Why don't magnets violate conservation of energy?

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the question of whether magnets violate the law of conservation of energy, particularly in the context of how they exert forces on each other and the energy dynamics involved in their interactions. Participants explore theoretical and conceptual aspects of magnetism, energy transfer, and work done by magnetic fields.

Discussion Character

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

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants express confusion about how energy is transferred when one magnet pulls another, questioning where the energy comes from if only a small amount of work is done to move the first magnet.
  • Others argue that the energy required to separate magnets or to move them back to their original position must be accounted for, suggesting that this does not violate conservation of energy.
  • One participant proposes that the energy to pull the magnets together comes from energy stored in the magnetic field due to the alignment of dipole moments during magnetization.
  • Another participant provides an analogy involving gravitational potential energy, suggesting that energy is conserved in a similar manner when objects fall.
  • Some participants clarify that the magnetic field has an energy density and that work is done when magnets move in relation to each other, which involves energy conversion between potential and kinetic forms.
  • There are discussions about whether magnets lose their magnetism over time and the implications of doing work on magnets in terms of energy storage and transfer.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants do not reach a consensus on the specifics of energy transfer in magnetic interactions. There are competing views on whether the energy comes from the magnetic field itself or from external work done, and the discussion remains unresolved regarding the implications of these ideas on the conservation of energy.

Contextual Notes

Some participants note that the discussion may not fully account for all energy costs involved in magnet interactions, and there are unresolved questions about the nature of energy storage in magnetic fields and the conditions under which magnets may lose their magnetism.

Xyius
Messages
501
Reaction score
4
One thing that always puzzled me was that to me, magnets seem to violate the law of conservation of energy. They obviously do not, and it is purely my ignorance that is allowing me to think this, but I need some explanation as to why they don't. What I mean by this is the following..

Say you have two magnets a distance "d" apart. If you slowly inch one magnet closer to the other by amount dx, there is a point where the magnet will pull the other magnet in. Therefore, would it be reasonable to say the magnet does work on the other magnet? Where did the energy come from to pull the other magnet in? It surely did not come from you, since you only gave the first magnet enough work to move it a small distance dx closer to the magnet.

I have an explanation I patched together and I would like to know how accurate it is, if at all.

Would it be perhaps that when these two magnets were first magnetized, an amount of energy went into them to align the dipole moments in the atoms. This energy was stored in the magnetic field of the magnet and it is THIS energy that it uses to pull the other magnet in. By this logic, then the magnet would eventually lose its magnetism over time, which is true correct?

How much of this, if any is correct? If its not, can anyone provide an explanation?

Thanks!
 
Physics news on Phys.org
"If you slowly inch one magnet closer to the other by amount dx, there is a point where the magnet will pull the other magnet in."

To causes such motion to get it past the forces holding them apart, takes energy.

Now they have pulled together. How much energy will it take to put it all back in the original position??

When all is taken into account, ( energy but in by Mr hand, or some other source: it is not a violation of conservation is it?

It would actually be a cost in energy.

The problem is the ideas that people promote about magnets is such; they do not account for all energy costs: and therefore believe magnets are some violation, when they of course are not.
 
lostcauses10x said:
To causes such motion to get it past the forces holding them apart, takes energy.

My confusion about that is, if I am only putting in enough energy to move the magnet a distance of dx (Meaning, all my expended energy is going into movement of the first magnet only) then where would the energy come from to pull the other magnet in?

Maybe I am just not understanding something.. :\
 
Xyius said:
My confusion about that is, if I am only putting in enough energy to move the magnet a distance of dx (Meaning, all my expended energy is going into movement of the first magnet only) then where would the energy come from to pull the other magnet in?

Maybe I am just not understanding something.. :\


you are only looking at one side of the cycle.

If you are standing ton the edge of a diving board, the only energy you need to fall a certain distance is to move yourself off the board. Gravity does the rest, yet to put yourself back to that position will cost you energy.

It is easy to see only part of the situation and think it is a violation of COE. When the whole situation is reviewed COE holds.

With the magnet it is easy to think a little input will get it to move therefore a violation of COE, yet when it is fully looped back to the start position it is a loss in energy and not a violation of COE.
Think about this: How did the magnets get to the position of being apart in the first place??
 
