Introduction

The attraction or repulsion between parallel direct current carrying wires was never given any distinctive name such as that which was given to the attraction and repulsion between magnets, and electromagnets. For the sake of discussion, here, I have chosen to call this physical effect between parallel direct current carrying wires, Ampereism, because Andre M. Ampere was the first person to discover this phenomenon.

If it had happened in history that Ampereism had been discovered before magnetism, then whenever we rolled up DC energized parallel wires into loops, or coils, we would not hesitate to declare that the physical force, attraction or repulsion, between any two such coils was emanating straight directly from the current carrying wires, rather than from somewhere in space around the wires as we do now when we call it magnetic "field" attraction or repulsion; and two dimensional diagrams of the physical force fields between, and around, air core electromagnetic coils would look much different than they are currently depicted. They would look more like thorns on a cactus plant rather than as a multi layered, elongated, toroid, as they do now. But if we used one of the energized coils to sense and plot the mutual vector RESULTANT attraction field around the other energized coil, we would get the magnetic field diagram that we currently get for air core electromagnet fields. But we would not fail to make the distinction between the original primary "Ampereic" radial lines of mutual physical force, and the, misleading, second electromagnet's sensed resultants.

In my opinion, what has happened is that, because of our prior experience with magnets, which are self powered, electrically fuzzy, equivalents of air core electromagnets, we have over prioritized magnetic lines of force as a basic phenomenon, and have failed to analyze more deeply, their real origin. Consequently, we have also described electromagnetic waves wrongly.

Discussion

In studying magnetism, and magnetic lines of force (or field), it seems clear to me that an error has been made in the analysis and description of the attractive and repulsive forces operating between magnets, and/or electromagnets. This has apparently come about from misconstruing what a magnetic compass needle is really doing when it is placed near a straight wire direct current. The name magnetism was originally applied to certain objects (including magnetic compass needles) which could display polarized MUTUAL attraction, or repulsion, between them with a measurable FORCE. Therefore, using sound semantics, you can't have real magnetic lines of force (or field) without (at least) two such objects. Therefore, to apply this name to something which supposedly encircles a current carrying wire, but doesn't have two such objects along the alleged lines of force to refer this alleged force to, redefines the meaning of the phrase "magnetic lines of force" in midstream. This redefinition follows from falsely assuming that any active magnetic compass needle indication always refers to magnetic lines of force (or field). This is definitely not the case.

To explain this inadvertent switch in the meaning of the phrase, "magnetic lines of force", when it is applied to the area around a straight wire direct current, we have to consider what the true definition of magnetism originally referred to, and therefore, should continue to refer to, unless formally redefined.. The term "magnetism" was originally applied to types of objects which, unknown to everybody at the time, contain multiple LOOPED micro electric currents ("orbiting" electrons) which produce any two magnets' particular (RESULTANT) interactive force manifestation, Two magnets, (or electromagnets) therefore, have, spatially speaking, at least two opposing, approximately parallel, currents in each of them (opposite edges of a loop or coil, or the electrically equivalent situation in magnets). That makes at least 4 currents altogether. Since a straight wired direct current in no way has either a loop, or two parallel opposing currents, it does not qualify as a magnetic entity which can generate genuine magnetic lines of force. But, next to another parallel wire, or its two approximate equivalents in a pivotal DC powered coil, (or self powered compass needle), it does generate radial "Ampereic" lines of mutual force, either attraction or repulsion, or both.

The situation of a magnetic compass needle near a straight direct current is, as explained above, a different kind of relationship (only three "parallel" currents) than between two genuine magnetic objects (of which the magnetic compass needle can be one of them). The compass needle therefore, near a straight direct current, falsely projects, in one's imagination, something to which the original meaning of the phrase, "magnetic lines of force" (field), does not apply.

To have a name kicking around in science which has two different meanings is not a helpful thing in my opinion. If the incorrect name, "magnetic lines of force", (or field) for this particular situation (magnetic compass indication near a straight direct current) has been incorporated into so many physics formulas that it can't be extricated, or if it is used in a monitoring/calculating reference system, then I suggest that, at least, the name of the indicated lines be changed to "pseudo magnetic lines, of NO force".

It would be even better, but a mouthful, to call these compass indicated "north-south" lines around a straight direct current, "Oersted's, right angled offset, current direction indicators", because they are simply derived from the physioelectric responses of the two opposite, approximately parallel, components of the micro electric loop currents in magnetic compass needles when any magnetic compass needle is placed near a straight direct current, depending on the straight current's direction. This kind of physioelectric effect between approximately parallel currents, whether they are in a passive pivotal loop current device or not, should properly be called Ampereism, not magnetism.

