# Thread: Calculating Interaction Rates in Magnetization Energy and ZPF

1. Established Member
Join Date
Nov 2010
Posts
299

## Calculating Interaction Rates in Magnetization Energy and ZPF

Calculating Rates in Magnetic Moments to Predict Period Interaction Between a Fermion and the Zero-Point Field

First we must identify the net magnetization$\vec{M}$ as the sum of individual magnetic moments [1],

1. $\vec{M}= \sum^{N}_{i=1} \vec{\mu}_i$

The magnetic moment $\vec{\mu}_i$ is a magnitude of the constant expression of $\frac{e \hbar}{2Mc}$. If these equations where pertaining to a spinor field \psi (or simply an electron) then the electron in a certain magnitude of magnetic moments act like a clock to potentially absorb a photon at an energy of $\frac{e^2 h}{4Mc}$ [2] from the ZPF (zero-point field) which would imply an interaction term. Using the algebra of a limiting vector on the classical vector component $\vec{\mu}_i$ then we would find the upper bound at the squared value of $\vec{\mu}^2$.

2. Established Member
Join Date
Nov 2010
Posts
299
Taking the dot product of Equation 1. we have:

$F= \nabla(\vec{M} \cdot B)= \nabla(\sum^{N}_{i=1} \vec{\mu}_i \cdot B)$

which implies also that

$\nabla(\sum^{N}_{i=1} \vec{\mu}_i \cdot B)= \nabla(MBcos \theta)$

The force here can now be viewed in terms of a Lorentz force where the charge is seen in terms of magnetism:

$\nabla(\sum^{N}_{i=1} \vec{\mu}_i \cdot B)= (\oint \vec{\mu_i}M \cdot \partial \ell)v \times B$

$= q_Mv \times B$

Which would imply a force due to magnetism $F_M$, where $q_M$ is the magnetic charge. Since the sum of magnetic moments calculate the exact absorption rate of photons when electrons have an energy of $\frac{e^2h}{4Mc}$ then the magnetization can be seen as giving rise to the interaction between the electron and the zero point field - remember, the magnetization is the sum of the magnetic moments, and the magnetic moment is a magnitude of one half less than that required for zero-point energy absorption. The rate in which an electron may obtain an upper bound of energy at $hf=15MeV$ and their respective Magnetizations should be investigated as possible co-roles.

Ref.

http://www.pma.caltech.edu/~ph77/labs/nmr.pdf

3. Banned
Join Date
Oct 2007
Posts
5,398
Originally Posted by Green Destiny
Taking the dot product of Equation 1. we have:

$F= \nabla(\vec{M} \cdot B)= \nabla(\sum^{N}_{i=1} \vec{\mu}_i \cdot B)$
Q1: How did you derive the above?
Q2: what sort of force is F?
Q3: Can you define the action of the operator $\nabla$?

The force here can now be viewed in terms of a Lorentz force where the charge is seen in terms of magnetism:

$\nabla(\sum^{N}_{i=1} \vec{\mu}_i \cdot B)= (\oint \vec{\mu_i}M \cdot \partial \ell)v \times B$

$= q_Mv \times B$
Q4: Why would F be a Lorentz force?
Q5: How did you derive the above ?
Q6: Where is $\partial \ell$ coming from? What physical entity does it represent?
Q7: Where did the speed v show up in the formulas since it is not present anywhere else?
Q8: Where did the crossproduct come from?
Q9: What does the symbol $\oint$ and how did it show up in the expression?
Q10: You "lost" the $\nabla$ operator, is this a mistake or are you simply stringing arbitrary symbols to demonstrate your ability with latex?
Q11: Seems like you are making up electrical charge out of nothing. This can't be. You didn't know that?
Last edited by macaw; 2010-Nov-30 at 07:48 AM.

4. Established Member
Join Date
Nov 2010
Posts
299
Originally Posted by macaw
Q1: How did you derive the above?
Q2: what sort of force is F?
Q3: Can you define the action of the operator $\nabla$?

Q4: Why would F be a Lorentz force?
Q5: How did you derive the above ?
Q6: Where is $\partial \ell$ coming from? What physical entity does it represent?
Q7: Where did the speed v show up in the formulas since it is not present anywhere else?
Q8: Where did the crossproduct come from?
Q9: Seems like you are making up electrcal charge out of nothing. This can't be?
Q10: What is your knowledge of basic electromagnetism?
Some of these questions would be embarrasing normally.

