Electricity and Magnetism
Animated diagram showing the operation of a tuned circuit (LC circuit). The capacitor stores energy in its electric field E and the inductor stores energy in its magnetic field B (green). This jerky animation shows “snapshots” of the circuit at progressive points in the oscillation. The oscillations are slowed down; in an actual tuned circuit the charge oscillates back and forth tens of thousands to billions of times per second.
In electronics an LC circuit, also called a resonant circuit, tank circuit, or tuned circuit, consists of two electronic components connected together; an inductor, represented by the letter L, and a capacitor, represented by the letter C. The circuit can act as an electrical resonator, an electrical analogue of a tuning fork, storing energy oscillating at the circuit’s resonant frequency.
This is one of the clearest ways that I have come across to visualize the relationship between electricity and magnetism. On the right, the capacitor plates emphasize the polar nature of EM, so that electric force is a metaphor for binary switching – a bridging across a gap which inverts and imitates.
On the left, the induction coil emphasizes the ‘tropic’ nature of EM. The magnetic field arises as a summary of the turns, like a squaring of all of the possible orientations and angles. The turningness is juxtaposed against the flowing-ness, which are both juxtaposed against the separation and ratio-ness of the Electric side.
Of course, through Relativity, we can understand (or try to) that both the Electric and Magnetic fields are identical except that they are observed through perpendicular frames of reference. If you are synchronized to the current flow, then it is an electric circuit of positive and negative charge interactions. If you are synchronized to the resistance of the flow, then it is a magnetic field of North/South attraction-repulsion.
The deeper issue for me is really what is happening underneath all of the arrows and theory. What was actually being observed to oscillate when we first measured the frequency of a beam of light? Is it a needle of a magnetic meter? Unlike sound waves which can be said to be collisions of molecules, the energy of electromagnetic waves seems to be more like a propensity for matter to glow, spark, and change direction. It is the Promethean vibration into sensory awareness and motive expression. Matter becomes more transparent to itself, more able to ignore gaps, resistance, and gravity. What electromagnetism seems to really be is something like ‘the phenomenalization of matter’, or the twisting/stretching of inertial frames.
Leave a Reply
Recent Comments
 | ptero9 on Where the Rubber Hits the Road… |
 | multisenserealism on Multisense Taoism |
 | Marc on Multisense Taoism |
| ptero9 on Multisense Taoism |
 | Multisense Taoism |… on Continuum of Sense |
Multisense Realism 
There are deeper issues upon which the nature of electricity and magnetism depends. There are units of consciousness (call them units of sense if you prefer), just as there are units of matter. Don’t think of them as particles. Think of it as a bit of sense, a field, that cannot be broken down. It is not physical. It contains within itself infinite properties of expansion, development, and organization, yet always maintains the kernel of its own individuality.
They are aware, bits of sense. They combine with other bits forming electricity, magnetism, atoms, and molecules. The bits move faster than light. There are many millions in one atom. Each is aware of the other. In our terms, they can move backwards and forward in time. They possess their own leanings, propensities.
They are creative, moving toward different organizations, and creating and exploring probabilities such as electricity and magnetism. The bits are just beneath the range of physical matter.
They are polar, and a change in their polarity upsets their stability, whereby a new stability is almost instantly achieved. This causes the unit to become what we call a highly charged electromagnetic field with the characteristics of changing polarity suggested in your drawing. There is a rhythm that underlies this changing polarity. The “nucleus” -now using a cell analogy- would be as if the nucleus were constantly changing position. The nucleus, the initiation point is the important part of the bit, as the nucleus is important to the cell. It forms the unit, becoming the entryway into matter.
Now, with respect to those drawings in you other posts, it is the initial three-sided enclosure from which all matter must spring. The initial point forms three sides about it. There is an explosive nature as it is born, which causes the three sides to change position, so you end up with a triangular effect, with the initial point inside the triangle. This is not a physical form. The energy point then can constantly change the form of the bit. The unit may become circular, or one of the shapes you have shown us. They transform all available usable space into what they are. Certain intensities and certain positions of polarity between and among the units take solid form.
Thus, within a literally infinite field, meaningful order arose out of a propensity for significance.
