G-THEORY thesis CH 10b

ASSERTATION:

 

THE ANALYSIS OF AN ELECTRIC CURRENT CAUSING MAGNETIC PHENOMENA IN A CONDUCTOR:

 

An atomic analysis of the case of an applied voltage and the resultant 'electron flow' in a conductor causing the creation of an external magnetic field:

When a conductor of resistance 'r' has an emf applied; the electrons are deemed in electron flow theory, to 'flow' away from the negative terminal of the emf source. This may be agreed to in principle by G-theory because electrons have a lopsided bipolar net negative charge of -1 and are attracted to the positive terminal according to Coulomb and by the basic formula E=IR. Again this is consistent in analysis with classical 'electron flow dynamics' physics.

What is not often understood in either electron flow or conventional positive flow theory (which will both be seen to be required for the actual theory supported herein) is that the emf causes a near-field electric charge evenly applied to each atom in the conductor according to the formula (atomic charge) Va= E/n where ' E' is emf and 'n' is the (theoretically) effective number of series atoms in the conductor.

Turning now to the atoms in the conductor: This application of emf causes a change at 'c' to every individual atom's normally iso-concentric (or other standardized) electric field charge. That causes it to assume a more elongated, lopsided field charge shape. It is elongated for this explanation, in a manner affecting the valence and Fermi-conductance bands and directionally oriented in the 'length' direction of the conductor, but now noticeably charge depleted at right angles. Note: This theory still supports the standard theories affecting the conductance or not of a material which is simply stated to be by Fermi band gaps so it is not deemed necessary to separately analyze semi-conductor phenomenology.

The resulting nuclear shape and field distortion forces a subsequent change in the shape of the electron orbital nodes around the nucleus and significantly weakens the charge field strength of the nuclei equally and evenly at right angles across the conductor. This in turn allows electrons in the conductance band to be able to wander more readily between atoms in the direction of length and to be more enabled to leave the outer shell (in the manner to be described), and travel to the next atom in what I will call the newly formed 'carrier gaps'. These are gaps which now exist as an exhibited widening of the 'carrier' (or Fermi conduction band) gaps of atoms, which once again are caused by the (now weakened and emf charge depleted and narrowed) lengthwise oriented nodal zones between atoms and this is proposed to occur equally along the entire length of a uniform conductor.

This non spherical nodal elongation causes the inner orbital electrons in particular to 'crowd' or become displaced towards (still in their orbitals) on one side of the nucleus. By the laws of classical physics they are required to do this in order to keep their charge separation constant (and consistent with Coulombs law of unlike charge repulsion) while at the same time keeping their magnetic dipole aligned as efficiently as possible with the (now changed) nuclear magnetic field orientations determined by the (now distorted) nuclear magnetic dipole positions in Euclidean space.

This lopsided elongation of the charge field around the nucleus enables the 'bunch' of electrons (and conditionally; distended orbitals) to crowd one side of the nucleus. Coincident with this by way of causation the source emf causes a quark lattice eigenspace reorientation evenly within all the nuclei along the length of the conductor. This enforces the nucleon magnetic dipoles to make a change to their orientation from the nominal 45o (theorized and statistically randomized) magnetic balance state to a steeper angle with a theoretically maximum 'reverse Paschen-Back' orientation at or about 90os to the angle of the quark lattice form factor charge field orientation. This is all proportionally determined by the strength of the emf which is also declared to cause atomic elongation in proportional degrees. Note: Such statistical behavior is subject to PEP which necessarily prevents all the nuclei from being involved all the time. This is because of the law that prevents any adjacent fermion from being in the same state*. At extremes of temperature such PEP laws may cause strange affects or even become abrogated.

*Most quantum mechanics laws are derived from the observations of the cosmean-universal interaction.

