Let us first ponder over force acting at a distance. Whenever there
exists such a force between two bodies, the force vector always lies
between them. The bodies, depending on their nature, either attract or
repel in the direction of the line joining them. Force between two
current elements is a bit complex, because sources are vectors and so,
justifiably, we can say that, in this case, the force depends not only
on magnitude but also on the orientation of the sources as well. Hence
for the magnetic force, we have following Biot-Savart law (neglect
constants),

F=(Ia) dot (Ib)/r^2 ………………………1.

Where Ia and Ib are two parallel current elements in the y
direction, having a distance vector r in the x direction.
This dot product should have been the final word. It is not!
Correct equation is given by following Ampere's law. (Also known as
Ampere's Biot-Savart law),

F= (Ia cross r) cross Ib/r^3 ………………..2.

(Ia cross r)/r^3 gives magnetic field intensity B. It is in the
z direction. B is not a force vector, because actual force is in the x
direction. (For this reason B is not called force field, it is called
magnetic induction, whatever that may mean).
If we rotate Ib in the y-z plane, then the direction of the
force remains constant in x, always between the elements, but the
magnitude changes from maximum to zero, as Ib changes direction from y
to z respectively.
If we rotate Ib in the x-y plane, then the magnitude of the
force remains constant at maximum but the direction rotates along with
it. Direction of the force is x, when Ib is in the y direction and it
is y when Ib is in the x direction.

And here lies the problem!

If we consider magnetic field just a mathematical entity, same as
electric field, then we must always be able to look at the actual
sources of the force to explain it, Taking into consideration that the
currents are vectors, magnetic force may change in magnitude but never
in the direction. Therefore under all conditions, eq.1 alone should
have been found true. But it is true only as a special case, that when
Ib rotates in the y-z plane.
When the direction of Ib is x, the force exerted on Ib is
parallel to Ia. The force is no more 'between' the current elements
and so no more 'due' to the current elements.
Clearly in the above case, Ib is not responding directly to Ia;
it is responding to the B field of Ia and this is possible only if B
field is real.
Obviously Ib, too, has a real field and the actual mechanical
fore between the current elements is due to the interaction of these
real fields.
The picture of E vector lines is imaginary, which helps
visualization. Picture of circular B lines is not only not imaginary,
but it represents real physical entity. A third entity, after two
others, mass and charge.

Real: such as mass and charge
Intangible: such as force and energy
Fictitious: such as elctric field
-------------------------------------

This is one article out of a serial. New visitors should go through
all the previous. Dates are posting dates. Articles are posted to 1.
Alt.sci.physics.new-theories 2.Sci.physics 3.sci.physics.electromag
4. sci.physics.relativity


1. Limitation of Divergence theorem 8-3-04 1,2,3,4
2. Electron positron annihilation 12-3-04 1,2,3,4
3. Changing magnetic field does
not produce electric field 17-3-04 1,2,3,4
4. Barnett's experiment 22-3-04 1,2,3,4
5. Relativity and electrodynamics 25-3-04 1,2,3,4
6. Relativity of two moving charges 2-4-04 1,2,3,4
7. Relativity of steady charge and current 11-4-04 1,2,3,4
8 Relativity of two currents 14-4-04 1,2,3,4
9. Nature of electric field 16-4-04 1,2,3,4
10. Magnetic field is real 22-4-04 2,3,4
11. once more relativity 5-5-04 1,2,3,4
12. A new paradox in SR 10-5-04 1,2,3,4

V.K.Tamhane:
[...]
(Ia cross r)/r^3 gives magnetic field intensity B. It is in the
z direction. B is not a force vector, because actual force is in the x
direction. (For this reason B is not called force field, it is called
magnetic induction, whatever that may mean).

Magnetic fields don't change the energy of charged particles.


And here lies the problem!

More like, here lies your problem...



If we consider magnetic field just a mathematical entity, same as
electric field, then we must always be able to look at the actual
sources of the force to explain it,

And?

Taking into consideration that the currents are vectors,

Currents are _NOT_ vectors. Currents are _scalars_. Current _densities_
are vectors and a current is the surface integral of J,

I = \integral J . dS Note the scalar product.


magnetic force may change in magnitude but never
in the direction. Therefore under all conditions, eq.1 alone should
have been found true. But it is true only as a special case, that when
Ib rotates in the y-z plane.
When the direction of Ib is x, the force exerted on Ib is
parallel to Ia. The force is no more 'between' the current elements
and so no more 'due' to the current elements.

