Torsion Fields as a Reality
##plugins.themes.bootstrap3.article.main##
Torsion fields are currently perceived as science fiction. It is shown here that such a perception is incorrect since the existence of torsion fields around terrestrial objects is determined by the laws of classical electrodynamics. In addition, it is shown here that there are both natural and artificial phenomena that can be considered as evidence of the reality of torsion fields.
Introduction
The term “torsion fields” seems to be completely discredited now. This discredit is completely unjustified since the existence of literally “torsion fields” around earthly objects is determined by the laws of classical electrodynamics. Moreover, the existence of torsion fields demonstrates a number of wellknown phenomena, both natural and artificial.
Theoretical Framework
In the beginning, it is worth remembering Kyon’s rule, which describes the distribution of electrical charges between two phases that differ in dielectric permeability: when two phases come into contact, the phase with a higher dielectric permeability acquires a positive electric charge, and the phase with a lower dielectric permeability acquires a negative electric charge [1]. Thus, taking into account this rule and the fact that the dielectric permeability of most substances is greater than the dielectric permeability of air, equal to ~1 [1]–[3], it becomes clear that most objects in contact with air have a positive charge and electric fields, the vectors of which are directed from these objects (Fig. 1, left).
Taking into account, at the same time, the existence of the geomagnetic field (Fig. 2), it becomes clear that all objects located on the earth’s surface are sources of Poynting vectors:
(1)S=(c/4π)[E;B]where: c–speed of light in air,
E–electric field vector,
B–geomagnetic field vector [4].
Apparently, the characteristics of these Poynting vectors are quite obvious. So, assuming that the geomagnetic field does not change near the sphere shown in Fig. 1 on the left, one can conclude that the absolute values of its Poynting vectors in the horizontal plane decrease in the same way as the absolute value of its Poynting vectors in the horizontal plane E, i.e., proportional to 1/r^{2} (where r is the distance from the centre of a given sphere to some point in its surroundings). Also, it can be concluded that the absolute values of these Poynting vectors in the vertical direction decrease like a cosine wave and are equal to 0 on a vertical line passing through the center of the same sphere. At the same time, within the framework of the stated topic, special attention is deserved by the fact that all these Poynting vectors are oriented along a circle when viewed from above (Fig. 3), thereby forming a torsion field of the sphere under discussion.
It is also important that all these Poynting vectors are oriented counterclockwise (Fig. 3) and, thus, determine the same cyclic movement of any positive charge, thereby manifesting the torsion field of the sphere under discussion; apparently, it is quite obvious that negative charges, including electrons, move in this torsion field in the opposite direction, that is, clockwise. Thus, there is reason to believe that any earthly object that acquires a positive charge upon contact with air is a source of not only an electric field (Fig. 1, left), but also a source of a similar torsion field (Fig. 3), which, in principle, can be characterized using the rotor vector function rot S, i.e., the same function with which it is customary to characterize the magnetic field, rot B itself [2].
In continuation, it is worth noting that all the charges that rotate under the influence of all these Poynting vectors (Fig. 3) are also under the influence of Lorentz forces arising due to the movement of these charges relative to the geomagnetic field: (2)FL=(q/c)[v;B]where: q–rotating charge,
c–speed of light in air,
v–the velocity vector of the rotating charge,
B–geomagnetic field vector [2], [3].
Equally important is that all these Lorentz forces are directed towards the center of the sphere in question (Fig. 4).
Therefore, the charges closest to this very sphere are simultaneously acted upon by the oppositely directed electrostatic force qE and the Lorentz force (2), capable of balancing each other: (3)qE=(q/c)[v;B]
It is quite obvious that with such balancing these same charges find themselves in a state of dynamic equilibrium.
It is, apparently, no less obvious that a complete description of this equilibrium is quite complex. In particular, the complexity of such a description is determined by the fact that these same charges, moving in a circle, create magnetic fields directed opposite to the geomagnetic field inside this circle, and magnetic fields directed along the geomagnetic field outside the same circle [2]. In view of all this, a particular solution to the system of (1)–(3) seems very problematic (and this is without taking into account other forces, in particular friction forces). Despite this, it is very likely that any terrestrial object in contact with air forms a dynamically stable positively charged environment, thereby strengthening its Poynting vectors (Fig. 3) and maintaining the stability and stable cyclic movement of this very environment.