Q1 - if you follow the links provided, spent a little time reading them, you will see all the relevent information on the equation. As for Q2 and Q3 here is where you will find more relevent information http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magnetic_field - are you sure you weren't aware of a Lorentz force?

Q4 is has an obvious answer if you have followed so far. Deriving this is simple if you make a substitution on the charge for being the magnetic charge as you will see using the loop integral. Q6 that is distance. Q7 again, how come you do not know about the Lorentz force qv x B = F? Q8 from years of mathematics of course. Q9 Em no, if you can follow this, you would not have said this. If you cannot see how F equals the sum of the magnetization, or simply the dot product of the magnetic moment and the magnetic field, then I don't know what to say. The gradient simply measures the strength between \mu_i and B. Q10 I was about to ask you the same thing funnily enough.

5. Established Member
Join Date
Nov 2010
Posts
299
Q10 Yes that is a mistake.

(The rest of the questions are all the same and I have answered them.)

6. Banned
Join Date
Oct 2007
Posts
5,398
Originally Posted by Green Destiny
Some of these questions would be embarrasing normally.

Q1 - if you follow the links provided, spent a little time reading them, you will see all the relevent information on the equation.

As for Q2 and Q3 here is where you will find more relevent information http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magnetic_field - are you sure you weren't aware of a Lorentz force?
I am fully aware of the Lorentz force, what you put down as a "derivation" is another form of nonsense, this is why I asked you step by step questions, so would you please answer them as asked?

Q4 is has an obvious answer if you have followed so far. Deriving this is simple if you make a substitution on the charge for being the magnetic charge
How could that be? Electric charge and magnetic momentum are totally unrelated entities, are you rewriting basic electrodynamics?

as you will see using the loop integral. Q6 that is distance.
Distance? Why the partial derivative sign? Partial derivative with respect to what? Is it a vector or a scalar? Where is it coming from?

Q7 again, how come you do not know about the Lorentz force qv x B = F?
I know very well, the question is about your bogus "derivation". How do you arrive to the formula?

Q8 from years of mathematics of course.
But your expression are all wrong. So what "years of mathematics" do you have?

Q9 Em no, if you can follow this, you would not have said this. If you cannot see how F equals the sum of the magnetization, or simply the dot product of the magnetic moment and the magnetic field,
Well, F is a vector, so it cannot be equal to a dot product. Try again.

. Q10 I was about to ask you the same thing funnily enough.

Q12: Are you copying stuff from this wiki page while introducing your own mistakes? It would appear that this is what you do in all your ATMs (copy a random page from a mainstream site, introduce aseries of hilarious mistakes and call it your ATM).

7. Banned
Join Date
Oct 2007
Posts
5,398
Originally Posted by Green Destiny
Q10 Yes that is a mistake.

(The rest of the questions are all the same and I have answered them.)
I don't think so, you are simply making up bogus formulas riddled with mistakes.

8. Established Member
Join Date
Nov 2010
Posts
299
Originally Posted by macaw

I am fully aware of the Lorentz force, what you put down as a "derivation" is another form of nonsense, this is why I asked you step by step questions, so would you please answer them as asked?

How could that be? Electric charge and magnetic momentum are totally unrelated entities, are you rewriting basic electrodynamics?

Distance? Why the partial derivative sign? Partial derivative with respect to what? Is it a vector or a scalar? Where is it coming from?

I know very well, the question is about your bogus "derivation". How do you arrive to the formula?

But your expression are all wrong. So what "years of mathematics" do you have?

Well, F is a vector, so it cannot be equal to a dot product. Try again.

You will find all relevent equations in the links provided. And I am not rewriting electrodynamics, thank you.

9. Banned
Join Date
Oct 2007
Posts
5,398
Originally Posted by Green Destiny
You will find all relevent equations in the links provided.

And I am not rewriting electrodynamics, thank you.
Sure you are. While inserting some very amusing mistakes that show that you don't understand what you are cutting and pasting.

10. Established Member
Join Date
Nov 2010
Posts
299
Originally Posted by macaw

Sure you are. While inserting some very amusing mistakes that show that you don't understand what you are cutting and pasting.
One question at a time then.

Let us concentrate first on equation 1. Have you found its source yet? bothered to read the links like I respectfully asked you?

