What is magnetism, really?

"What this weird force called magnetism really is."

Don't know what it really is, but I can speculate? I think that possibly space and matter have some things in common, namely equal and opposite forces? expansion where things are forced apart, and contraction where things are drawn together, and between them there is a point of equilibrium, and the displacement of that point of equilibrium determines a forces strength?

So to speculate, the atomic structure of an magnet separates the two force, expansion and contraction, and like a battery which separates positive and negative? there is the need to find an external path? the lines of magnetic force representing that path? like poles increasing the potential to find equilibrium. like poles bringing forces into equilibrium. Just my weird way of looking at it.

Regards JD.

Hi jd,

"I think that possibly space and matter have some things in common, namely equal and opposite forces?"

I'm not sure I follow you jd. What would be the equal and opposite forces acting upon space? Are you referring to dark matter and gravity? What does this have to do with the force field produced by a permanent magnet just sitting still, all alone and lonely, with flux field extending out in all directions seeking anything at all that responds to magnetic flux?

It's interesting that magnetism is selective in the way it acts from a distance. Only ferrous materials seem to be directly influenced. Non-ferrous materials, although they may be current carrying conductors are by-and-large unaffected by a magnet in the vicinity. Specifically, I'm referring to ferrous/non-ferrous materials that are NOT carrying a current at the time they are being affected/not-affected by a magnet in the vicinity.

So what is the property that causes magnetism to affect one but not the other?

-John

I'm a layman, and these are some of my ideas. hope they make sense. If you are hoping for scientifically provable answers... good luck.

*****************************************************************

The answer to this questions is the clue to the answer to any similar question into the nature of space-time and energy.

matter is densely stored energy. It represents a large amount of energy.

Energy is time itself, in motion.

Motion is impossible. There is no "Now" because time is also an illusion. Time is created when a potential time is recognized, and then is unable to exist, so is forced to the future, which is also impossible, so jumps back to the original point, which starts the cycle again. this is why we have an arrow of time, moving us to the future.

Because of the dynamic nature of time, jumping between impossiblities, inertia is also created, at the 'time' level. (any particle created thus, is so busy going back and forth, that it tends to exhibit the property of inertia) There is an escalating cascade of impossibilities that occur when the first 3d time point moves to the future, because of the fact that the potential that returns from the future is now different and reversed from the the original potential, and can not co-exist, then it must move to a different space location. thus, space is also created in this same dynamic.

All things are possible, if you are a minimum of 1 dimension outside of the system you are studying.

Motion is only the appearance of motion, but is actually the jump of location of the quantum, directly from 1 infinitesimal coordinate to the next. It is not continuous. Like the traditional view of the photon, it is actually ducking out to another dimension, and returning at a different location.

It can appear as a wave or a particle, but is neither. It is more like a spin. A vortex. A vortex sucking spins, and distorts the fluid into a fundamental shape. The shape is the wave, and also because of the vortex, the wave has the property of inertia, and therefore behaves as both wave and particle.

Magnetism is a line that is spinning longitudinally, like a loop, with in infinitesimally small centre, or probably the centre is even in another dimension, just like the photon. One thing is certain, that magnetism is spinning, and then the lines of force obey 'the right hand rule' in electrical terms.

All electromagnetic particles spin, but can change shape, from one in motion at light speed, to one in atomic orbit, to magnetic line. They can change from one to the other while conserving 'energy'.

I think that electrons do not 'orbit' but sit in fixed positions and spin, and space themselves out equally from their neighbors. Atoms all have different configurations of the basic elements that make them up, and this makes for different holes in the lattice of their matrix. Ferrous materials are those which spinning magnetic lines of force find 'domains' in which their spin is a natural fit. All materials have a different ability to attract or repel magnetism. Equally, all materials have different electrostatic properties also.

a more difficult question is: what is force?

Magnetic lines, electrons, and photons are all linked. The energy can be any of the three. What if the electron and magnetic line are two forms the energy can take, in this universe, or an anti-universe, and can convert under force between the two. the photon would be the perfect balance between the two. If it is a line of magnetism in our universe, it would be an electron (anti-electron?) in the other, and vice versa.

maybe.

Hi Chris,

You lost me in some of that, but I most certainly agree with you that "All things are possible, if you are a minimum of 1 dimension outside of the system you are studying."