 

This reorientation of all the nuclear dipoles in concert with moving electrons is what immediately gives the conductor the behavior of a magnet and it exhibits a N/S orientation at right angles to the conductor. This is the same from the center of the conductor all around it towards the outside (axially). If the emf is reversed then the Q-L eigenstate would obviously become reversed and subsequently the magnetic orientation would be reversed albeit with real time delay. Note: The reasons for the proposed nucleon quark lattice and magnetic dipole angular relationships should become clear later on.

Now for an initial analysis that would be deemed to be the case only in theoretical consideration of a zero current flow at the instant of emf application: Bound electrons which became instantly positioned in the newly described and averaged nodal orientations around the nuclei would counterbalance this magnetic dipole shift, and while contributing to the magnetic field being exhibited by the conductor they would be aligned relative to the atoms themselves in such a way as to exhibit a zero (or very small) net magnetic change per atom. In such a theoretically static case; they (nucleon and electron dipoles together) would only exhibit a net neutral change in the combined atomic dipole orientation without causing more than near-field effects because of this mutual reactionary electronic and nuclear field stabilizing relationship. I.e. The whole atom is now elongated and 'field distorted' but still with an almost normal exhibition of field VALUE equilibrium as in the unaffected state.

 However in consideration of the actual phenomenology we are able to note a major difference; Coulombic self repulsion in cooperation with open carrier gaps, respectively forces and allows the electrons to hop from the high negative differentiated region of one atom to the 'now attractive' positive (electron depopulated) region of the next. Once again this is all occurring because of the applied potential difference between atoms but still subject to PEP. However because of ultra high frequency nucleon vibrations we expect to see electrons hopping in individualized grouped pulses (clusters) through the carrier region between atoms as well. Those electrons in motion through the carrier regions now also produce the affect of allowing the overall far-field magnetic field to be produced (or strengthened to a very substantial degree) by the conductor. This would be because of electron-nuclear magnetic dipole moment summation which is thought to occur in the following manner.

As an electron passes between the now (in average summation) transversely polarized atomic magnetic dipoles, the strength of its own dipole adds to the atomic dipole in proportion to the number of (sympathetic at 'c') pulsed hopping of electrons traveling between atoms through the 'carrier gaps' at any given point in time. This is because the emf causes a greater force which aligns free carrier gap electron electrostatic dipole moments to the lengthwise electrical potential difference, as per Coulombs law. This voltage is easily able to overcome any propensity or those electrons to align their magnetic dipoles with any other magnetic field line than those lines that are at right angles to the general direction of the electron's motion through the carrier gap in the Fermi band.

What we now have is a hyper high frequency pulsing magnetic field existing in the gaps. A magnetic field which has field strength in proportion to both emf and electron flow initially and then perhaps exiting solely as a function of increasing electron flow until saturation (This might help explain the hysteresis effect).

The proportionality of the field to atomic dipole eigenstate shifts will not be determined here (as that's another issue), but neither can its phenomenological existence go unrealized. This is because both atomic dipole affect and electron flow are both a proportional function of emf and nuclear dipole moment relationships until the nuclear dipoles become firmly at right angles, (Perhaps when that occurs it could be likened to a reverse Paschen-Back effect)* and both are expected to be similarly proportional. Further research on this is probably required but I would expect it to be extremely difficult and perhaps unlikely to be able to be undertaken because of the temperatures involved.

*This would only be expected to occur at superconducting temperatures, where the quantum number possibilities are vastly increased.

In such a situation the inner orbitals would be hugging the nucleus. The conductance band would have likely combined in a unity web with every other atomic outer band. The valence bonds would be MIA. The Fermi level would be invalid. The carrier gap would be enormous and the inner parts of the conductor would probably be acting like a dielectric insulator. However and only in such a case almost all electrons in the outer orbitals would now be fully engaged at 'c'. This would be because of the subduction of the Fermi layer and the electrons would now actually be 'free' and not subject to electromagnetic elastic 'energy' wasting affects or perhaps even the Pauli exclusion principle, all of which cause normal conductors to show 'resistance' and exhibit 'energy' losses as heat generation and emissions. Note: Because the eos is dysfunctional at such temperatures, and perhaps even the PEP could possibly be overcome at hyper high temperatures. At low temperatures w have super conductance and at high temperatures we have electron stripping ionization or worse.