It's completely inappropriate to consider the current elements outside
of the integral sign. Ampere's law does not permit you to do that.

Clearly in the above case, Ib is not responding directly to Ia;
it is responding to the B field of Ia and this is possible only if B
field is real.
Obviously Ib, too, has a real field and the actual mechanical
fore between the current elements is due to the interaction of these
real fields.

What is your deal with magnetic fields being ``real'' or not ``real''?
They are obviously real to the extent that I can measure something I
call a magnetic field. The fact that div B = 0 in maxwell's equations
tells you that there exists no source (or sink) for the magnetic field.

Feel free to change that. Maxwells equations may be rewritten
with complete symmetry between electric and magnetic fields,
complete with magnetic charges. Then there exists a relation
between the various quantities in those equations. For example:

q_e' = q_e cos(A) + q_m sin(A)

q_m' = q_m cos(A) - q_e sin(A)


etc., which allows you to transform those equations in anyway you
like by choosing the angle A. If the ration q_e/q_m is the same in
all matter, then you may _choose_ to eliminate either q_e or q_m.
For example, to eliminate magnetic charge,

q_m' = 0 = q_m cos(A) - q_e sin(A) == q_m = q_e tan(A)

q_e' = q_e cos(A) + q_e tan(A) sin(A) = q_e/cos^2(A)

Which just rescales the electric charge. In other words, what
we define as a magnetic field is convention, not necessity.

This is one article out of a serial. New visitors should go through

You can eliminate this article and the ``new paradox in SR''
from your list. When I see the rest, I'll eliminate those as well.

all the previous. Dates are posting dates. Articles are posted to 1.
Alt.sci.physics.new-theories 2.Sci.physics 3.sci.physics.electromag
4. sci.physics.relativity


1. Limitation of Divergence theorem 8-3-04 1,2,3,4
2. Electron positron annihilation 12-3-04 1,2,3,4
3. Changing magnetic field does
not produce electric field 17-3-04 1,2,3,4
4. Barnett's experiment 22-3-04 1,2,3,4
5. Relativity and electrodynamics 25-3-04 1,2,3,4
6. Relativity of two moving charges 2-4-04 1,2,3,4
7. Relativity of steady charge and current 11-4-04 1,2,3,4
8 Relativity of two currents 14-4-04 1,2,3,4
9. Nature of electric field 16-4-04 1,2,3,4
10. Magnetic field is real 22-4-04 2,3,4
11. once more relativity 5-5-04 1,2,3,4
12. A new paradox in SR 10-5-04 1,2,3,4

"V.K.Tamhane" wrote:
[snip]

12. A new paradox in SR 10-5-04 1,2,3,4

Idiot.

--
Uncle Al
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/qz.pdf
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/eotvos.htm
(Do something naughty to physics)

"Bilge" wrote in message
...
V.K.Tamhane:
[...]
(Ia cross r)/r^3 gives magnetic field intensity B. It is in the
z direction. B is not a force vector, because actual force is in the x
direction. (For this reason B is not called force field, it is called
magnetic induction, whatever that may mean).

Magnetic fields don't change the energy of charged particles.

i.e Magnetic fields will do no work on a charged particle.
Since Tamhane did not say that they would, I don't know
why you posted this.


And here lies the problem!

More like, here lies your problem...



If we consider magnetic field just a mathematical entity, same as
electric field, then we must always be able to look at the actual
sources of the force to explain it,

And?

Taking into consideration that the currents are vectors,

Currents are _NOT_ vectors. Currents are _scalars_. Current _densities_
are vectors and a current is the surface integral of J,

I = \integral J . dS Note the scalar product.

Whoooo.....this is one of those basic physics errors that worry me.
Current is by definition a vector since it has a direction. (Is the
current going East...west...north..south....up....down...etc)

Your equation determines the _magnitude_ of current that
passes throught the surface. And yes, the _magnitude_
of current is a scalar.

magnetic force may change in magnitude but never
in the direction. Therefore under all conditions, eq.1 alone should
have been found true. But it is true only as a special case, that when
Ib rotates in the y-z plane.
When the direction of Ib is x, the force exerted on Ib is
parallel to Ia. The force is no more 'between' the current elements
and so no more 'due' to the current elements.

It's completely inappropriate to consider the current elements outside
of the integral sign. Ampere's law does not permit you to do that.