To complete the picture, it is also worth discussing torsion fields created by terrestrial objects that have a negative charge (Fig. 1, right), for example, dielectric objects immersed in water (it should be taken into account that the dielectric permeability of most dielectrics is much less than the dielectric permeability of water, which can reach ~90 at low temperatures and in the dark [1], [2]). So, reasoning in a similar way, one can be convinced that in the northern hemisphere of the Earth the sphere shown in Fig. 1, right, generates Poynting vectors rotating clockwise and Lorentz forces directed from it. Apparently, it is also clear that these Lorentz forces are aimed at increasing the negative charge of this very sphere (Fig. 1, right) and, consequently, its Poynting vectors.
Since all the above considerations are based exclusively on the purely experimental Kyon’s rule [1] and on the laws of classical electrodynamics [2]–[4], which only reflect reality, the existence of phenomena demonstrating the reality of torsion fields is quite expected; in particular, one can expect the existence of phenomena demonstrating stable circular motion under terrestrial conditions. It should be noted that these expectations are not in vain. Thus, it is clear that in the northern hemisphere, a tornado accumulating positively charged water vapor [6] rotates counterclockwise when viewed from above (Fig. 5, left), that is, in full accordance with (1); it is quite likely that it is the combined action of the forces described by (1)–(3) that ensures the stable rotation of the tornado.
At the same time, taking into account the above considerations, it becomes clear why the Sargasso Sea, also located in the northern hemisphere, but accumulating negatively charged water [5], is limited by stable currents rotating clockwise when viewed from above (Fig. 5, right). So, taking once again into account all the above considerations, there is enough reason to perceive both the flows that form the tornado (Fig. 5, left) and the currents limiting the Sargasso Sea (Fig. 5, right) as Onsager electric currents associated with mass transfer [7], [8].
It also seems worthwhile to recall here the existence of phenomena that make it possible to confirm all the above considerations in laboratory conditions. Thus, it was previously established that negatively charged water flowing down from a narrow slit rotates clockwise (Fig. 6, left), while positively charged water flowing out in the same way rotates counterclockwise (Fig. 6, right) [9].
Apparently, it is clear that the difference in the direction of rotation of oppositely charged waters (Fig. 6) should not be explained using the Carioles theory [10]. At the same time, it is quite obvious that this difference in the directions of rotation of oppositely charged waters can be successfully explained using the above considerations about torsion fields created by terrestrial objects.
Because this is relevant, it is also useful to extrapolate the above considerations to the Great Pacific Garbage Patch (Fig. 7), the stability of which is considered to be as unclear as its ability to accumulate plastic.
So, this extrapolation itself suggests that the Great Pacific Garbage Patch was created by the same Poynting vectors (4) and Lorentz forces (5) that created the Sargasso Sea (Fig. 5, right) and provided a negative charge to its central part [5]. Considering that polyethylene is the main component of the Great Pacific Garbage Patch, it is appropriate to verify that it is negatively electrized upon contact with water. To clarify the reason for this particular electrification of polyethylene, it is necessary to again use Kyon’s rule. Thus, taking into account this rule, as well as the fact that the dielectric permeability of water, which is ~78.5 at 25 °C [1], significantly exceeds the dielectric permeability of polyethylene, which is ~2.2 at room temperature [3], it becomes clear that the polyethylene of the Great Pacific Garbage Patch may have an exclusively negative charge. At the same time, all the above considerations give reason to conclude that it is Lorentz forces (5) that direct negatively charged polyethylene to the center of the Great Pacific Garbage Patch. Thus, it is the movement of negatively charged polyethylene towards the center of the Great Pacific Garbage Patch that further proves the correctness of all the above considerations regarding torsion fields.
Since this is where it seems appropriate, this diffusion of negatively charged polyethylene to the center of the Great Pacific Garbage Patch can also be identified with the Onsager’s electric current associated with mass transfer [7], [8]; it seems quite clear that it is the possibility of such an identification that indicates that the existence of the Great Pacific Garbage Patch cannot be explained using purely mechanical concepts.
One way or another, it seems that all these phenomena (Figs. 5–7) visualize the discussed torsion fields no worse than small iron filings visualize a magnetic field and than a suspension of semolina in oil visualizes an electrostatic field.
Conclusion
Before drawing any conclusions, it is worth recalling once again that all of the above is based solely on Kyon’s rule [1], which is purely experimental, and the laws of classical electrodynamics [2]–[4], which only describe reality. Apparently, it is precisely this basis that inspires confidence in the reality of torsion fields, at least in terrestrial conditions. At the same time, it is this basis that allows extending the above considerations about torsion fields to other objects, including extraterrestrial ones. So, the extension of these considerations to the Great Red Spot of Jupiter (Fig. 8, left) and the North Pole of Saturn (Fig. 8, right), the nature of their longterm rotation remains mysterious [11]–[17], seems both justified and promising.
One can also hope that these same considerations can find the same understanding among supporters of the curvature of space [18]–[20] as the previously obtained result (Fig. 9).
References

