Physics Help Forum hypothesis of magnetic particles

 General Physics General Physics Help Forum

 Jan 15th 2018, 08:55 AM #1 Junior Member   Join Date: Jan 2018 Posts: 3 hypothesis of magnetic particles hi i'm on here because I need help with a hypothesis on mine The hypothesis is that everything is a magnet or electromagnet and is traveling about in different ways now I believe it is a pyramid shaped magnet that wouldn't be able to join with other magnets as it would tilt and the bases would then repel spinning them off each other. light would be these particle and it would travel in a wave because of either this tilt effect or because it would be spinning now spinning magnets would effect the spin of other magnets slowing one down while speeding up the other so they would attract then repulse over and over 3 magnets would be able to orbit each other making a charged particle (a quark or electron) gluons would interact as if attracting each other then repelling away from each other and would move in a corkscrew as the quarks would have both a + and - charge just one being more prevalent so they but because magnets turn facing to attract they would normally face as if attracting towards quarks creating the strong force now with and electron (3 magnets orbiting) there could be other magnets then orbiting that as it is both + and - these magnets would flip base on where they are in the orbit but would be - with the electron 2/3 of the time giving a greater charge A pyramid magnet might be able to have gravity because of the point, the point would have a slight distance that would be attracting towards the base more strongly where the 2 points would have an equal effect of repulsion as the 2 bases and with everything spinning or orbiting they would constantly have that slight attraction
 Jan 15th 2018, 10:03 AM #2 Senior Member     Join Date: Jun 2016 Location: England Posts: 883 After the initial knee-jerk reaction of immediate dismissal, I can see that you have actually considered this idea properly. As you recognise the important issue is the interaction between elements of the theory. I would suggest that "magnets" should be considered an analogy for the fundamental elements that make up your tetrahedral constructs, giving an indication of how they might generate observed interactions. The key to generating these geometrical models of the fundamental elements of existence is the balance between having enough "degrees of freedom" to model the observed experimental evidence, but not so many degrees of freedom that essentially "anything goes". One of the criticisms aimed at string theory, is that there are so many possible solutions, what limits us to the one we observe? __________________ ~\o/~
 Jan 16th 2018, 02:31 PM #3 Physics Team   Join Date: Apr 2009 Location: Boston's North Shore Posts: 1,576 The problem with this is that physical evidence is to the contrary. topsquark likes this.
 Jan 17th 2018, 05:20 AM #4 Junior Member   Join Date: Jan 2018 Posts: 3 what physical evidence?
Jan 17th 2018, 07:30 AM   #5
Physics Team

Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Boston's North Shore
Posts: 1,576
9
 Originally Posted by outthere2190 what physical evidence?
For example, you can't get charge from any combination of magnets.

Also from particle physics experiments which gave us quantum theory and particle physics. Most of what you proposed violates such laws such as various conservation theorems for things like spin, angular momentum, as well as being consistent with deep elastic scattering etc. It would take nearly a textbook to describe it here so I urge you instead to pick up texts on part me physics and quantum mechanics at advanced level and consider them. There's also things you said about light which was unclear to me but I suspect violates conservation of 4-momentum.

I could get into more detail if I knew your level of understanding of the physics, i.e. layman, freshman, upper level undergraduate ph6sics major, graduate etc.

However I have up on trying to up people with their new theories years ago for various but good reasons. Now I choose to spend my time help people learn physics as it is today, again for good reasons.

Let me give a short explanation for now. You're trying to describe quantum particles using a classical description. Quantum mechanics forbids that kind of thing. My experience in such conversations in the past was that those who propose such things end up saying that all of our understanding of one or more branches of physics is wrong as their new theory will show. Some enjoy those kinds of discussions. I don't. Not because I have a closed mind like every one of those people held but because invariably they were all ignorant of the actual physics. Suppose you are right and I'm the one whose wrong. Then in effect all of those dozens of people with their new theory are wrong too. Would you like to prove You're case to 30-40 different people each having a different theory? Believe.me when I say that trying us a nightmare.

Please don't take this personally or as an insult. It's not meant to be. I left that forum which is geared for that. The purpose of this forum is to help folks understand physics as it's currently accepted. You can try that other forum which I'm certain there are folks who's love to get into your new theory.