Even though I can't define what force is, it is intrinsically easier to visualize than magnetic force acting at a distance. It seems to me that force is inextricably married to gravity and/or inertia. F=ma comes through loud and clear. I can imagine a chemical reaction causing my bicep to contract and pull a lever with a force, but how do I describe what happens when a piece of lodestone pulls something toward it just because that something happens to wander into the lodestone's vicinity?

John,

f = ma? what is mass, and what is acceleration? these things are just as undefinable.. just ask Del the Cat. (okay. he might say "what is Times" too..lol. )

When you watch water go down the drain, and the vortex that is created allows the water to speed up and flow faster through the small hole.. thats like an electron. If you were under the tub, and watched the water falling in a vacuum, it would be a long thin line. If the fluid itself were invisible, then you would only know that the fluid was spinning axially, and that it was a line. end analogy.

Another analogy is that the electron/magnetic line is actually a loop. (donut spinning through itself) when it is an electron, it's ID is so close to zero as to be immeasurably small. (not absolutely zero, for that would be not allowed by this scenario) When it is a magnetic line of force, then it has a much larger ID, and forms a field with the other lines. I think that it forms a field for the same reason that a bunch of electrons forms a field. Maybe the question is: Does lodestone also exhibit an electrostatic field? If so, then I think that would be logical, and represents another twist. As there is no fluid, and all this is just an apparent vortex, then it must be a vortex of quantum probability. If there is no actual substance to matter, then it is possible to have a near infinite spin. Does it matter whether that spin is a point or a line?

When I took electronics, they taught me "Nothing can cut a magnetic line of force." I take this to mean that it is composed of the fundamental essence of the universe... I take that to be Time. Maybe magnetic lines of force are not anything material.. just a geometric difference of potential between 2 times. one inside, representing the line, and one outside, on our side.

That would be 'uncuttable".

I'm sure there are more analogies than I have analogies for...

chris

Electrons do have measurable size... They've been measured before. Also, electrons have a measurable mass, that's been measured before and under varying conditions. And, by the way, "electrons do not spin." The term spin is just like those other unknown qualities that make the math work, such as charm, flavor, and strangness.

The only particle known that is truely massless is the photon, which has been proven to have pretty much no rest mass.

I will give you this, your second to the last paragraph has merit - keep going.

electrons 'during the act of measurement' do have a measurable size.

and I like the spin idea. It is a good metaphor, but it may be more correct to say that they 'probably' spin. but who really knows. Math is a predictor, not an experiment with reality. The more we experiment with, and observe reality, the more our Math must evolve to represent reality, as it has been for centuries.

It is difficult to say whether things have mass, at that level, when we don't know what space, time, energy and matter really is. An idea is a possiblity, not a probability. It may be that the ideas of the observer create probabilities when imperfect experiments are conducted.

When exploring the immeasurably small, one needs instruments with a resolution in the impossibly small range. Are you certain that photons have no mass? Given the interchangeability of gravity and centrifigal force, then it would stand to reason that any object exhibiting a velocity-based mass must have a rest mass, however small. F=Ma. If M is truly zero, then F = truly zero. please explain. the only thing I can think of is that both the electric and magnetic components are both moving at c, and therefore the mass is due to combination.

chris

"the act of "looking" or "not looking" can cause the results to change. That's truly weird and worth pondering!"

And bringing that to the world of everyday looking, back in the 60's when I was first learning electronics, this story comes to mind:

Our instructor made the statement "things are never the same as they were had you not looked in the first place". I had no idea what that meant when I first heard it but later it hit me like a ton of bricks. Of course our multimeters at that time were all analog and had something like 20,000 Ω/volt of resistance. If we measured, say, a 5 volt potential with said meter, then the actual voltage (not looked at) would of course have been greater than 5 volts.

-John

Good comment Vermin,

on excerpt on bullet 3

the act of "looking" or "not looking" can cause the results to change.

sounds allot like and reminded me of the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uncertainty_principle

phoenix911

Hi Vermin,

"Electrons do have measurable size... They've been measured before."

Maybe so, but not a definite size according to the following link (see the answer by drv). http://www.advancedphysics.org/forum/showthread.php?t=852

Over 40 years ago the model of the atom with electrons orbiting it was was known to be 'almost certainly wrong'.

regards,

S

Point taken...

I know electrons don't orbit. Also, the size I was referring to is its wave. For example, one can bounce X-Rays off of free electrons.