Nekrasov BV. General Chemistry, vol. 1. Moscow: Chemistry; 1974. In Russian.
Google Scholar
1

Purcell E. Electricity and magnetism. In BPC, vol. 2. NY: McGrawHill Science, 1984.
Google Scholar
2

Kuchling H. Physik, Leipzig: VEB Fachbuchverlag; 1980. In German.
Google Scholar
3

Crawford FS. Waves. In BPC, vol. 3. NY: McGrawHill Science, 1968.
Google Scholar
4

Pivovarenko Y. Negative electrization of the Sargasso Sea as the cause of its anomaly. Am J Electromagn Appl, 2020;8(2):33–9. doi: 10.11648/j.ajea.20200802.11.
Google Scholar
5

Pivovarenko Y. Earth’s electromagnetic forces and their participation in the creation of tornadoes. Am J Electromagn Appl, 2019;7(1):8–12. doi: 10.11648/j.ajea.20190701.12.
Google Scholar
6

Onsager L. Reciprocal relations in irreversible processes. Phys Rev, 1931;37:405–26. doi: 10.1103/PhysRev.37.405.
Google Scholar
7

Hartmann MA, Weinkamer R, Fratzl P, Svoboda J, Fischer FD. Onsager’s coefficients and diffusion laws—a Monte Carlo study. Philos Mag, 2005;85(12):1243–60. doi: 10.1080/14786430412331333356.
Google Scholar
8

Pivovarenko Y. ±Water: demonstration of water properties, depending on its electrical potential. World J Appl Phys, 2018;3(1):13–8. doi: 10.11648/j.wjap.20180301.12.
Google Scholar
9

Kittel C, Knight WD, Ruderman MA. Mechanics. In BPC, vol. 1. Massachusetts: McGrawHill: Inc, 1973.
Google Scholar
10

Denning WF. Early history of the great red spot on Jupiter. Mon Not R Astron Soc, 1899;59(10). doi: 10.1093/mnras/59.10.574.
Google Scholar
11

SanchezLavega A, Orton GS, Morales R, Lecacheux J, Colas F, Fisher B, et al. The merger of two giant anticyclones in the atmosphere of Jupiter. Icarus, 2001;149(2):491–5. doi: 10.1006/icar.2000.6548.
Google Scholar
12

Nurmammadov MA. A new mathematical justification for the hypothesis of the longevity of Jupiter’s great red spot. J Appl Sci, 2023;13(09):1512–29. doi: 10.4236/ojapps.2023.139120.
Google Scholar
13

Godfrey DA. A hexagonal feature around Saturn’s North pole. Icarus, 1988;76(2):335–56. doi: 10.1016/00191035(88)900759.
Google Scholar
14

Godfrey DA. The rotation period of Saturn’s polar hexagon. Science, 1990;247(4947):1206–8. doi: 10.1126/science.247.4947.1206.
Google Scholar
15

SanchezLavega A, Lecacheux J, Colas F, Laques P. Groundbased observations of Saturn’s North polar spot and hexagon. Science, 1993;260(5106):329–32. doi: 10.1126/science.260.5106.329.S2CID.
Google Scholar
16

Baines KH, Momary TW, Fletcher LN, Showman AP, RoosSerote M, Brown RH, et al. Saturn’s north polar cyclone and hexagon at depth revealed by Cassini/VIMS. Planet Space Sci, 2009;57(14–15):1671–81. doi: 10.1016/j.pss.2009.06.026.
Google Scholar
17

Hakim R. What is curved space?. In An Introduction to Relativistic Gravitation, Cambridge University Press, 1999. doi: 10.1017/CBO9781139174213.007.
Google Scholar
18

Feynman RP, Leighton RB, Sands M. Curved space. In FLP, vol. 2. NY: Basic Books, 2011.
Google Scholar
19

Schmitz W. The Curvature of Spacetime. In Understanding Relativity, Berlin: Springer, 2022, pp. 131–52.
Google Scholar
20

Pivovarenko Y. Gravity and surface tension as driving forces of electroosmosis. Am J Phys Chem, 2022;11(4):85–90. doi: 10.11648/j.ajpc.20221104.11.
Google Scholar
21
Most read articles by the same author(s)

Yuri Pivovarenko,
Water Evaporation as an Electromagnetic Phenomenon , European Journal of Applied Physics: Vol. 6 No. 3 (2024)