keep in mind that atomic
"motion" of electrons is dealt with by quantum physics.

How do we know that the theory that you are postulating is correct? IOW
what measurements have been done to validate the statement you have made?

It's not my theory

and I would imagine

you could find experimental references in a good solid state physics book.

And I would also imagine

that hard drive companies especially IBM should have some experimental
evidence for you.

Best,

Fred Diether
Co-moderator sci.physics.foundations

On Sat, 15 Mar 2008, Bill Miller wrote:

The title of the post pretty much says it all.

The participants of this list seem to have fairly clear agreement that
the
primary *cause* of magnetic fields is the motion of charges.

With a few hold-outs, most folks seem to (finally) understand that an E
field does not *cause* an H field. (Those that disagree: p-l-e-a-s-e read
Jefimenko's "Causality" before jumping in to dispute this statement.)

OK. So far, so good.

A permanent magnet has associated with it a magnetic field whose
characteristics seem to be indistinguishable from those of a magnetic
field
that is caused by the motion of charges.

Where the H--- does the H come from? How do we know?

This is a nice little mystery in (classical) physics! Sure, we can say
there is an "Amperian equivalent current" around the magnet, but ???

But I think it comes down to: experimentally/observationally, we find that
there is no magnetic (monopole) charge to be found, but many materials
have a non-zero magnetic dipole moment. Even diving into quantum
mechanics, all we get is the magnetic dipole moment as some magic physical
quantity tacked onto "electron".

Well, we see that the universe is stranger than we expected! Sorry to not
be of more help.

--
Timo Nieminen - Home page: http://www.physics.uq.edu.au/people/nieminen/
E-prints: http://eprint.uq.edu.au/view/person/Nieminen,_Timo_A..html
Shrine to Spirits: http://www.users.bigpond.com/timo_nieminen/spirits.html

"FrediFizzx" <fredifizzx@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:6434mmF29ppvrU1@mid.individual.net...
"Bill Miller" <billmillerkt4ye@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
news:eUWCj.24983$cQ1.17660@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...

"FrediFizzx" <fredifizzx@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:642osbF28tj9cU1@mid.individual.net...

Well, I think we pretty much know that it comes from atomic
alignment of their electron's orbital angular momentum. So there
is "local" motion of charges all coordinated.
IOW, the atomic magnetic moments point in
the same direction and all add up. I don't think many physicists
would disagree with that.

Fred

OK

That answers the first part. Kinda

What is the second part that it doesn't answer?

You said that the effect is local.

How local is local? Atoms? Molecules? Magnetic domains? Blobs?

I do believe I said "atomic" above. However, keep in mind that
atomic "motion" of electrons is dealt with by quantum physics.

I'm perfectly happy to have someone use quantum physics to explain
this. Also, my question still stands.

To clarify. I can imagine a magnetic material in which every atom has
somehow gone into "lock step" with every other other one. I would
expect that would be a pretty powerful magnet. I can imagine a
magnetic material that contains just a pair. Pretty weak.

How are these alignments arrayed? What causes them to become arrayed?

Some permanent magnets appear to, indeed, be permanent. It is
hard-to-impossible to degauss them. Others, like soft steel, are
self-degaussing and their field (there's THAT word again) "decays"
with time. Presumably if we know what mechanisms cause the permanence,
we can understand and why they decay and vice-versa. Do we know why
they decay (or don't)?

How do we know that the theory that you are postulating is correct?
IOW what measurements have been done to validate the statement you
have made?

It's not my theory

I did not say it was your theory. I carefully tried to avoid that
situation by saying "the theory that you are postulating."

and I would imagine

*imagine?!*

I'm sorry, Fred, but this is not an answer that is even close to
acceptable! Over the last year or two, I have made some kinda
outrageous claims about EM theory on this list. In every instance, I
believe I have backed up those claims with references to documentation
that is clear and readily available. (In fact, I hope you are reading
one of those references now!)

you could find experimental references in a good solid state physics
book.

Which ones? Author's names? Page references?

And I would also imagine

THAT word again!

that hard drive companies especially IBM should have some
experimental evidence for you.

If they do, how likely is it that I could write them and they would
send it?

What about some_available_ references that show in a clear and
unambiguous way that the theory you postualted is valid?

The title of the post pretty much says it all.

c The participants of this list seem to have fairly clear agreement that the
primary *cause* of magnetic fields is the motion of charges.

With a few hold-outs, most folks seem to (finally) understand that an E
field does not *cause* an H field. (Those that disagree: p-l-e-a-s-e read
Jefimenko's "Causality" before jumping in to dispute this statement.)

OK. So far, so good.

A permanent magnet has associated with it a magnetic field whose
characteristics seem to be indistinguishable from those of a magnetic
field
that is caused by the motion of charges.

Where the H--- does the H come from? How do we know?

Bill

To clarify. I can imagine a magnetic material in which every atom has
somehow gone into "lock step" with every other other one. I would expect
that would be a pretty powerful magnet. I can imagine a magnetic material
that contains just a pair. Pretty weak.

How are these alignments arrayed? What causes them to become arrayed?
well, the domains are arrayed by exposure to external magentic fields,

Some permanent magnets appear to, indeed, be permanent. It is
hard-to-impossible to degauss them. Others, like soft steel, are
self-degaussing and their field (there's THAT word again) "decays" with
time. Presumably if we know what mechanisms cause the permanence, we can
understand and why they decay and vice-versa. Do we know why they decay (or
don't)?

Otherwise, its about as valid as phlogiston!