With respect to electricity and magnetism, the units settled on a specific kind of organization, creating boundaries within which it behaved. They transform themselves into the structured reality they have become.
“There are units of consciousness (call them units of sense if you prefer)”
My approach is to assume that there are aspects of consciousness which are unit-like and aspects which are not. We would not say that there are units of ‘white’ composed of smaller units of colors. It’s the wrong metaphor. Consciousness has qualities, and one of the qualities of consciousness is the contra-qualitative quality of quantifiability.
“just as there are units of matter”
The unit quality of matter depends on level of sensory interpetation *ALWAYS*. It is only the qualities of solidity of matter which lends itself to unit measure. Fluids (liquids, gases, plasma) must be contained in solid vessels to become unit-like. Atomic units must be inferred by using solid instruments to freeze a brief moment into static data, etc. The fact that solid matter lends itself to quantitative measure as units should actually suggest that the exact opposite is true of subkective consciousness. Consciousness makes unit appearances by withdrawing its identification with another quality of consciousness. Consciousness objectifies to arrive at units.
“Think of it as a bit of sense, a field, that cannot be broken down. It is not physical.”
Try the opposite. Think of bits and fields as sense breaking itself down. It is physics itself.
“They are aware, bits of sense.”
Bits are not aware. There is no “they” of sense, only a “we” that is “here”.
“They combine with other bits forming electricity, magnetism, atoms, and molecules. ”
We are combination itself. There is only electricity, magnetism, etc, when we view ourselves from the outside in, from the alienated perspective of ‘they’ and ‘there’. Atoms are what we see when we look at our own looking through squinted eyes.
“The bits move faster than light. ”
Light doesn’t have a speed except in comparison to another frame of reference. Speed is a sensible comparison between sensations.
“They possess their own leanings, propensities.”
In my view, you could destroy every particle in the cosmos utterly except one, and the entire cosmos would still remain potentially accessible within the remaining. Possession is a reflection of our condition as animals, not a universal truth.
“They are creative, moving toward different organizations, and creating and exploring probabilities such as electricity and magnetism. The bits are just beneath the range of physical matter.”
Doesn’t that just create another layer of meta-matter which has no explanation? I see a universe which continues to be caused on all levels of scale, not just the microphenomenal. Our own awareness is just as monadic as that beneath the atoms.
Your view relies on the assumption of forms, functions, fields, and forces as primitive, whereas I see form-fields as spatial cross sections of sense-motives, and function-forces as temporal cross sections of sense-motives.
Speculating on the origin of matter seems like fantasy to me. Electromagnetic and quantum field theory seem to do a perfectly adequate job of explaining the origin of matter. The idea of MSR (or Theorelativity as I’m calling the part of MSR that deals specifically with physical fundamentals)is to turn all form/function force/field interpretations completely inside out, so that *all possible* third person perspectives are reducible to first person perspectives on one scale or another.
Your model will always refer back to fundamental objects and forces that are seen from the outside and understood as being things other than feelings. You start from unexperienced motion that is presumed to give rise to experience. Pansensitivity begins by setting those ideas aside and beginning from scratch. For some people, the universe is created by God. For other people the universe replaces God. Both universes can make sense, but neither universe, nor any primordial God, Force, Energy, or Light exist without sense.
If the goal is to understand your animated drawing, your explanation does not seem to do any explaining. At least I account for the changing direction of the arrows, the two different fields. If I recall, you do not even accept the reality of energy, so why the heck are you even bothering with this stuff?
I wish I could make an animated drawing like that, but no I grabbed that from Wikipedia. What I’m trying to do with it is to suggest that the arrows and signs are not literally real, but are instead clues to the deeper nature of how experience and matter relate. Energy is nothing but the relation of matter (public/ontic sense) and awareness (private/telic sense). I’m bothering with it because I’m learning more about physics and the more details I learn, the more sense it makes as sensory-motive relativity.
It is not “relation”, it is “relating”, not “experience”, but “experiencing”, as Thom Mandel has said numerous times on the forum. Your ontology requires you reify action. Reality happens to you, I happen to reality.
