Calling all scientists, physicists, and engineers. Question on magnetic fields.

I have a simple question about magnetism. Do all magnetic fields have a toroidal/torus structure? Can they come in any other shapes, aside from distorted toroids?

I would greatly appreciate any input from knowledgeable members, and if possible link a reliable source of information to support what you're saying.

Thanks.

a reply to: BELIEVERpriest

Google pics say "no", but I'm not an expert.

a reply to: BELIEVERpriest

Hey theres a thread you should post this question in called "ask any question you want about physics" that thread has several physics professors and a few physicists and electrical engineers that regularly contribute.

Also theyre all nice guys.

a reply to: BASSPLYR

Sheesh...I was only browsing it the other day....memory!!!

www.abovetopsecret.com...

originally posted by: BELIEVERpriest
I have a simple question about magnetism. Do all magnetic fields have a toroidal/torus structure? Can they come in any other shapes, aside from distorted toroids?

I would greatly appreciate any input from knowledgeable members, and if possible link a reliable source of information to support what you're saying.

Thanks.

I guess you mean magnetic field lines?

Magnets are dipoles, means the field lines are closed loops.

Magnetic fields can be superposed (combined), means you can shape the field lines (loops).
Example: en.wikipedia.org...

a reply to: BELIEVERpriest

www.abovetopsecret.com...

a reply to: moebius

I thought the field lines between the dipoles created the field itself. So field lines can be distorted into shapes, but wouldn't the distorted toroid still be there?

a reply to: TheConstruKctionofLight

a reply to: BASSPLYR

Thanks. I submitted my question there as well.

originally posted by: BELIEVERpriest
I have a simple question about magnetism. Do all magnetic fields have a toroidal/torus structure? Can they come in any other shapes, aside from distorted toroids?

I would greatly appreciate any input from knowledgeable members, and if possible link a reliable source of information to support what you're saying.

Thanks.

The magnetic field comes from the electrons themselves. If they are paired together within electron shells and face directly opposite directions, they cancel out. The more electrons there are that are unpaired, the stronger the magnet field for that atom. You will always get a dipole field from a bar magnet. But placed together, the fields will distort in order to form an equilibrium.

Any point in space, can have a magnetic field of any strength, but only in one direction. It will follow the inverse distance cubed rule.

a reply to: BELIEVERpriest

Look at the field of a spherical magnetic monopolie, totally different.

Cheers - Dave

a reply to: stormcell

K, but what about the shape of the field? Will it always be a torus?

a reply to: BELIEVERpriest

I still think gravity is magnetism. This could explain the variables in gravitational pull all over the earth? I am waiting for more science to come out but I think the earth and universe is more magnetic and electrical than they let us know. Everything seems to be a cause and effect or a positive and negative....it's all a Ying yang kind of thing! God could have created it this way and why Good and evil is positive and negative. Also energy plus matter is expansion and magnetic pull plus no energy equals anti matter or dark matter. This is a very broad outline but I do know I know to little but it comes up a lot.

a reply to: randomthoughts12

Maybe they're not exactly the same, but possibly related via the toroidal model. Thats part of what I'm trying to understand. But first, I need to know if ALL magnetic fields (dia, para, ferro, ferri, spin-liquid, etc) take on the basic toroidal shape. If so, then that would link gravitational fields and magnetic fields under the principle of self similarity.

a reply to: bobs_uruncle

Thanks for the info, would you be able to post a pic or diagram? Google isn't always that reliable if I dont know what I'm looking for.

a reply to: BELIEVERpriest

Yea I see where you are going and seems like the right place to start. There has to be some relation if they do not go hand it hand it would seem.

Well, this is off the subject slightly and I don't want to throw off the topic too much, but what is the difference between the magnetic field of a natural magnet and an electro-magnet?

I know that in antenna design that certain balun designs require a coil and a natural magnet but can be made as a loop of wire as well. Also, ferrous metals absorb magnetism, is that how a natural magnet, or load stone, is formed?

Sorry if those are stupid questions, but it's basic stuff I've thought about, but never looked into.

a reply to: BELIEVERpriest

No question on magnetism is "simple".

Which/how electrons are responsible for magnetism? Nobody knows. What about monopoles?? Again, nobody knows. Toroids should be a Platonic Solid as they are just a circle rotated around a center point.