 

It would appear by subjective analysis that upon an electron overload the temperature would not be expected to increase with any significance because of normal constraints on such flow. This would probably be because the electrons now exhibit some assumptive dualistic behavior of partially acting as though they are traveling in a beam, so in that case they will bend and exit the conductor towards any near field proximous AMO that exists in a convenient charge state.

At close to ground state cryogenic temperatures; most of the current would flow along the surface atoms of the super-conductor because of the wandering constraints imposed by the internal dielectric behavior of the conductor and in such a case this would be actually as electrons moving (mostly, but not entirely restricted to any conceivable direction, being along the surface of the conductor) between the terminals of the emf source at 'c'. This would likely be because without the eos the magnos becomes ineffective. Note: At and around STP electrons don't actually flow at 'c'. It is only the combined resultant of all electron motions within a conductor which propagates at 'c'. Electrons are able to exhibit all kinds of phenomenological mechanics within and around the same conductor with various portions at room temperature, and say the outer layer at a cryogenic temperature. This phenomenology would vary in proportion to the temperature and layering.

By G-theory, this superconductor behavior would actually be predicted to result in extremely low electrical resistance and an extreme magnetic field when current is flowing because the g-factor is also affected by temperature and without any restrictive laws of the magnos to depend on, all the dipoles readily snap to almost exactly ninety degrees to the length of the conductor*. When no current is flowing the conductor would be expected to be very resistant to magnetic field lines of force cutting it because of the diamagnetic rejection force (previously described) by reason of the same dimensional restraints.

*Of course such super-conductance is already a known fact.

 

You may wonder how any conductor could actually be a superconductor if only the outer surface (or skin) is doing most of the conducting. This is because in a normal conductor the electrons are not actually traveling at light speeds. Only their affect is. Note: Please refer to classical physics and the previous section.

One possible explanation by G-theory could be that in this state the conductance band has been dislocated from the nucleon Hilbert set and the vibration of the atoms is very slow. Another supposition is with the possibly that the vibrating nuclear electric charge would be severely weakened by the low 'energy' state and the electrons would no longer be affected by having to 'hop' and they would also cease wandering and simply 'go with the flow' along the 'skin' of the super-conductor. As well as that the central atoms could become temporarily very negatively ionized by the inner orbital hugging affect of electrons. That is the likely explanation.

Now back to STP considerations: The pulsation at frequency 'f' of the magnetic field lines now expanding outwards in concentric lines of force (contrary to traditional thought -which can't seem to forsee the affects of a vast quantity of lines of force on each other- it is more like tubes of magnetic force which are parallel to the conductor) are a function of nuclear-electron mutual relationship vibrations. This is the only time we see a magnetic field that apparently has no poles. It does actually: The poles of the electromagnetic conductor are the ends of the conductor! Note: You can't take notice of a compass. It's only dealing with a part of the overall field.

The overall field would be expected to be observable as vibrating at super high (light) frequency levels. This would be observable except for the averaging affect of trillions of atoms in association with the direct involvement of somewhat fewer electrons. This causes the observance of a steady state magnetic field consistent with a constant emf being applied. Note: The frequency of the internal nuclear vibrations is logically considered to be temperature dependant but most likely at light frequencies around STP.


ASSERTATION:

 

THE CONVERSE ANALYSIS OF A MAGNETIC FIELD

CAUSING ELECTRICAL PHENOMENA IN A CONDUCTOR

 

Following the previous controversial explanation we will now address what happens in the reverse case of magnetic lines of force cutting through a conductor at right angles, and we will see why the electrical effect is in inverse proportion (not necessarily linear) to the reduction of this angle.