Clearly in the above case, Ib is not responding directly to Ia;
it is responding to the B field of Ia and this is possible only if B
field is real.
Obviously Ib, too, has a real field and the actual mechanical
fore between the current elements is due to the interaction of these
real fields.

What is your deal with magnetic fields being ``real'' or not ``real''?

I think he means does the magnetic field exist as a real property of
a space instead of merely mathematical book-keeping relating
to the interaction of separate particles.

They are obviously real to the extent that I can measure something I
call a magnetic field. The fact that div B = 0 in maxwell's equations
tells you that there exists no source (or sink) for the magnetic field.

Again irrelevant.

Feel free to change that. Maxwells equations may be rewritten
with complete symmetry between electric and magnetic fields,

You cannot have complete symmetry without a magnetic monopole.
So I assume you are beginning to babble here.......

[.........]

H.Ellis Ensle

"V.K.Tamhane" wrote in message
m...
Let us first ponder over force acting at a distance. Whenever there
exists such a force between two bodies, the force vector always lies
between them. The bodies, depending on their nature, either attract
or
repel in the direction of the line joining them. Force between two
current elements is a bit complex, because sources are vectors and
so,
justifiably, we can say that, in this case, the force depends not
only
on magnitude but also on the orientation of the sources as well.
Hence
for the magnetic force, we have following Biot-Savart law (neglect
constants),

F=(Ia) dot (Ib)/r^2 .........1.

That is not the Biot Savart law. Current is not a vector.

Where Ia and Ib are two parallel current elements in the y
direction, having a distance vector r in the x direction.
This dot product should have been the final word. It is not!

You are telling me. It is not even the initial word.

Correct equation is given by following Ampere's law. (Also known as
Ampere's Biot-Savart law),

F= (Ia cross r) cross Ib/r^3 ........2.

That is not Ampere's law. Current is not a vector.

The rest was just a garbled recital of your own misconceptions, so I
will snip it.

[snip]

Franz

Uncle Al wrote in message ...
"V.K.Tamhane" wrote:
[snip]

12. A new paradox in SR 10-5-04 1,2,3,4

Idiot.

Oh! You appear like a comet. A comet that cannot start speaking
before first ****ing.

(Bilge) wrote in message ...
V.K.Tamhane:
[...]
(Ia cross r)/r^3 gives magnetic field intensity B. It is in the

It's completely inappropriate to consider the current elements outside
of the integral sign. Ampere's law does not permit you to do that.

What difference does it make to you? What exactly do we
integrate? When we calculate effects of currents,of a long conductor,
a loop, an antenna etc. we always calculate the effect of a short
element.


You can eliminate this article and the ``new paradox in SR''
from your list. When I see the rest, I'll eliminate those as well.

YOU will eliminate no doubt. Afterall, beyond numbers you cannot see
anything else. And for your good health, don't bother to visit my
posts, unless of course you are prepared to see the real ghost. It
will come soon.

Rest of the questions are answered by Harold Ensle correctly. I
thank him.

V.K.Tamhane wrote:

Let us first ponder over force acting at a distance. Whenever there
exists such a force between two bodies, the force vector always lies
between them. The bodies, depending on their nature, either attract or
repel in the direction of the line joining them. Force between two
current elements is a bit complex, because sources are vectors and so,
justifiably, we can say that, in this case, the force depends not only
on magnitude but also on the orientation of the sources as well. Hence
for the magnetic force, we have following Biot-Savart law (neglect
constants),

F=(Ia) dot (Ib)/r^2 ………………………1.

Where Ia and Ib are two parallel current elements in the y
direction, having a distance vector r in the x direction.
This dot product should have been the final word. It is not!
Correct equation is given by following Ampere's law. (Also known as
Ampere's Biot-Savart law),

F= (Ia cross r) cross Ib/r^3 ………………..2.

(Ia cross r)/r^3 gives magnetic field intensity B. It is in the
z direction. B is not a force vector, because actual force is in the x
direction. (For this reason B is not called force field, it is called
magnetic induction, whatever that may mean).
If we rotate Ib in the y-z plane, then the direction of the
force remains constant in x, always between the elements, but the
magnitude changes from maximum to zero, as Ib changes direction from y
to z respectively.
If we rotate Ib in the x-y plane, then the magnitude of the
force remains constant at maximum but the direction rotates along with
it. Direction of the force is x, when Ib is in the y direction and it
is y when Ib is in the x direction.

And here lies the problem!