11. Banned
Join Date
Oct 2007
Posts
5,398
Originally Posted by Green Destiny
One question at a time then.

Let us concentrate first on equation 1. Have you found its source yet? bothered to read the links like I respectfully asked you?
The equation is bogus, you don't have any links . Please stop the diversions and answer the questions

12. Established Member
Join Date
Nov 2010
Posts
299
In the OP there are references at the very end. You are starting to annoy me.

13. Established Member
Join Date
Nov 2010
Posts
299
Well, OP part 2 since the message cannot contain any more than 15 images

14. Established Member
Join Date
Nov 2010
Posts
299
I mean questions like this, make me not even want to continue

'' Electric charge and magnetic momentum are totally unrelated entities, are you rewriting basic electrodynamics?''

Who did that? I said a substitution on q for q_M which gives you the necessery dimensions to rewrite the charge in terms of the loop integral. Who said anything about a magnetic momentum as being the same as an electric charge? It's a magnetic charge, not momentum.

I am going to report you - you have a basic duty to ask coherent questions with the added effort to understand why work is presented the way it is. If you cannot do this, you shouldn't be allowed to spam peoples threads like this.

15. Banned
Join Date
Oct 2007
Posts
5,398
Originally Posted by Green Destiny
[b]

If these equations where pertaining to a spinor field \psi (or simply an electron)
Q13: Spinor fields and electron? In the same sentence? What is the connection?

then the electron in a certain magnitude of magnetic moments act like a clock
Q14: How can a magnetic momentum "act as a clock"?

to potentially absorb a photon at an energy
Q15: What is absorbing the photon? The magnetic momentum or the clock?

of $\frac{e^2 h}{4Mc}$ [2] from the ZPF (zero-point field)
Q16: Did you notice that the unts don't match?

16. Established Member
Join Date
Nov 2010
Posts
299
Originally Posted by macaw
Q13: The units don't match , how do you explain that?

Q14: Spinor fields and electron? In the same sentence? What is the connection?

Q15: How can a magnetic momentum "act as a clock"?

Q16: What is absorbing the photon? The magnetic momentum or the clock?

Q17: Did you notice that the unts don't match? Again.
From one question to another, and not even the balls to address your obvious contempt for misinformation concerning links, misidentification of variables. And you expect me to entertain these walls of words?

If by units don't match, do you mean in the link it was extracted from? Alpha is simply the fine structure constant, it is dimensionless.

17. Established Member
Join Date
Nov 2010
Posts
299
You don't know how spinors relate to electrons?

I don't know if you any quantum field theory, but some of us know of an equation:

Dψ=dψ+ieAψ

if ψ is some spinor field (an electron) then ieAψ is an interaction term on the gauge field A where e is the presence of the charge of the particle. It is an inherent property of a moving mass where e is not equal to zero, and it is an intrinsic property for matter, taking values of either -1 or +1.

18. Banned
Join Date
Oct 2007
Posts
5,398
Originally Posted by Green Destiny
Q17: So, you are now cutting and pasting stuff that you don't understand from a homework page? Is this the starting point of your new ATM?

19. Banned
Join Date
Oct 2007
Posts
5,398
Originally Posted by Green Destiny
You don't know how spinors relate to electrons?

I don't know if you any quantum field theory, but some of us know of an equation:

Dψ=dψ+ieAψ

if ψ is some spinor field (an electron) then ieAψ is an interaction term on the gauge field A where e is the presence of the charge of the particle. It is an inherent property of a moving mass where e is not equal to zero, and it is an intrinsic property for matter, taking values of either -1 or +1.
Q18; What does the above have to do with your botched attempt to derive the Lorentz force? You appear to think that electrons and spinor fields are interchangeable. At least, you use them the same way.

20. Established Member
Join Date
Nov 2010
Posts
299
Originally Posted by macaw
Q17: So, you are now cutting and pasting stuff that you don't understand from a homework page? Is this the starting point of your new ATM?
I think its a little more complicated than simply cutting and pasting. You've failed to see any relevence in anything. Not even connections in field algebra to spinors and electrons. You fail in all aspects, so I don't expect you for one minute to understand how the term in the link relates at all to the sum magnetization of a collection of magnetic moments.

21. Established Member
Join Date
Nov 2010
Posts
299
Originally Posted by macaw
Q18; What does the above have to do with your botched attempt to derive the Lorentz force? You appear to think that electrons and spinor fields are interchangeable. At least, you use them the same way.
That is what it says in quantum theory, so lump it. You asked me how a spinor is related to an electron, not how it botches a derivation of a Lorentz force, so stop molesting the two together.

