What is the Nature of Magnetism?

  • Context: Undergrad 
  • Thread starter Thread starter bozo the clown
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Force Magnetism
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the nature of magnetism, exploring the forces experienced between magnets, the underlying principles of magnetic fields, and the interactions at play. Participants delve into theoretical aspects, conceptual clarifications, and the relationship between magnetic and electric fields.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Technical explanation
  • Conceptual clarification
  • Debate/contested
  • Mathematical reasoning

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants describe the force between magnets as magnetism, part of the electromagnetic force, and reference field lines that illustrate the direction of these forces.
  • There is mention of the magnetic field seeking a minimum energy configuration, influencing how magnets attract or repel each other.
  • One participant questions the role of atoms in the air or dust between magnets, while others clarify that these do not significantly affect the magnetic force experienced.
  • Discussions arise about the concept of magnetic fields being abstract and not requiring a medium, with references to the microscopic structure of magnets, such as domains.
  • Some participants introduce the idea of virtual particles, like photons, as carriers of the magnetic force, raising questions about the nature of action at a distance.
  • There is a comparison of the mathematical relationships governing magnetic and gravitational forces, with some arguing they share similar forms while others emphasize their differences.
  • Participants explore the connection between electric fields and magnetic fields, particularly how motion can influence the presence of a magnetic field.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express multiple competing views regarding the nature of magnetic fields, the role of particles, and the mathematical relationships involved. The discussion remains unresolved with no consensus on several points.

Contextual Notes

Some claims depend on specific definitions of terms like permeability and permittivity, and there are unresolved questions about the fundamental nature of magnetic interactions and the role of virtual particles.

  • #31
turin said:
All right! I did it, finally. I got a whoppin' 4.9 sec fall time through a 1.5 m aluminum tube!
Congratulations!

So now we know that the visibility of the effect is highly dependent on the strength of the magnet.

-Zooby
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #32
bozo the clown said:
so physicists still do not know what the magnetic field is actually made up of right ?
I think this is more or less true. It's true for almost everything, though. At a certain level they no longer know what anything is actually made up of. All they can tell you is what it does, not what it is.
 
  • #33
Isn't the magnetic field just invented(YES, invented) by scientists? There is actually no such thing as a magnetic field, if you define things to be made up of some mass. It is just a construct of the human mind so as to easily see the effects of a magnetic field on the system we are talking about. If you ask what it is made of, then the best answer would be: nothing, save the imagination of the human brain.
 
  • #34
turin said:
This magnet is ridiculously strong. I have no idea what it is - the mystery magnet.
My guess is that it is Samarium-Cobalt.
 
  • #35
bozo the clown said:
so physicists still do not know what the magnetic field is actually made up of right ?
These sorts of questions are interesting. If you look back on these forums, you will find many similar: What is the real mechanism of gravity, of mass, of electric charge, etc. I cannot help feeling that it is a result of our conditioning whereby we have a real feel for mechanical effects, but none for other kinds of effects. I also cannot help feeling that those who ask these questions need something like microscopic mechanical devices like springs and linkages. If that's the case, they are out of luck. There are no mechanical devices operating behind the scenes. In fact, even the mechanical things we know about are fields (mostly electric) at the microscopic level. Yes, when you push your hand against something, the reason it does not go through is that there are electric fields between the atoms that keeps them together. So, in a sense, everything is fields. It's one of the things you get used to when you learn physics. Fields just are, and they have certain properties physicists know and have measured.
 
  • #36
krab: "I cannot help feeling that it is a result of our conditioning whereby we have a real feel for mechanical effects, but none for other kinds of effects."

I think you've hit the nail on the head. That "real feel" you mention is a neurological one: our nerves and brain are able to make an extremely useful kind of sense out of mechanical forces. Not so with fields.

krab: "I also cannot help feeling that those who ask these questions need something like microscopic mechanical devices like springs and linkages."

Again: nail on the head. That is exactly what people are looking for when they ask these questions. When a person starts wondering about these things they have no other reference frame at their disposal from which to consider them. They are not at liberty, so to speak, to ask from any other standpoint: you push two repelling magnets together, your sences demand you to understand that this is a completely mechanical phenomenon. Your mind tells you: "there must be micro-springs too fine to be seen with the naked eye." or something similar.

Krab: "So, in a sense, everything is fields. It's one of the things you get used to when you learn physics. Fields just are, and they have certain properties physicists know and have measured."

Getting used to it is, I believe, dependent on a given individual acquiring enough information about fields to see that the micro-spring (or whatever) explanation just won't satisfy everything that a field can do. You have to learn a certain number of their mysterious properties before you can face the fact that fields are a thing unto themselves, that "they just are". In other words, you have to know a fair amount about how they behave in a fair amount of circumstances before you realize that "What fields are" isn't a secret that hasn't been unlocked yet in terms of micro-springs.

What fields do, is consistent and measurable, but what they are ends up not being expressible by mechanical analogy. Fields are fields.
 
Last edited:

Similar threads

  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K
  • · Replies 32 ·
2
Replies
32
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 35 ·
2
Replies
35
Views
7K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
1K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
2K