Here are some images, geometric, yet spinning.. my idea of quantum, geometric energy. I would say that magnetism is if you looked at the 'line of force' longitudinally, and at a incredibly small scale, this is what you would see... (one of these types of image.)

You know, that if you continue adding sides with a limit that approaches infinity, you also solve for PI.

Another thing just occurred to me... Are you suggesting a "fractal" nature to subatomic particles and magnetic force? Interesting!

different people will see different things in this.. maybe its more like a rorshach test..ha ha

I see:

the more sides to the polygon (space), the less the angle being turned. What could that represent? space curvature? so that might mean that the greater the angle being turned, the more that space is "curved" which is of course equivalent to gravity... I don't know.

I see somethign that has a waveform, but also still have inertia (longitudinal view) and behave with duality, yet be gometric.

Hi Chris,

Most insightful thoughts yet (along with furry one of course). I like your presentation of looking at space curvature from the inside out.

-John

Hi Chris,

Very interesting. It looks like a black hole sucking me in. Keep it away from me!

Regards,

S

I'll bite first, Gee. Did this thought experiment in U of A back in the early 80's with a Physics Prof. I asked him what magnetism was and he described it as a wave. ?? I asked how fast did the wave move and I was given the answer as C the speed of light. Thinking back I have often pondered the answer and felt that little was known of this force. The lines of force that leave the ends of a magnet travel around and return to the other end. How far out do they travel? The lines that go out straight continue to around the universe and then return? How far can they travel without losing their identity? How are the lines of force generated and if so where does the generator get its energy? Does the generator run out of fuel? I still would like to know the true speed considering the force is strong enough to protect use from solar radiation and we need lead for a small x-ray. As my son once said, "I can't know!!"

Even I think wake appears to be reason for magnetic property of a material. Let me first make it very clear I am not a Sceintist, but I believe in logic and simple reasoning. I guess that is the reason, why an iron rod gets magnetized when electricity (flow of electrons) is passed through wires wound over the rod. But, why not other metals? I guess that is the property of the material. Can I become a little adventurous and compare a magnet to a teenaged girl? Think over, you may find the answer.

What I remember from Engineering Physics II in community college is that the movement of electrons creates a magnetic field. I was ruminating on this the other day, and thought about how the movement of solid objects through a fluid creates a wake in the fluid, and how the wake can pull in other objects. Also, a swift current flowing through a fluid can pull in objects. In storm spotter training classes, the meteorologist conducting the class often mentions that a jet stream in the upper atmosphere can create lift at the surface. Maybe magnetism is the "wake" of a flow of electrons, or an effect something like the jet stream.

A little correctin in my thinking:

A wake occurs when a solid body moves through a fluid and creates pressure waves that trail the body and push the fluid away from the path of the body. Immediately behind the body is a small area of lower pressure, or a "vacuum", that draws in fluid and objects.

A twisted mind might say that magnetism happens because electrons suck.

Science had its chance to make its best use of the æther. The final result was "It doesn't exist!"

And that was what all the "particle in a fluid" models were based on.

What if time itself were a fluid? a cool idea if you ignore all that quantum probability stuff.

Hi chris,

If time were a fluid why would it only flow one way? Since it doesn't have mass it wouldn't be influenced by gravity. Maybe it flows through the aether, but again, why a one way arrow?

I suspect that the action from a distance caused by magnetism may somehow be, at least in part, caused by an overlapping of another dimension with our own 3 (or 4) dimensional world. What a weird thought! Did I really say that?

I used to think it was a fluid, like aether, but quantum thinking sorta demands a multiverse... of some sort.

Over the past thirty years it's become ingrained in the laity to "Throw another dimension at it!"

Also, I think this guy (who regularly appears on CR4) has a good perspective on it...

"If you don't know where you're going, then any direction will do." -- Lewis Carroll

I agree, the wake of spacetime/gravity waves. Like how a space shuttle slingshots around the moons back side. It gains speed by taking momentum from the moon, it's an energy transfer without contact, so it must be an energy transfer through gravity.

Hi 3Doug,

"Maybe magnetism is the "wake" of a flow of electrons,"

What about a permanent magnet, lodestone, etc. Where's the flow of electrons? These things just sit there minding their own business while emitting this mysterious flux field, acting upon things at a distance.

-John

It's the gravity of the electrons in the magnet, effecting the orbitals of the electrons in the piece of metal, or other magnet, so that they "fall" into the same direction of orbit, and so their gravity towards each other in increased.

But why do the electrons of the magnets only effect the orbitals of iron and steel electrons?