Magnetic Lines of force may actually exist* and they could keep distance between each other by self repulsion due to the standard explanation in classical physics. The density of the lines is not a necessary factor in this example. Note: Enigmatic electron beam behavior is covered in another section.

*This can be noticed by the flattening of an electron beam in a magnetic field.

 

When a magnetic line of force cuts though a conductor, it applies a force on both nuclear and electron dipoles at the same time as it approaches a given atom, and notably with a squared (or greater power law) effect proportional to closing distance.

 We already understand by now that electrons have a magnetic dipole as well as a proprietary e-ve (electric dipole resultant) electric charge positioned with a degree of elastic rigidity at right angles to its magnetic dipole. In that case the electron is constrained by the laws of physics to always attempt to keep its overwhelming negative charge pole oriented towards the attractive positive charge center emanating radially from the nucleus. However it must be understood that this is occurring simultaneously with its mostly successful attempts to keep its magnetic dipole oriented with the nuclear magnetic field within the constraints of the four forces which are continuously affecting them (electrons). Note: The theorized structure of an electron along with its proposed particle configuration will be addressed later and then you will understand its elastic resistance to tilting in the charge field. You may need to study that first. For now; if you can visualize a rigid cross with a magnetic dipole along one arm and an electrical 'dipole' crossing it at right angles as the other. Yes an electric dipole--- imbalanced but with a net unity e-ve electrostatic charge.

So now consider the following: Along comes a magnetic line of force which passes through the atom and by consequence the elastic magnetic dipole of the atomic nucleus moves towards alignment with it, and consequently at the same time the close nuclear proximity electrons also come into magnetic field line alignment*. The only way they can do so and still keep their charge alignment tied radially to the near-field nuclear charge is to move to one side of the atom along a (notionally stable on average) nuclear magnetic (g factor) field line**.

Again; this is in their legally enforced attempt to facilitate the retention of their magnetic dipoles more or less oriented with the direction of the nuclear magnetic lines of force while simultaneously attempting to align their charge dipole towards the positive charge center of the whole atom (notionally the nucleus).

*Other electrons become affected by the field line also but if we can just ignore them for the sake of simplicity.

**The fact that the nuclear g-factor is much less than that of on individual electron helps permit the necessary elasticity observed in electron orbitals which are generally hybridized in some manner.

 

Other than the new spatial position (herein specified by the laws of physics by Coulomb, Faraday et al); in any other position around the atom the electrons cannot retain both magnetic dipole and charge alignment at the same time. So in that case they are forced to move by simultaneous magnetic and charge attraction and repulsion, and group close together on one side of the nucleus during this event, whereby in so doing they are still able to maintain their charge pole as close to right angles to the nuclear magnetic lines of force as their elasticity will permit. (Ignoring diamagnetism for the moment!)

This electron-ic imbalance of the nucleus consequently evidences a charge field displacement in the whole atom because by reason of the grouping of negatively charged electrons to one side the whole atom, it is now more negatively charged on one side than the other, and this imbalance causes the objective formation of the atom into a tiny electric charge cell*. Note: This cell is also slightly lopsided in the conductor transverse direction because of interactive charge resolution.

Because the length of the conductor is at right angles to the 90 degree cutting angle of the said magnetic force line; that charge becomes oriented so that if the magnetic field line is north at the top and the line of force is moving away from you into the conductor, the electrons will gravitate towards the left. Conventional flow will then be towards the right. Fortunately for G-theory (and my personal sanity) the latter just so happens to follow Fleming's right hand rule for generators. Whew. The prediction worked out!

*This is caused by the way the nuclear charge and magnetic dipoles become oriented and it is not a function of the electron which is able to conditionally move to any side of the nucleus. This can only occur if the quarks in the proton are in a tri-planar arrangement such that the nucleonic magnetic dipole is also planar and is at right angles to the line of dissection of the two 2/3 positively charged up-quarks in the case of protons. For neutrons the opposite would be the case. This wouldn't be expected to affect the SBF bond until severe diamagnetism occurred close to a magnetar or black hole say.

