Is Electromagnetism the Force Behind Dye Movement in Electrophoresis?

  • Thread starter Thread starter RED119
  • Start date Start date
AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers on the role of electromagnetism in the movement of charged dyes during electrophoresis. One participant argues that electromagnetism is responsible for the movement due to the interaction of charged particles, while another insists that only electric forces are relevant, dismissing magnetism in this context. The importance of friction, particularly viscosity, is highlighted as a significant factor affecting dye movement. Ultimately, while electrophoresis involves electromagnetic forces, the conversation suggests that a more specific focus on electric forces is more appropriate for understanding the phenomenon. The debate underscores the complexity of interpreting forces in scientific contexts.
RED119
Messages
29
Reaction score
3
So there was a question on this sheet in my biology class which asked what main force is responsible for the movement of dyes (these dyes had a formal charge and were all water soluble, and were small molecules). I answered electromagnetism. This was marked wrong and he said it was wrong because they aren't like magnets, it is more of an attraction to a large electric charge. I could just be stupid but is that not what electromagnetism is? The interaction of charged particles, magnetic fields and electric current?... Did he just not know what electromagnetism was or am I in the wrong here?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
I agree with your teacher, no magnetism here, only electric forces.

In a way you are right that electric interactions are part of a larger system of interactions, but there is no need to describe the phenomenon using the most general theory. When you call for electromagnetism here it sounds as if you were guessing.
 
Borek said:
I agree with your teacher, no magnetism here, only electric forces.

In a way you are right that electric interactions are part of a larger system of interactions, but there is no need to describe the phenomenon using the most general theory. When you call for electromagnetism here it sounds as if you were guessing.
But electromagnetism is responsible for the charge of the molecules, their and their movement in the electric field. When the question asked what force was responsible for the movement it seemed like it was looking for a the general force that caused it. Especially when friction wasn't a factor due to the size and solubility of the particles.
 
RED119 said:
Especially when friction wasn't a factor due to the size and solubility of the particles.

Quite the opposite, friction due to viscosity (as described by the Stoke's law) is an important factor here.

As I said before: no magnetic counterpart to the process, Coulomb forces are perfectly enough to explain the drift.
 
  • Like
Likes Bystander
In the context of the four fundamental forces (strong, weak, electromagnetism, gravity), I agree that electrophoresis falls under the category of a phenomena involving the electromagnetic force.
 
Ygggdrasil said:
In the context of the four fundamental forces (strong, weak, electromagnetism, gravity)

Question is whether it is a convenient context to discuss observations in this case.
 
Thread 'Confusion regarding a chemical kinetics problem'
TL;DR Summary: cannot find out error in solution proposed. [![question with rate laws][1]][1] Now the rate law for the reaction (i.e reaction rate) can be written as: $$ R= k[N_2O_5] $$ my main question is, WHAT is this reaction equal to? what I mean here is, whether $$k[N_2O_5]= -d[N_2O_5]/dt$$ or is it $$k[N_2O_5]= -1/2 \frac{d}{dt} [N_2O_5] $$ ? The latter seems to be more apt, as the reaction rate must be -1/2 (disappearance rate of N2O5), which adheres to the stoichiometry of the...
I don't get how to argue it. i can prove: evolution is the ability to adapt, whether it's progression or regression from some point of view, so if evolution is not constant then animal generations couldn`t stay alive for a big amount of time because when climate is changing this generations die. but they dont. so evolution is constant. but its not an argument, right? how to fing arguments when i only prove it.. analytically, i guess it called that (this is indirectly related to biology, im...
Back
Top