I don’t know how I can ever believe that there is change, without the energy to do so. If I was to say what is eternal, I am more inclined to think it is energy, not matter. But there is no way for us to prove any of this. So, we see where it will take us I guess.
I don’t really follow that forum anymore, but it is perfectly correct to talk about the total of relating as relation, and the total of experiencing as experience. I think that it is your ontology which reifies action — that is what Energy is.
It’s not that energy or matter are not eternal, but that they are shadows thrown by sensory motive relations. All matter is a spatially reflected cross-section of a sense-motive, and all energies are a logico-temporally reflected cross section of the sense-motive. Neither cross section relates to each other directly, but the reflections of both, which are public, can be used to triangulate some of the sense that is private or absolute.
Parmenides vs. Heraclitus
Both Parmenides and Heraclitus are assuming forms and functions as primitive. I’m assuming forms and functions as public reflections of the more primitive transformational senses and transfunctional motives.
It may be that “sense”, “energy, The Tao” cannot be spoken of. What concerns me is my present experience. Can I make decisions such that my life is a good experience, or am I a conscious automata as your approach seems to imply. Since guys at least as smart as us have been talkin’ bout this for at least 2600 years, ( talk about no change : ) I do not think we are gong to resolve it here.
“Both Parmenides and Heraclitus are assuming forms and functions as primitive.”
In the beginning of the Platonic dialogue, Parmenides shows his opposition to forms.
Since Parmenides denies change and motion, it makes no sense to say that he takes function as a primitive.
It may be that you are confusing his comments about perceptual reality with his comments about fundamental reality. When you say “primitive”, maybe you men primitive to perceptual reality(?)
Heraclitus’ only primitive is change.
Parmenides and Heraclitus assume a primitive reality underlying noumenal reality, underlying perceptual phenomenal reality, as no change and change respectively. Hence, Plato’s divided line is divided into 3 parts. _l__l___ , we can term triple aspect monism.
If sense is transformational, where does it get the energy to transform, or can you define “transform” such that it involves no energy. I think “action” is embedded in language. We use verb words. Even your pictures and diagrams are only symbols, they are representations of thoughts and feelings, they are not the real thing.
I read Jane Roberts and Neale Donald Walsch, unconnected, but saying the same things. And what they say makes sense to me, feels right, is validated by much of my experience, and, they (apparently) have a perspective that is outside the closed box of physical reality.
There are a lot of ways to make bread, no one of them is the right way. So maybe that is what we are doing. That’s called experince.
Why do you think that my approach implies we are automata? Sense-motive is primordial and motive is free will. To say “I don’t think we are going to resolve it here.” seems like the more fatalistic view.
“or can you define “transform” such that it involves no energy”
Yes, that’s exactly what I am doing. Just as economic activity can be defines without making ‘money’ a primitive entity which exists independently of human thoughts and actions. Instead of seeing sense as a function which detects the world, I see that function itself is a pattern of sensory experience.
As far as the Greeks go, I would say that even a flux primitive is a change of forms and functions rather than an aesthetic meta-flux of consciousness. This passage from http://www.angelfire.com/un/americahabla/rerre_apr01.htm is interesting:
“Democritus proposes that:
‘space, or the Void, had an equal right with reality, or Being, to be considered existent. He conceived of the Void as a vacuum, an infinite space in which moved an infinite number of atoms that made up Being (i.e. the physical world). These atoms are eternal and invisible; absolutely small, so small that their size cannot be diminished (hence the name atomon, or “indivisible”); absolutely full and incompressible, as they are without pores and entirely fill the space they occupy; and homogeneous, differing only in shape, arrangement, position, and magnitude.’
By proposing this theory, Democritus managed to reconcile the Heraclitean theory of flux with the theory of perfect immutability of Parmenides and demonstrate that both theories are truly complimentary for each one explains a different level of reality and do not contradict each other. It is true that, essentially, things do not change (as Parmenides claims), for they are composed of eternal and indivisible particles (atoms), but it is also true that the arrangement of this atoms could be altered resulting in apparent changes (as Heraclitus argued). ”
What I’m proposing though is that even this view of the universe is only half of the totality – the tail end, as a reduced set of sensory objects within sense.