To "visually" elaborate on this idea, a little, the following paragraph is based on the premise that two single turn DC carrying loops placed near to each other, and on the same axis, are merely two rolled up parallel wires which will attract or repel each other directly rather than through the means of supposed magnetic fields encircling each wire. If two single turn DC carrying loops are each formed into a square, and the two squares are placed near to each other on the same axis, it will be seen that, in this case, there are 8 parallel wires altogether (16 if opposite sides of the loops are also counted), 4 on each squared loop. Although within each squared loop all the parallel wires will repel each other because of their spatially opposite parallel currents, between the two squared loops there may be either attraction or repulsion, depending on whether their parallel currents are in the same direction or the opposite direction. Since merely flipping the face of one of the squared loops 180 degrees automatically spatially reverses its relative current, the previous physical attraction or repulsion between the two squared loops will also then be reversed.

Since the net physical working force between the two squared loops appears obviously to be the effects of close parallel currents, rather than a mysterious force called magnetism, which apparent force is really only a VECTOR RESULTANT of the forces between the multiple shared parallel sections of the two loops, I, therefore, believe this net attractive or repulsive force between DC carrying loops, or coils, should be called "multiple Ampereism", rather than electromagnetism, in honor of the person who first discovered these physical actions between close parallel direct current carrying wires. The term "electromagnetism", I think, is best considered as a handy nick name. Since physical magnets show the same physical reactions between them as DC carrying loops or coils show, I assume a similar process is at work between magnets, but relying on the net effect of many separate micro electric direct currents ("orbiting" electrons) within the magnets, rather than on easily locatable direct electric currents as are present in wire loops or coils.

Further, by careful definition, you also can't have "lines of magnetic force" (or field) encircling the individual wires of a direct current carrying coil, because you only get genuine "magnetism" off the faces of a loop, or off the ends of a tubular coil, or off the ends of a magnet, (or magnetic compass needle) as a mutual VECTOR RESULTANT force between at least two pairs of approximately parallel, opposing direct currents, at least one pair-set in each magnetic entity, when they are brought near to each other. This mutual vector resultant force varies with different orientations between any two magnetic entities. However, encircling the individual internal wires of a coil, you only have pseudo magnetic lines. These lines of no force, naturally, cannot be added up to create a net magnetic force. However, there are radial lines of Ampereic attractive force around each wire which must be added up all together. But proper semantics demands that this radial force around each wire of a current carrying loop, or coil, should NOT be called magnetic force.

Since genuine magnetism, according to the original (de facto) definition, requires at least two approximately parallel opposing direct currents in each coil, or their electrical equivalents in magnets, it is clear that magnetism, and electromagnetism, are both a more complex arrangement of a more simple force system relating to the physical reactions between close parallel currents. Since it was Andre M. Ampere who first discovered this physical reaction between close parallel direct currents, it would seem only proper to call this more primary system, Ampereism, and the forces operating there, Ampere's radial lines of mutual physical force.

From the above considerations, it appears to me that the overall problem of properly relating a magnetic field to electricity is that a magnetic field is a compound forces relation system built up of a lower order forces relation system, which latter system should properly be called Ampereism. Therefore, magnetic fields provides only a confusing view of Ampereism and Ampereic fields.

What both the loop currents and the straight currents do have in common is they both have potentially inductive fields which become apparent when any single (or more) wired currents are either increasing or decreasing while near another conductor, or the energized wire is moving either toward or away from another conductor. The working physicist and electrical engineer need to study this induction in order to get a mathematical hold on either type (straight or looped) field's electrical effects. But it is not helpful to drag around confusing names. A straight wire current's inductive field is just that. It is not a loop current's inductive field, so it should not be called a magnetic inductive field. On the other hand, a loop current's inductive field is a combination of (spatially speaking) at least two, approximately straight, sub inductive fields. If a common name is going to be used for both types of inductive fields, and the lines for their RADIAL (from the wires) flux densities, it should obviously be "Faradayic radial flux density" instead of, "magnetic flux density".

Referencing Ampereic lines of force, instead of magnetic lines of force, makes it easier to explain the physical reactive motions of current carrying wires in relation to magnetic fields. For instance, the Lorentz Force resolves into the less mysterious, slack current carrying wire being attracted toward the side of a current carrying coil which has the same direction current as the slack current carrying wire. The same applies to currents in cathode ray tubes when they are manipulated with varying currents in coils. The Hall Effect is relatively easily explained in a similar way.

Finally, if there can't be real magnetic lines of force (or field) encircling individual single direct current carrying wires, whether straight or looped, and the same for electrons moving in a vacuum, then it follows that there can't be completely transverse waves in electromagnetic waves. Instead, the secondary wave component must necessarily be described as a radially moving, longitudinally alternating, Faradayic inductive wave component.

It seems to me that the only type of radially moving energy disturbance that could provide both transverse oscillations and longitudinal oscillations, as required in the above description, would be radially expanding, alternately rolling, toroids, with the energy supply at their common center.

Contrary opinions or questions welcome at the Visitors Forum link below:

http://www.network54.com/Forum/304711