Right now I'm on a cell phone. My internet servive8is down and all this typing has caused severe pain in my hands and elbows. Another reason I can't get into it.

It sucks to get old. Ha ha!!

Last edited by Pmb; Jan 17th 2018 at 07:56 AM.

Jan 17th 2018, 08:03 AM   #6
Senior Member

Join Date: Oct 2017
Location: Glasgow
Posts: 369
 Originally Posted by outthere2190 what physical evidence?
I think you would get a lot of interesting information by reading about the following topics:

1. Bohr magneton
2. Quantum numbers (such as spin)
3. The "standard model" and the particle zoo.
4. Interactions (e.g. strong nuclear, weak nuclear, electromagnetic)

Then you'll get a better idea for the sort of knowledge that physicists currently have regarding electromagnetism at the particle level.

Although there's nothing wrong with making new hypotheses, it helps to take stock of the existing knowledge and evidence to help guide your way and give you an idea of what kinds of existing theories might conflict with yours.

 Jan 17th 2018, 08:09 AM #7 Junior Member   Join Date: Jan 2018 Posts: 3 i'm not talking about position i'm talking about moving in a circle at light speed the facing would give a charge
Jan 17th 2018, 03:04 PM   #8
Physics Team

Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Boston's North Shore
Posts: 1,576
 Originally Posted by outthere2190 i'm not talking about position i'm talking about moving in a circle at light speed the facing would give a charge
I hesitate to respond since you appear to be ignoring what we're saying. In this case nobody said anything about position. What I said is that you're treating subatomic particles as if they are classical ones but all experimental evidence shows otherwise, i.e. they are quantum particles and as such obey the laws of quantum mechanics.

Here you speak of things moving in a circle that itself violates the laws of quantum mechanics. A circle is a classical trajectory which means that at every moment in time the object has a definite position in space. That in itself defies quantum mechanics. Moving at the speed of light defies relativity for anything other than a luxon which is the defined as a particle, such as a photon, which has zero proper mass (aka rest mass). No luxon can be a magnet.

As i said, you can read all about this in the physics literture. You chose not to reveal what lece you know physics at and I choose not to continue. See how that works?

Regarding the experimental evidence l mentioned. It's all contained and described in the physics literature which includes textbooks and journals. Their are also books for the laymen. The Feynman lectures has a wonderful treatment on the subject which I highly recommend.

Physicists have been running experiments all over the Earth for about 100 years now which produced a mountain of e,perimental data and There's not one bit of evidence to suggest that your idea is even meaningful. Again, this is not meant as an insult but merely a description of facts. You can take my word for it when I say that any physicist would love to prove quantum mechanics and/or particle physics to be wrong. It would mean winning a Nobel prize, which comes with \$1,000,000, and becoming famous and being remembered in history. Who wouldn't want that? The laws of physics as we came to learn them are as they are for a darn good reason.

Last edited by Pmb; Jan 17th 2018 at 05:47 PM.

 Jan 20th 2018, 02:54 PM #9 Senior Member   Join Date: Aug 2010 Posts: 404 I don't think is a matter of outthere2190 not "ignoring what we're saying". From what he has posted it seems more likely that he simply does not know what the words he is using, and we are using in response, "magnetism", "electron", "quark", etc. mean.
Jan 20th 2018, 04:31 PM   #10
Physics Team

Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Boston's North Shore
Posts: 1,576
 Originally Posted by HallsofIvy I don't think is a matter of outthere2190 not "ignoring what we're saying".
I disagree. I was saying to

(1) describe your background so I know what you've learned so far
(2) pick up a boom and read it. I suggested the Feynman lectures

I know that he doesn't know what he's talking about. But it's impolite to phrase it like that so I was trying to do my best to avoid it

 Tags hypothesis, magnetic, particles

 Thread Tools Display Modes Linear Mode

 Similar Physics Forum Discussions Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post PhonEtic Physics 4 Jan 17th 2017 08:49 AM MaartenV Special and General Relativity 4 Nov 26th 2013 11:09 AM hakimghaziali2 Advanced Mechanics 9 Jul 15th 2013 06:46 PM stevie c Electricity and Magnetism 2 Feb 24th 2010 08:59 AM theramblingmark Electricity and Magnetism 1 Jan 15th 2010 08:03 PM