What causes magnetism?

  1. What causes magnetism? :surprised
     
  2. jcsd
  3. krab

    krab 905
    Science Advisor

    There are 2 sources: Moving electric fields, and elementary particles.
     
  4. Moving electric fields (charges) explains pratically all that we see in our daily lives.

    Which elementary particles and how?
     
  5. ZapperZ

    ZapperZ 29,752
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    If I may hazzard a guess, Krab is pointing out to the spins and angular momentum of quantum particles, which is the origin of magnetism in matter. Spin,for example, isn't "moving charges", and yet, they exert a magnetic moment.

    Zz.
     
  6. krab

    krab 905
    Science Advisor

    Right, Zz. Besides "electromagnets", there are materials that are intrinsically magnetic. These are quite common in our daily lives, and do not owe their magnetism to moving charges. In these, there are unpaired electrons so the magnetic moments from all electrons in the bulk material do not cancel. All permanent magnets are of this kind.
     
  7. I see. The explanation I was aware of for permanent magnets was that they were due to the electron revolution around nuclei. It's only as good as the Bohr model and perhaps not accurate numerically. At least it allows not having to introduce spin (which, I agree, is more accurate).
     
  8. ZapperZ

    ZapperZ 29,752
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    Well, if that is true, then EVERYTHING would be a permanent magnet, since every material has an "electron revolution around nuclei". But the fact that we don't, and only certain types are paramagnet, ferromagnet, etc., implies that it is a lot more complicated than that. Quantum magnetism is one of the most complex and complicated many-body problem.

    Zz.
     
  9. Gokul43201

    Gokul43201 11,141
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    And few people know that this is one of Heisenberg's most important works.

    Yoohooo, Heisenberg was a Cond. Mat. physicist ! :wink: :biggrin:
     
  10. Well, it could be argued that in magnets, the normals to each orbit are aligned (same z), while in all other materials, they are not (random z). Again, I don't claim this to be a sufficient explanation to a scientist, but it is one I that have seen in a (perhaps an elementary) physics textbook. I am not sure where exactly the theory fails, although it surely does at some point.
     
  11. Magnetism of the brain and heart:

    Both brain and heart exhibit magnetism as the magnetic field in both cases is huge. Can someone venture to guess the cause and effect of this magnetic field?
     
  12. ZapperZ

    ZapperZ 29,752
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    I'm sorry, but the magnetic field of the brain and heart are HUGE? Define "huge"!

    If they are THAT huge, then it doesn't explain why detecting neuron signals from the brain require some of the most sensitive, superconducting curcuit we can build today.

    Zz.
     
  13. Gokul43201

    Gokul43201 11,141
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    Ummm...that's nearly true, but not as much an explanation as it is hand waviness.

    Clearly there's a lot more involved in understanding why certain materials have the spins (normals, in your textbook) aligned in the same direction, while others want the spins to line up in opposite directions, while a third class doesn't really care which way they line up. Your textbook has no explanation for what causes these differences, and surely is not expected to. It is sufficient for the high school student to understand that there can be interactions (or exchange mechanisms) between spins that make them want to line up some certain way or another.
     
  14. ZapperZ

    ZapperZ 29,752
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    It fails because for an s-orbital, there are no prefered direction of symmetry. So even if they are all "alligned", you still get no net magnetic moment due to all of those "revolution" around the nuclei.

    Zz.
     
  15. I am really sorry that I am not able to find the article I read the other day which referred to the effect of microwaves on the brain. I would like to quote the numbers and I just dont have them now!
     
  16. ZapperZ

    ZapperZ 29,752
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    The effect of microwave on the brain say nothing about the magnetic field of the brain. Microwave has a HUGE effect on water. But does water have a "huge" magnetic field? Try passing water through a coil and see if it can induce any measureable current.

    Zz.
     
  17. Gokul43201

    Gokul43201 11,141
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    This reminds me of a paper I read, in Nature (or Science, not sure which) some ten years ago. It was mostly about magnet design. A group in Tokyo (I think), built these giant conventional (not-superconducting, if I remember right) electromagnets fed by 4 storey tall capacitors, which make a huge transient current.

    I don't remember the field strength of the magnet, but I remember a picture where a magnet held above the center of a long trough of water caused it (the water) to mound up below the magnet. Subsequently, a little copper sulphate was added to the water making it (blue, and more importantly,) diamagnetic. Now, bringing the magnet close made the liquid part under it. They called this the "Moses Effect" !! :biggrin:
     
  18. Microwaves can cook your brain. Stay out of the oven. The brain magnetic field is very tiny.
     
  19. A group in Europe also used very powerful magnets to levitate a live frog.
     
  20. ZapperZ and Gokul43201,

    I just checked again in the book in question (pre-calculus and pre-modern physics level). There are about 17 pages based on magnetism in matter based on the Bohr model of the atom. The most impressive part is that it predicts [tex]M = \frac{e}{2m}L[/tex] for the magnetic moment of a hydrogen atom, apparently the same value as a quantum theory predicts. Paramagnetism, diamagnetism and ferromagnetism are also "covered". I consider it to be an excellent introduction, as it gives very good insight into the matter (I like puns).
     
  21. But why is no one answering simply? : Current.
     
Know someone interested in this topic? Share a link to this question via email, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook

Have something to add?