Do magnets wear out?

No, but they can be demagnitzed electrically. In addition, not all forms of iron are magnetic. If you let a magnet undergo rusting or chemical reaction the magnetic properties can disappear.

There are a lot of metals that are magnetic. Iron is magnetic because it has an unpaired electron sitting all alone in its outer shell. That unpaired electron is the source of iron's magnetism - Notice I do not say "That is what magnetism IS!!!"

Hi JJ

Yes I was referring to dark matter and gravity, but when I give it some more thought, magnetism seems more selective, a closer relationship with an electron and proton, rather than mass at large. And the nature of the flux is different from a flowing electric current or voltage potential.

So trying another approach, magnetism conveys motion, suggesting that there is a relationship between the placement of atomic particles? Something like a crystal lattice? Move one out of place and the others readjust? Where as we think of crystals as solids, like a diamond, perhaps there is such a thing as a fluid crystal? Where the distribution of the atoms is flexible. A membrane that can be stretched like a spring, so when motion is imparted to it, that motion is transferred to the nearest electron? As for why this should happen in ferrous metals I don't know, maybe it's atoms are just right for forming a flexible crystal while other materials are suited to forming solid crystals.

Some thoughts outside the box, regards JD.

Ferrous metals have unpaired electrons (I'm pritty sure, but check this info) The unpaired electrons cause a net motion of spin on the atom.

A question for a questioner... I will tell you when you can tell me: "Who are you really?"

Okay folks,

Here's another excerpt from the author:

"When you get right down to it, the mystery of magnets interacting with each other at a distance has been explained in terms of virtual photons, incredibly small and unapologetically imaginary particles interacting with each other at a distance. As far as I can tell, these virtual particles are composed entirely of math and exist solely to fill otherwise embarassing gaps in physics, such as the attraction and repulsion between magnets. And as far as I can tell, because I've had it repeatedly and rather pityingly told to me, to want to pursue the matter any further is an impulse that marks the sufferer out as a man who doesn't know an awful lot about physics, or science, or the pursuit of truth in general."

Whatdya' think?

Hi JohnJohn,

I pity that author. That other dimension thing is looking attractive lately. I have been reading a book on entanglement, and I was thinking that the two particles that are entangled may be close together in another dimension that we are not aware of, or even be at the same spot in that other dimension. That would explain why they are coupled faster than the speed of light from our point of view. Something to think about.

regards,

S

One of the major new projects in quantum physics is to get rid of the need to take time into account in quantum equations.

Additonal thoughts:

If a magnetic field results from the movement of electrons, then each electron must have its own magentic field as it "orbits" a nucleus. Because the orbits of the electrons are normally not aligned, their magnetic fields cancel each other out, but in a premanent magnet, the orbits are aligned and the magnetic fields combine to create a larger field.

Parts of this discussion have bordered on cosmology. In that vein, I suspect that the universe is not just a space-time continuum, but a space-time-energy-matter continuum. In other words, not only do we need space and time to explain energy and matter, but space and time would not exist without energy and matter.

These items are just speculation on my part. Feel free to dissect, ruminate, and regurgitate as you see fit.

Yes and no... You can also consider that one unpaired electron way out on the last orbital (forgive me for using that term) acts like a tiny coil with an electric current (the charge of the electron) running through it - can anyone say tiny electro-magnet?

Put a bunch of these tiny electro-magnets together and they form magnetic domains. Align enough of these domains and you have a permanent magnet.

Yes? No? Maybe?

One thing has always stumped me. In an electromagnetic wave there is the E field and the H field. Shouldn't a permanent magnet have an electric charge to go with the 'magnetic charge'? Is the magnetism transmitted by 'magnetons'?

No magnetons. And mono-poles have pretty much been ruled out about 30 years ago. However, there is an associated electric field - it's those electrons flowing about in the outer shell of the iron atom.

Hi All

Just spent a sleepless night, trying to come up with an analogy of what is equally and opposite forces in equilibrium., and how that relates to magnetism. So I'll have another go at getting the visual concept across.

First two words, state and environment, for a particular state to exist one needs a particular environment, and visa versa. So the analogy is, the ocean surface and atmosphere, as the environment, and their temperatures the state? We alter the state by lowering the temperature of the atmosphere, this in turn lowers the temperature of the ocean to stay in equilibrium. Continue lowering the temperature and ice crystals will develop on the ocean surface, and if one continues a iceberg will eventual develop. So using the iceberg as an analogy, if you try to lift it out of its stable environment, its weight increases trying to return to equilibrium, and if one tries to submerge it, displacement acts to force it back to the surface, two opposite forces acting in an environment to keep a state (iceberg), in equilibrium.