 

This might be thought to cause the individual protons of each atom to affect the overall nuclear charge which would then become notionally lopsided*; which in turn would seem to apply a counterforce to the electrons which would in other circumstances cause them to group near the now more positive side of the nucleus, and by this a charge balance would be the observed case. However it must be realized that protons don't move in the nucleus because they are bound to neutrons and the electron shell statistics and if they all did; then neutron behavior (though technically different) would result in a similar but reverse charge outcome. However it is the case (and I'm likely here to be unnecessarily explaining my own 'straw man') that NOT ALL nuclei will be reckoned to have the same charge imbalance at any given time because of PEP. This will however cause variations in magnetic properties for different materials. Note 1: Even though neutrons exhibit a zero charge and electrons don't form orbitals around them, they still have a quark charge mechanism which is able to be differentially affected by external charges because they (neutrons) have physical dimensions.

Note 2: By way of obtaining more support for these contentions, refer to the article on neutron orientation by Letmann, Tuoriniemi, Nummila, Vuorinen and Metz . 1007 Czechoslovac Journal of Physics.

Note 3: This quark/dipole arrangement is only found in AMOs with protons presenting in the magnos. E.g. it is those very AMOs which have already been determined to be conductors.

*The Fermi conduction band is unlikely to be affected because of reasons which have already been described herein .

 

We should understand that because insulators have such wide band gaps across the Fermi layer it then takes a far greater force to encourage electrons to move out into the conductance band but they only act like a dielectric at a typically insufficient voltage which is unable to cause -what is essentially- a breakdown.  If however an appreciably lower induced voltage value is used for this consideration, the nucleon electron behavior around the inner orbitals will still occur but in that case the dielectric will become electrostatically charged but no current would flow, so in such a situation the charge would be undetectable by any instrument. However the sudden and violent results of diamagnetism are a possibility under the affect of an extreme magnetic field and electrical breakdown could occur even before that.

Hopefully you are beginning to get an idea of how multi-dimensional forces may come into play inside nucleons by the vibrational multiplex-shape-shifting reorientation of quark lattices and magnetic dipoles in proactive collusion with form and g-factor respectively! I don't know about you but the question beginning to arise in my mind is. Do dimensions contain different and invisible 'force frameworks' which align the fundamental particles? If invisible; (virtual lines and waves are already declared to exist) then this is the next logical step and this idea will be explored further.

 

Now we will rejoin the narrative.   Note first: ---no CPT symmetry here! Inter-nucleon magnetic dipole disparity is a function of both the magnetic dipole vector and the force line strength. G-theory therefore assumes vibration or pulsation (in lieu of the currently declared 'spin moment') in constrained systems with low DOF. It can only be the concept of vibration which allows for vertical and horizontal spatial disparity between planar electrostatic and magnetic dipolic moments. Think about it. An electron doesn't spin after all.

Expanding the metric--- If we can envisage the affect of more lines of force cutting the conductor, then we should understand that there will be proportionally more charge differential or (potential) existing along the wire. This is by simple series voltage addition which we can express with the equation* emf=vd.n (where vd is atomic charge differential and n is the number of atoms) and if you close the circuit while lines of force are still cutting the conductor, electron flow will occur.

Before continuing it becomes necessary to digress to another relating subject NOTE: A CAVEAT APPLIES TO THE FOLLOWING DIGRESSION BECAUSE I HAVEN'T BEEN ABLE TO UNDERTAKE THE EXPERIMENTS THAT ARE SUGGESTED. I.e. you know; lack of funding! No vacuum chamber etc.

*This is a simplistic formula which only takes into account series charge summation. If parallel charges were taken into consideration the formula would be more complex but the end result would be similar because the parallel charges would cancel out by vector math.