Seems all magnetic fields would follow that, no?

My guess is, "yes." But hey, what do I know?

Magnetic fields are caused by the motion of electric charge or the change of an electric field. The moving charge can be a current in a wire, a moving charged particle, or (in my always classical view) a spinning charged particle. Some problems have somewhat simple answers to calculate, such as a ring of wire with a current flowing in it. But more typically the problems are far more complex. There is a code called POISSON available for free from the Los Alamos code group that can assist in calculating fields. That is what I use, and even it is quite complicated.

Materials come into play. Some materials will "help" the production of magnetic fields. If you make a C shape out of iron, and wrap a loop of wire around the middle of the C, the field that forms between the top open end of the C and the bottom open end of the C will be much larger than if you just had the loop of wire there (where both loops have the same current). That is because the spins of the electrons within the iron align with the magnetic field caused by the flowing current and you get an increase in the field of the open region as a result. (Google "magnetic reluctance" to learn more.)

The spins of the electrons can also produce magnetic fields even with no current flowing in any wires. In that case, you have a permanent magnet. You can think of the spins of the electrons making little loops of current themselves, and they all add up to give you a large effective current even though you have no actual electron current flows in that case.

In particle accelerators we sometimes use iron and/or electric currents in all kinds of different shapes to yield all sorts of "shapes" of magnetic fields. Yet in each case, any particular magnetic field line will come around and connect back upon itself in some way. This is unlike electric fields that can begin and end on charges. So in some sense, you might call these "modified toroids", but I would not really call them that, nor do others in the field. There are toroids (used in electron cooling merge regions and plasma tokomaks) solenoids (used in electron cooling straight sections and for focusing ions) dipoles (used to bend particle beams) quadrupoles (used to focus and defocus beams) and many higher order magnets, like sextupoles, octopoles, decapoles and on and on (most often used to correct things). All of the latter have significantly different shapes than a toroid.

And then there is the magnetic field within light and other electromagnetic radiation which is another topic altogether.

TEOTWAWKIAIFF makes a good point - magnetism is quite complex!

A magnetic field is comprised of 2 interacting waves, a probability wave and a detection wave. What science calls a polar magnetic field is the reaction of one pole to the other and that combined fields reaction to the physical stimuli. They never take that extra step backwards, back to the fundamental. Before stimulus, before polarity.

Polar reality is not fundamental,it is a reaction and had a beginning, my namesake. Bipolar magnetism had no beginning. It is the fundamental wave form of our simulation.

The electron probability sine wave spirals inward, but is a pulling force not a pushing force, radiation is irrelevant to its orbit, its completely octavial,frequency goes up as amplitude goes down.

When it can spiral no tighter, the 2nd pole is formed, an outward spiraling longitudinal wave. Which seems like a contradiction until you realise it is a series of pulses maping the past amplitude and frequency (1/2 wavelength behind) of the inward spiraling probability wave in a 3D space.

Non polar magnetism = antigravity. Gravity is static electricity, a temporarily activated [electro] magnet.

The standard model is flawed because the - pole cloud is in dynamic orbit around its newly created + pole gravity hub, which is static, emitting an array of pulses, ie particles, that detect approximate and quantify locality of the input wave without ever leaving home. Think Buckminster-Fuller. The accepted electro-magnetic propagation wave makes no sense. Unless you think waves go up and down, side to side in a linear fashion. No, they spiral.

It's analogue (-) vs digital (+) in a 3D standing wave. The nucleus is orchestrator of a house of detection particles, and binder of the input waves energies.

Am I right about this? Well I think science has made the proper adjustments to the ancient encoded texts without telling anyone, which is not what I intended to do.

"Behold, he will give no light to the Moon, and the Stars are unclean in his sight.
How much more man, a worm, even the son of man, which is but a worm?
He stretcheth out the North over the empty place, and hangeth the earth upon nothing.
He holdeth back the face of his throne, and spreadeth his cloud upon it.
The pillars of heaven tremble and quake at his reproof.
His Spirit hath garnished the heavens, and his hand hath formed the crooked serpent. Lo, these are part of his ways: but how little a portion hear we of him? and who can understand his fearful power?"

They were obviously writing about the same stuff Walter Russels wave theories tried and failed at figuring out.

a reply to: BigBangWasAnEcho

I think you and I are very much on the same page.