I visualise an atomic structure as having an environment that allows a state of equilibrium, if another force does not oppose the electrons and protons coming together, then we would have nuclear fusion, and all the parts would fuse together to become a singularity? The analogy of the iceberg is a crystallised structure that keeps the bonding of the parts in equilibrium? Change the state or environment and you change the nature of the bonding or state of equilibrium.

So how does this relate to magnetism? Ferrous metals must have an environment whereby an state can be brought about to build up a field of equilibrium, a force that has a purpose to keep the molecules bonded, an iceberg or flexible crystal structure that resists being forced out of equilibrium? I like the suggestion that magnetism and photon are similar, photons carry information, magnetism carrying bonding information? If the magnetic flux detects a bonding then the force will try to move into equilibrium by drawing the parts together, and like wise, if a magnetic flux is passed close to another material, in its efforts to seek if a bonding is possible may move the electrons about in there shell, and in some cases may even displace them?

As this is stretching things a bit I've tried to keep it short, hope it does not cause further confusion.

Regards JD.

Nice! The 17th century would be proud of you!

"Quick, Charles! More phlogiston, and add another epicycle!!!"

Slang for Bad Science

In part due to sometimes fantastic attempts to make the failed earth-centered model work, "adding epicycles" has come to be used as a derogatory comment in modern scientific discussion. If one continues to try to adjust a theory to make its predictions match the facts, when it has become clear that the basic premise itself should be questioned, one is said to be "adding epicycles".

OS*** now I will never know.

Regards and respects JD.

Oh, gentle jdretired;

Please forgive me! I was having some fun with you. However, your knowledge of the meaning of "epicycles" truly humbles me, and shows you as a person of considerable learning. I sincerely apologize at have sport at your expense!

Translation: Dang! In all humility, your way smarter than I thought!

vermin-

Hi Vermin

No problem, I respect your opinion, and I was aware of you jest, I am not all that learned, just a person that has learn to check, an engineer. If somethings on the table, I see no problem with it being exposed to the light of day. I do enjoy your involvement and remarks.

Regards JD.

However, when you come down to it we really don't have a clue as to what magnetism is! Granted we know its effects and we certainly utilize its effects in almost everything we do. But what the hell is it anyway? We just don't know.

We can never know what magnetism "is", we can only know what it does (to other objects). The verb "is" denotes equivalence or identity, but nature contains many phenomena that don't equate to anything else (e.g., energy, space, time, electric charge, quark "color"). As Del the Cat points out further down this thread, at best we can only give analogies mentioning other phenomena that exhibit similar patterns of behavior.

Without using an analogy, I would say that the term "magnetic field" denotes an electric field viewed from a relativistic reference frame. But then someone will ask "but what the heck is an an electric field?!" Face it, the Buddhists got it right -- reality consists of verbs, not nouns. Define things by what they do, not by what they "are".

In my opinion after reading a little bit around here you can tell that this magnetismn stuff have to do with some kind of potential diferential some way. Magnetisnm - Static - Voltage - Current - Electrons - Protons - Seing like a potential flowing at the whole planetary system but on differents scales, I believe. Now there are also the "Super Magnets" in top of everything. Kind of a mystery, definetly. Always something to try to catch on, Cr-4 have the technology my friends, never end. Like "MURPHY LAW" even if sound fun it does apply, believe you me...! Allset Pal's good deal now and have a good one...

Lock Out Tag Out...

MC

Strangely enough I was on the phone just the other day with a manufacturer of electromagnets to learn if an armature will act in a way proportional to the voltage applied to the coils. (it doesn't) The engineer told me that almost nothing is taught about magnitism in the unis simply because so little is actually known about it. Just when you think you know what it will do, it does something else.

For a 3D image of magnetism check here. http://physics.physorg.com/sort_date/page2.html

Allrigth... Hey... Really interesting Skelly, you have a good point here definitly. Good Posting Pal'... I did understood that rotor will follow stator fields when voltage are apply to it. Also you have the "DynaMotor" which can serve two purposes with great mechanical advantages. And, that you can controlled it's power proportionally as well. But, I don't know now, things are relative too, as far as I understand. Everything have always some effect or results when one thing are relate with the other somehow. Something have to give. But anyway, like you indicated sometimes things do differently as expected. Good Deal Chief... haa he ha... I'm telling ya', always something here to learn from the masters. I will check that site later on, thanks, Good Day now then..!

