compressing two magnetic fields and more together

[billvon]

why ?

Why do you have to overcome back-EMF? Because it opposes the creation of magnetic flux. It is basically the magnetic field "pushing back" against the current that is creating it. You have to supply enough power (in the form of voltage x current) to overcome that back-EMF to create a field that is as strong as you want in the amount of time that you want.

by the way when try to push two magnets together , such as fridge magnets you push from top to bottom

Right, which causes compression of the magnetic field lines (i.e. greater flux concentration in some places.)

what I want to do is push , from 360degrees of the magnetic field inotherwords , explore the full three dimensional surface of the field

Right, you said that already. And to do that, take a solenoid and pass current through it. You will get a magnetic field. If you increase the current you get a stronger magnetic field. If you are visualizing that by looking at magnetic field lines, the ones in the center will be "squeezed together" by the new magnetic field, from all 360 degrees around the axis of the solenoid.

 

[river]

billvon

so when you squeeze magnetic fields together , enough , can this become light ?

hence why photons are thought to be , what the magnetic field is made of ?

 

[billvon]

so when you squeeze magnetic fields together , enough , can this become light ?

Sort of. If you squeeze magnetic fields together AND make them change at a high enough rate (around 600 terahertz) you will get light, which is a form of electromagnetic radiation. Without that change you just get a constant magnetic field.

 

[Aqueous Id]

Again I say, you are either misunderstanding "lines of force" or "field" or both. Likely both.

A field is analogous to density. It's so many units of Energy (or some derivative thereof, such as Voltage) per unit of space (length usually).

If you ask to "squeeze" or "compress" a field, you are asking to "squeeze" or "compress" density. How do you squeeze density? By adding more energy (or magnetism or whatever) into the system? How do you get a 1 cc marshmallow to be as heavy as lead. OK compress it. It's still light as a feather. Now add 10,000 more of these compressed nanocubes and finally your 1cc cube weighs as much as lead. And by the way, it doesn't turn into lead in the process

You seem to be addressing a field as if it is a quantity of energy, which it isn't. It's the density of energy within a given amount of space.

The other supposition, that the "compression" avalanches, or whatever, into luminosity, or creating or emitting photons or light beams- or moon beams maybe is more appropriate - this is not what happens when you increase the intensity of a field.
You are now confusing amplitude and frequency. Light (visible band) has a fairly narrow range of frequencies, right? you can't emit light without starting in the light band. Note, you would never assume that you could emit light simply by squeezing a marshmallow.

Try this: a light dimmer. It increases/decreases voltage across the filament thereby exciting more/fewer photons into emission. Does it shift color when you dial it up or down? No. For the same reason you can not start with an out-of-band signal, amplify it, and launch it into a new band. (except for intermodulation or some systemic flaw or operational issue).

So - I say again: fields don't compress. The apparent movement of a field (like slewing a cathode ray through a old timey picture tube) is done by SUPERPOSITION (addition) of the various forces impressed at each point in space inside the tube by sets of coils (mag field) and plates (e-field) which were laboriously designed to get the little dot to land precisely where you have a glimmer in your eye or whatever.

Capiche? compression sounds to me like spatial compression. Like around the sun, lensing, that sort of thing.

What is the underlying theme? Violation of conservation of energy? Sounds like it.

 

[river]

“ Originally Posted by river
so when you squeeze magnetic fields together , enough , can this become light ?

Sort of. If you squeeze magnetic fields together AND make them change at a high enough rate (around 600 terahertz) you will get light, which is a form of electromagnetic radiation.

Without that change you just get a constant magnetic field.

a static magnetic field

 

[river]

so to explore a static magnetic field by another magnetic field

I would need another , static magnetic field , manovered by a non-staic magnetic field

I would need three magnetic fields , of two types

two static , one not

 

[river]

the two static fields would be in contact with each other

while the other magnetic field , in motion , is in contact with one of the static magnetic fields , moving it around the other static magnetic

 

[Aqueous Id]

river: fields add, nothing more.

 

[river]

river: fields add, nothing more.

but to add , means there must be space between the orthogonal fields

 

[Aqueous Id]

but to add , means there must be space between the octagonal fields

no, they add, nothing more. they simply add.
the shape you are talking about is a gradient.
gradients add. they form a composite, a new shape, which is the sum of the
individual shapes you started with.

 

[river]

“ Originally Posted by river
but to add , means there must be space between the octagonal fields

no, they add, nothing more. they simply add.
the shape you are talking about is a gradient.
gradients add. they form a composite, a new shape, which is the sum of the
individual shapes you started with.

but HOW do they add

what is the mechanism then

 

[river]

no, they add, nothing more. they simply add.
the shape you are talking about is a gradient.
gradients add. they form a composite, a new shape, which is the sum of the
individual shapes you started with.

when you do that though , is the space greater , the same , or less than when you started

 

[billvon]

a static magnetic field

Yes, in engineering/science circles "static" means "constant."

the two static fields would be in contact with each other . .

Well, yeah. But that's like saying the light from the sun is in contact with other light from the sun. It's all one field, just different concentrations of magnetic field strength.

I would need another , static magnetic field , manovered by a non-staic magnetic field . . .I would need three magnetic fields , of two types . . .two static , one not

Sure, you can do that. But you'd just end up with one new magnetic field equal to the sum of the contributing fields.

 

[river]

“ I would need another , static magnetic field , manovered by a non-staic magnetic field . . .I would need three magnetic fields , of two types . . .two static , one not ”

Sure, you can do that. But you'd just end up with one new magnetic field equal to the sum of the contributing fields.

at what point , in time , in their contact , would that be ?

 

[river]

“ Originally Posted by Aqueous Id
no, they add, nothing more. they simply add.
the shape you are talking about is a gradient.
gradients add. they form a composite, a new shape, which is the sum of the
individual shapes you started with. ”

when you do that though , is the space greater , the same , or less , than when you started

the same is what I get

you....

 

[billvon]

at what point , in time , in their contact , would that be ?

Magnetic "field lines" never contact each other. They are representative of strength of a vector field, and thus a higher field strength has more lines in a given cross sectional area. But by mathematical definition they never touch.

 

[river]

“ Originally Posted by river
at what point , in time , in their contact , would that be ? ”

Magnetic "field lines" never contact each other. They are representative of strength of a vector field, and thus a higher field strength has more lines in a given cross sectional area. But by mathematical definition they never touch.

but where is the physical aspect to contact ?

where is the physical explaination

which is beyond mathematics

 

[river]

to explain about my attitude towards mathematics is this

without any object and/or objects , mathematics has nothing to be based on ( the measurement of nothing , as in , no objects in space )

therefore objects come before mathematics

 

[Emil]

I read this thread superficial, so maybe someone already gave this response.

Yes you can compress the magnetic fields.
That is the role of ferrite cores.
You can not compress no matter how much because they enter into saturation.
More detail, you can read from Permeability (electromagnetism).

 

[billvon]

but where is the physical aspect to contact? where is the physical explaination which is beyond mathematics

There is no physical contact. There are no actual field lines. They are a mathematical abstraction. It's like asking "but where is the pole that is the North Pole?" There's really no pole. You can't climb it or paint it. You can't take a picture with you standing next to the pole and send it to your friends. It's just a location, an abstraction with no objectified reality.

to explain about my attitude towards mathematics is this . . .without any object and/or objects , mathematics has nothing to be based on ( the measurement of nothing , as in , no objects in space ) therefore objects come before mathematics

OK. Then in your world there is no magnetism.