MAGNETISM AND THE LINES OF FORCE BETWEEN PARALLEL CURRENTS.

Dear readers:
      I am just a layman with a small knowledge of physics. But for many years I have been bothered by what appears to me to be a serious error in logic in the realm of elementary electrodynamics.
      In physics textbooks I am presented with diagrammatic illustrations of the attractive lines of force between TWO gravitational bodies, the lines of attractive force between TWO unlike magnetic poles, the lines of repulsive force between TWO like magnetic poles, the lines of attractive force between TWO unlike charges, and the lines of repulsive force between TWO like charges. All these illustrated lines of force are based on empirical measurements of the direction of Mass times Acceleration between TWO of each kind of the referred to type of bodies.
      But when it comes to illustrating the lines of force between TWO electric currents moving in parallel, I am always presented with an illustration of the (supposed) NET lines of force, which includes a would be nearby magnetic compass needle, which is not part of the question of, "What are the directions of the empirically determinable lines of real force between TWO parallel currents?"  Instead, I am  offered what amounts to "What are the net lines of force between FOUR parallel currents?" At least two molecular parallel loop currents in the compass needle (any two sides of the loop are in parallel), and the two parallel currents being studied in the parallel wires.
      Why wasn't the physics profession able to maintain a consistent definition about what constitutes a "line of force" (Mass x direction of Acceleration between TWO bodies) when it came to explaining the attraction or repulsion between TWO parallel currents? I am assuming, of course, that TWO separate electrons, therefore, two separate bodies, accelerating toward a positive plate in a vacuum, would also be attracted toward each other to a measurable degree. If I am wrong about this latter assumption, please let me know.
.................................................
July 4.   I will add a little more, to maybe clarify what I am driving at:
    When magnetic lines of force (acceleration) were first delineated around magnetic materials, it was assumed that these materials were solid objects (and that nothing else was involved). Therefore, the directional force (acceleration) between any two poles of these separate objects could be easily determined and specified for the objects involved. But much later it was learned that these magnetic objects contained self powered electron currents around each atom (or molecule) of this material, and that it was these collective, internal, self powered, loop currents that were really doing the attraction or repulsion between similar looped currents within adjacent magnetic materials. This means to me, that magnets are simply a nature made electrical equivalent of man made, artificially powered, loop currents, and that we should be updating  the description of magnetic fields in terms of the attraction or repulsion between parallel loop currents, (instead of vice versa)  which lines of REAL measurable force, as far as I can see, should point directly, 90 degrees, to the sides between the currents, right at the position of the currents' location (of course, the same goes for straight parallel currents), thereby indicating the actual locations and directions of their measurable, straight line, NEWTONIAN, accelerations; rather than having supposed lines of "force" encircling the currents, and indicating, I presume, circular accelerations. Otherwise, why use the word FORCE?
................
July 6th. I will add a few more thoughts along this line.
   As I understand the physics books' description of electric current in a wire, the current always has a field of magnetic lines of "force" encircling it, even when there is NO magnetic compass needle present to actively interact with the flowing current to produce some active lines of force. I have never found this logic very persuasive because, as I understand it, lines of force must necessarily be between (at least) two CURRENTLY INTERACTIVE bodies. But if a compass needle is not there when we are discussing the attraction or repulsion between parallel currents, then where do the alledged encircling magnetic lines of force come from on this occasion?
      I have, therefore, always found it much easier to imagine that one of the sides of all  the molecular parallel loop currents in a magnetic compass needle will be attracted, DIRECTLY, toward a similar direction flowing current in a nearby wire, and the molecular parallel currents on the opposite sides of all the same molecular loop currents will be repelled directly away from this same wire, because their molecular currents will, naturally, be opposite to that of the wire's current. These two dissimilar straight lines of (Newtonian) force, with one kind of force attracting one side of all the molecular loop currents, and the other kind of force repelling the opposite sides of all the molecular loop currents, will, naturally, cause the compass needle to turn crosswise to the flow of current in the wire. The same, of course, holds true for a pivotal, man made, electric powered loop placed near to a straight wire current.
      So, I ask, why complicate the description of an electric current flow by unnecessarily, and illogically, theorizing that an electric current flow must have magnetic lines of force encircling it all the time? But if there exists a compelling reason to do so, please let me know.

WFT
....................
July 18th.  It appears to me that because electrical and molecular phenomena were
discovered so much later than magnetism, that the physicists have wound up having put the cart before the horse in their explanation of magnetism. What would be lost by attributing magnetism entirely to the direct attraction, or direct repulsion, between parallel looped electric currents, both molecular and man made, by laterally distributed (that is, laterally to the direction of current flow), multiple straight lines of force, directly between the currents of the parallel loops? 
      "Magnetic lines of "force"", currently refers to the pointings of a magnetic compass needle as it is placed in various positions around a magnetic object, or artificial loop current, or straight DC current flow. But these magnetic compass needle pointings have only occasional correlations with the real NEWTONIAN forces occurring between a magnetic compass needle and a nearby magnet. For instance, if a magnetic compass needle near the side of a magnet is not only allowed to turn on its pivot, but also allowed to move laterally (float on wood in water), it will not proceed along the proclaimed "magnetic line of "force"", but will, instead, move sideways toward the side of the magnet. This illustrates, quite plainly, how far away, in operating directions, the real Newtonian forces operating between the magnet and the magnetic compass needle are, compared to which way the compass needle "wants" to point. Therefore, I believe that the use of the word, "force", in SCIENTIFIC CIRCLES, to allude to the pointing directions of a magnetic compass needle, is improper, because it implies that there are no subcomponent forces present. This might be satisfactory for the layman's purpose (but not for me in this case), in the sense that he means, "whatever it is that makes it do that", or the ancients before the time of Newton. But today's physicists are supposed to be more precise in their language use. In other words, I believe that in physics, the trackings of magnetic compass needles should have been called (after the time of Newton) something other than a, "force", with its own name, and no acknowledgment of the many real Newtonian sub force vectors obviously present. "Magnetic effect" sounds a bit more proper to me.
   In any case physicists have yet to convince me that there are such things as curved lines of REAL force, magnetic or otherwise, between two objects. ----- Maybe in the fourth dimension.

WFT

Last edited by WFT (2007-08-14 15:35:54)