The discussion revolves around the differences between the north and south magnetic poles, exploring their unique characteristics and the underlying principles that define them. It touches on theoretical models, atomic and molecular structures, and the nature of magnetic dipoles.
Participants express differing views on the nature of magnetic poles, with some supporting the Gilbert model and others favoring the Ampere model. The discussion remains unresolved regarding which model provides a more accurate representation of magnetic phenomena.
The discussion highlights the complexity of magnetic dipole models and the assumptions underlying each perspective. There are unresolved questions about the implications of these models for understanding magnetic fields.
Physicist50 said:I was wondering what the difference in the magnetic poles north and south is and what makes them unique.
They are fictitious entities that correspond to what is commonly known as the Gilbert model of a magnetic dipole. It treats magnetic material as consisting of tiny dipoles comprised of fictitious point magnetic charges (monopoles), in analogy with real electric dipoles that can exist in a dielectric material. When such dipoles are uniformly aligned along say a bar magnet, one face is then considered to be exposed to north magnetic charges, the other to south magnetic charges. This picture is consistent with the correct external magnetic field generated by such a permanent magnet - although in real magnets magnetization is never completely uniform and the 'magnetic charge' distribution is somewhat more complicated than just charges at each end face.Physicist50 said:Indeed, but what makes one magnet north and one magnet south? Is there a difference in atomic or molecular structure, or the way they work?