Xyius said:
Therefore, would it be reasonable to say the magnet does work on the other magnet? Where did the energy come from to pull the other magnet in?
Yes, one magnet does work on the other. A magnetic field has a certain energy density, opposite magnetic fields attract and cancel each other, this reduces the energy and does mechanical work. Separating the magnets requires work and restores the energy of the separated fields.
 
DaleSpam said:
Yes, one magnet does work on the other. A magnetic field has a certain energy density, opposite magnetic fields attract and cancel each other, this reduces the energy and does mechanical work. Separating the magnets requires work and restores the energy of the separated fields.

Ohh I see! Okay I understand now!
 
Let me know what you think about these videos

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vo2-Qb3fUYs https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WjYxvjV6xMk
 
Last edited:
The magnetic field has a potential energy related to the field strength, position of an object in the field, and the force that the field applies to such an object. If the magnets were in space free of any drag, then as they approach or repel, potential energy is converted into kinetic energy (until there's a collision).
 
  • #10
Xyius said:
Would it be perhaps that when these two magnets were first magnetized, an amount of energy went into them to align the dipole moments in the atoms. This energy was stored in the magnetic field of the magnet and it is THIS energy that it uses to pull the other magnet in.

This is correct. Aligning dipole moments takes energy ( just like aligning two magnet bar). Permanent magnets have strong anisotropy, i.e when the dipoles are aligned ( by an external field) in their preferred direction, they remains in that direction even after removing the external field. So the energy is stored in the magnet.

By this logic, then the magnet would eventually lose its magnetism over time, which is true correct?

How much of this, if any is correct? If its not, can anyone provide an explanation?

Why would a magnet lose its energy? If you mean by doing work, when you again separate the absorbed material from the magnet, you do work on the magnet again and increase its magneto static energy. In the video posted by above, anytime the boy puts the bullet in, he has to do work as the magnets repel the bullet.
 
  • #11
I'll offer the following gravity analog. Suppose an object is sitting at the very edge of a 100 meter high cliff. Then you push it a small distance dx, and it falls over the edge. Where does the energy come from, that it can reach the bottom of the cliff with a kinetic energy of roughly 1000 J/kg?

The answer is that the energy was there all along, in the form of gravitational potential energy.
 
  • #12
Redbelly98 said:
I'll offer the following gravity analog. Suppose an object is sitting at the very edge of a 100 meter high cliff. Then you push it a small distance dx, and it falls over the edge. Where does the energy come from, that it can reach the bottom of the cliff with a kinetic energy of roughly 1000 J/kg?

The answer is that the energy was there all along, in the form of gravitational potential energy.

Ok but your analogy is incomplete. For example let's talk about the "wheel invention". If you try to move a wheel in the horizontal direction, you will find is not very difficult to accomplish such thing because you are only dealing with friction forces but avoiding putting energy in vertical direction then not changing gravitational potential energy of the object. If you elevate a wheel to a high cliff somehow avoiding friction forces, you need at most a certain amount of work because gravity. So, when you add that up to work done by wheel when it falls then you should have zero.
But in videos posted above, the people didn't need to overcome gravity field nor (at least as I see) experienced a force in their hands before putting magnet gun in the rail. So think about it.
 
Last edited:
  • #13
inelwk22 said:
nor (at least as I see) experienced a force in their hands before putting magnet gun in the rail.
There is no evdience that the force on their hands is negligible. Absence of evidence of force is not evidence of absence of force.
 
  • #14
DaleSpam said:
There is no evdience that the force on their hands is negligible. Absence of evidence of force is not evidence of absence of force.

Ok I agree, these things not proper physics experiment yet. So I should have no more expectation for now.
 

Similar threads

Undergrad Magnetic Resonance physics question: RF pulse role and 'in-phase'
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
3K
High School Conservation of energy and magnetism
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
2K
High School Permanent magnets and energy question
  • · Replies 16 ·
Replies
16
Views
3K
Undergrad How Does a Magnetic Repulsion Machine Work?
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
Undergrad Questions related to magnetic shielding separating two like poles
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
1K
High School Experiment issues (electromagnetism)
  • · Replies 42 ·
2
Replies
42
Views
4K
Undergrad Motional EMF in Faraday disc, co-rotating magnet axial mean flux
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
980
Graduate Conservation of Energy on Current-Carrying Wire in Magnetic Field
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
Undergrad Is This Correct Description of Magnetic Saturation?
  • · Replies 14 ·
Replies
14
Views
2K
Undergrad How induction works within a coil (nuances of it)
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K