22. Banned
Join Date
Oct 2007
Posts
5,398
Originally Posted by Green Destiny
I think its a little more complicated than simply cutting and pasting.
True, as we have seen it is cutting and pasting and inserting your own errors.

23. Established Member
Join Date
Nov 2010
Posts
299
Originally Posted by macaw
True, as we have seen is cutting and pasting and inserting your own errors.
Any respectful reader will see the work above and see it is not a case of inserting errors. Simple mathematical substitutions do not even come close to a mathematical error. They are derivations performed all the time. Here is a perfect example

F=Ma

F=(E/c^2)a

Also I haven't ''rewritten'' the value of e^2h/4Mc (that is exactly how the value is given for the energy gained by an electron).

24. Banned
Join Date
Oct 2007
Posts
5,398
Originally Posted by Green Destiny
Any respectful reader will see the work above and see it is not a case of inserting errors. Simple mathematical substitutions do not even come close to a mathematical error. They are derivations performed all the time. Here is a perfect example

F=Ma
F is not equal to Ma.

Q19: What is the correct relativistic definition of force?

F=(E/c^2)a
Q20: When you start improvising you get a lot worse a lot faster. I know how you derived the above and it is plain wrong. Do you know any basic relativity?

Also I haven't ''rewritten'' the value of e^2h/4Mc (that is exactly how the value is given for the energy gained by an electron).
First you tried rewriting classical electrodynamics, now you are trying to rewrite SR.

25. Established Member
Join Date
Nov 2010
Posts
299
Originally Posted by macaw
F is not equal to Ma.
Why are you being allowed to get away with assinine statements like this? So you are saying, as a true classical, meaning Newtonian approximation which makes quite accurate predictions, F =\= Ma?

Newton will be rolling in his grave. Next you will be telling me P =\= Mv.

26. Banned
Join Date
Oct 2007
Posts
5,398
Originally Posted by Green Destiny
Why are you being allowed to get away with assinine statements like this? So you are saying, as a true classical, meaning Newtonian approximation which makes quite accurate predictions, F =\= Ma?

Newton will be rolling in his grave. Next you will be telling me P =\= Mv.
Q21: So what is the correct answer ? The ones you provided when you went off-script (off cutting and pasting from homework pages) are not correct. Please answer the last two questions, they are much easier than the ones you have been dodging throughout the thread.

27. Banned
Join Date
Oct 2007
Posts
5,398
Originally Posted by Green Destiny

Newton will be rolling in his grave. Next you will be telling me P =\= Mv.
Q22: Newton? Weren't you pretending to be using SR and QM? Do you think that the homework page you've been copying from is using Newton?

28. Established Member
Join Date
Nov 2010
Posts
299
Originally Posted by macaw
So what is the correct answer ? The ones you provided when you went off-script (off cutting and pasting from homework pages) are not correct. Please answer the last two questions, they are much easier than the nnes you have been dodging throughout the thread.
What have they got to do with the OP? Totally off-topic, worth an infraction i'd say, Atleast, I would have got one.

Relativistic force

F=dP/dt

for relativistic speeds. F=Ma is valid for non-relativistic speeds as a low approximation, does not mean it is explicitely incorrect.

Q20 I know lots of basic relativity. Not that it has to do with the OP. Also you say my equations are incorrectly expressed, wrong. You haven't mathematically shown why. A very common occurrance with you.

29. Established Member
Join Date
Nov 2010
Posts
299
The Zero Point Field is a classical limit. Did you not know that?

30. Banned
Join Date
Oct 2007
Posts
5,398
Originally Posted by Green Destiny
What have they got to do with the OP? Totally off-topic, worth an infraction i'd say, Atleast, I would have got one.
You introduced this hilarious mis-step when you went off script.

Relativistic force

F=dP/dt
Good, you are googling fast. How about the hilarious expression of energy as a function of force and acceleration?

for relativistic speeds. F=Ma is valid for non-relativistic speeds as a low approximation, does not mean it is explicitely incorrect.
How about the hilarious F=aE/c^2 that you just "derived"? It is a fantastic combination of SR with Newtonian mechanics.

#### Posting Permissions

• You may not post new threads
• You may not post replies
• You may not post attachments
• You may not edit your posts
•