If we consider magnetic field just a mathematical entity, same as
electric field, then we must always be able to look at the actual
sources of the force to explain it, Taking into consideration that the
currents are vectors, magnetic force may change in magnitude but never
in the direction. Therefore under all conditions, eq.1 alone should
have been found true. But it is true only as a special case, that when
Ib rotates in the y-z plane.
When the direction of Ib is x, the force exerted on Ib is
parallel to Ia. The force is no more 'between' the current elements
and so no more 'due' to the current elements.

Take into consideration the entire circuit to which the current elements
belong. The net force on each is not just the force that each exerts on
the other, but every other current element contributes to the net force
on each.
The independence of the B field from the source is imaginary and is
brought on by your imaginary system of two isolated current elements.
Had you actually such a system, the net force would act along the line
joining the elements. This can be approximated for low velocities of the
charges by decomposing each element into a single electron and proton:
If you could arrange for the protons to be stationary wrt each other
and then have two electrons pass very near each, then for a single
instant your system will be realized. OTOH you are now dealing with
point charge interactions, which can be taken separately and then
superposed; the net force on the pseudo-curent-elements being just the
vector sum of the forces between the point charges in the system. Were
the force to act in any direction other than along the line joining the
elements, then conservation of angular momentum will have been violated.

The law of Biot Savart can be expressed in the trigonometric form

F = chi sin^2_angle /r^2 ("chi" being a catchall of all of the
constants applying to the two elements)

This gives a force in a direction perpendicular to the direction of the
current. However, this isn't the actual force on the elements, it's
simply a component of the actual force acting in the direction defined
by the sine of the angle, the angle being that formed by the
perpendicular to the flow of charge in the element and the line joining
the elements.

We can rewrite the equation equivalently as:

F = (chi sin_angle/r^2)sin_angle

The bracketed expression is the force acting along the line joining the
elements, and the sin_angle following gives the component of that force
perpendicular to the current flow.

OTOH, it's wrong, so moot anyway.

The correct force is given by:

F = (3 chi sin^2_angle/r^2)sin_angle

Both equations integrate over parallel conductors to give exactly the
same force per unit length.
They disagree slightly for the force on a point charge moving wrt a
circular loop of current, but agree on the force on a long wire passing
near the same loop. IOW the equations simply scale the force
differently over the length of the conductors.

This equation is testable, but hasn't been tested. All experiments
conducted in order to validate Biot-Savart also validate my alternative
equation, within experimental error. The precise measurement of the
force between short current elements whose separation is large compared
to their lengths will differentiate empirically between the two
equations. As the ratio L_ds/r approaches zero, the force predicted
exceeds the Biot_Savart prediction by a factor of 3, since in this
instance sin_angle = 1, and the equations reduce respectively to

F = chi/r^2 (B-S)
F = 3chi/r^2 (Alt.)

PS, of course this has little bearing on your theme of the existence of
the magnetic field, although it implies that the magnetic field is not
fundamental, i.e. it is due to the superposition of the interactions of
the charges in "neutral" current elements. The interactions between the
point charges cannot be defined as magnetic in the sense of a B field,
the interaction is better described as magnetomotive, a constituent of
B, if you will

Regards,
Richard Perry
http://www.cswnet.com/~rper/Electromagnetism.html


Clearly in the above case, Ib is not responding directly to Ia;
it is responding to the B field of Ia and this is possible only if B
field is real.
Obviously Ib, too, has a real field and the actual mechanical
fore between the current elements is due to the interaction of these
real fields.
The picture of E vector lines is imaginary, which helps
visualization. Picture of circular B lines is not only not imaginary,
but it represents real physical entity. A third entity, after two
others, mass and charge.

Real: such as mass and charge
Intangible: such as force and energy
Fictitious: such as elctric field
-------------------------------------

This is one article out of a serial. New visitors should go through
all the previous. Dates are posting dates. Articles are posted to 1.
Alt.sci.physics.new-theories 2.Sci.physics 3.sci.physics.electromag
4. sci.physics.relativity


1. Limitation of Divergence theorem 8-3-04 1,2,3,4
2. Electron positron annihilation 12-3-04 1,2,3,4
3. Changing magnetic field does
not produce electric field 17-3-04 1,2,3,4
4. Barnett's experiment 22-3-04 1,2,3,4
5. Relativity and electrodynamics 25-3-04 1,2,3,4
6. Relativity of two moving charges 2-4-04 1,2,3,4
7. Relativity of steady charge and current 11-4-04 1,2,3,4
8 Relativity of two currents 14-4-04 1,2,3,4
9. Nature of electric field 16-4-04 1,2,3,4
10. Magnetic field is real 22-4-04 2,3,4
11. once more relativity 5-5-04 1,2,3,4
12. A new paradox in SR 10-5-04 1,2,3,4

Harold Ensle:

"Bilge" wrote in message
e-al.net...
V.K.Tamhane:

Taking into consideration that the currents are vectors,

Currents are _NOT_ vectors. Currents are _scalars_. Current _densities_
are vectors and a current is the surface integral of J,

I = \integral J . dS Note the scalar product.

Whoooo.....this is one of those basic physics errors that worry me.
Current is by definition a vector since it has a direction. (Is the
current going East...west...north..south....up....down...etc)

Wrong. Current is a scalar. Note that ampere's law reads:

curl B = J = \integral (curl B) . dS = \integral J . dS = I

Your equation determines the _magnitude_ of current that passes throught
the surface. And yes, the _magnitude_ of current is a scalar.

Scalars do not have directions. Note that the bio-savart law reads:
I dl x r, not dI x r.

magnetic force may change in magnitude but never
in the direction. Therefore under all conditions, eq.1 alone should
have been found true. But it is true only as a special case, that when
Ib rotates in the y-z plane.
When the direction of Ib is x, the force exerted on Ib is
parallel to Ia. The force is no more 'between' the current elements
and so no more 'due' to the current elements.

It's completely inappropriate to consider the current elements outside
of the integral sign. Ampere's law does not permit you to do that.

Clearly in the above case, Ib is not responding directly to Ia;
it is responding to the B field of Ia and this is possible only if B
field is real.
Obviously Ib, too, has a real field and the actual mechanical
fore between the current elements is due to the interaction of these
real fields.

What is your deal with magnetic fields being ``real'' or not ``real''?

I think he means does the magnetic field exist as a real property of
a space instead of merely mathematical book-keeping relating
to the interaction of separate particles.

What he means is his problem and it does appear to be some pet
problem of his.

They are obviously real to the extent that I can measure something I
call a magnetic field. The fact that div B = 0 in maxwell's equations
tells you that there exists no source (or sink) for the magnetic field.

Again irrelevant.

Harold, if all you are going to is make dumb comments, I'm simply
going to tell you that they're dumb. Of course it's relevant. How
can you have a field which is a field in its own right if there
exists no source of that field? The reason the B-field is considered
to be an artifact of a changing E-field, is because there is
no source for the B-field other than a changing E-field.


Feel free to change that. Maxwells equations may be rewritten
with complete symmetry between electric and magnetic fields,

You cannot have complete symmetry without a magnetic monopole.

It's not worth repeating this until you get it, since I've posted
it before. Go look in jackson instead of posting uninformed bull****.
You'll find the details to what you snipped just before the section
on monopoles.

So I assume you are beginning to babble here.......

If you could have understood what you snipped, you would
have seen your comment above was the result of your own ignorance.

V.K.Tamhane, latest poster child for the kook contingent:

(Bilge) wrote in message
ue-al.net...
V.K.Tamhane:
[...]
(Ia cross r)/r^3 gives magnetic field intensity B. It is in the

It's completely inappropriate to consider the current elements outside
of the integral sign. Ampere's law does not permit you to do that.

What difference does it make to you? What exactly do we
integrate? When we calculate effects of currents,of a long conductor,
a loop, an antenna etc. we always calculate the effect of a short
element.

No, you can't. Ampere's law doesn't permit you to do that.
Try it for the following magnet. Place you amperian loop between
the poles and evaluate \integral B.dl:

+----------+ A What is the field at point A?
| N | |
+----------+ v
+---------------+
| |
+---------------+
+----------+
| S |
+----------+



You can eliminate this article and the ``new paradox in SR''
from your list. When I see the rest, I'll eliminate those as well.

YOU will eliminate no doubt. Afterall, beyond numbers you cannot see
anything else.

I can see that you're a crackpot.

And for your good health, don't bother to visit my posts, unless
of course you are prepared to see the real ghost. It will come soon.

Don't forget to rattle your chains.
[...]
Rest of the questions are answered by Harold Ensle correctly. I
thank him.

Since every one of harold's comments were based on misconceptions
and were wrong, I should thank you for not making me point it out
twice.