Hanging in There...

MC

OK, Johnjohn, here you go...

1. All matter and energy (protons, electron, photons, interactions, etc.) do not exist in a single point in time, but are smeared out over time - in the past, now, and future.
2. All objects do not exist within a single point in time. This is why matter and energy have a "wave-nature" and exist spread out over space and time.
3. there is a force - for lack of a better term, called the "Electromagnetic" force.
4. when an object that possesses the electromagnetic force is observed as a vector consisting of its place in space and its intensity, that is called an electric field.
5. when an object that possesses the electromagnetic force is observed as a vector consisting of its place in time and its intensity, that is called a magnetic field, and is at a 90° angle to the electric field.

What is the electromagnetic force? I don't know, but I have brought you a step closer to an understanding of the electric and magnetic force!

Woof!!! This should put the fox among the chickens!!!

Woof! That was a meaty reply. I'm eating it up and licking my fingers. Do you have any references, or are you pulling it out of your thin hair - er - I mean thin air?

Here are a few corollaries...

1. Because of the "past-now-future" of the distribution of subatomic particles, those with the electromagnet force form a temporal "dipole." In other words, the North and South of a magnet.
2. The temporal distribution of subatomic a particle is directly related to their energy. Thus, the temporal distribution of a high energy particle is more focused about the "now" (for lack of a better term), while low energy particles are far more spread out in time.
3. This leads to the concept that energy on the subatomic level is basically the degree to which a particle is localized in time.

As far as giving you references for more info, I'm afraid I have to put you into the hands of the madman! I pulled this out of my own butt about twenty years ago.

I really like your ideas (as they are very close to my own, but more advanced) but why would higher energy particle be distant in past or future? would it not follow that more time travelled equals more energy represented?

No. It's sort of like the reason why (say, in a hydrogen atom) the electron doesn't just get pulled into its proton. As the energy of the electron increases, its temporal wave gets so short it actually starts repelling itself - and that I did not pull out of my butt! That's accepted quantum physics.

Interesting analogy vermin.

It seems to me that your description of particles, becomes circular though.

'Thus, the temporal distribution of a high energy particle is more focused about the "now" ...'

"Then you said, "...energy on the subatomic level is basically the degree to which a particle is localized in time."

In other words you say a certain particle is at a certain temporal place (now) because of its energy, but its temporal place determines its energy.

I assume you're talking about quantum widgets here where time seems to be either non-existant, or, at least, all screwed up (in our limited understanding). Even so, I'm not sure I follow the "past-now-future" distribution of particles. "Now" is such a fleeting term, for as soon as you define it, it has already "fleeted" into the past, to be replaced by the future.

So because some high energy particle is focused on the "now", does this temporal event cause the particle to lose some of its energy thus forcing it into the past? Or might it also be forced into the future?

In summary, it seems you are saying "high energy creates the "now" which creates the high energy".

My limited grasp of reality causes me great difficulty at times I'm afraid.

Your furry butt was probably on to something! You should have ejected it to the scientific community 19 years and 364 days ago.

I guess my OP was that I was trying to get an answer to something that (at this time) has no answer; what is this intervening medium (force) that causes this pulling effect that tries to yank a piece of iron out of my hand when I hold it in the vicinity of a magnet?

Defining it it terms of N, S poles (dipole) doesn't describe what the force is (at a distance from the dipole). Within the magnet itself, all sorts of particle interactions are occuring, but what about the area surrounding the magnet.

Does space-time get locally warped (as I believe an earlier poster suggested)? If so, it seems like it would be much easier to study than looking for it on a galactic scale.

-John

Hi JJ,

"Does space-time get locally warped (as I believe an earlier poster suggested)? If so, it seems like it would be much easier to study than looking for it on a galactic scale."

Since electromagnetic force is something like 10^40 times stronger than gravity, it seems it would be obvious if it was warping space. Time is 'connected' to space, so it would also not be warped by it, by my mind is!

S

Please see my response to Johnjohn.

We are constantly moving through time, so the "now" constantly moves as well - and so does the particle through time.

The point about the energy is just a corollary - "If a subatomic particle with high energy is clustered around "now" more tightly than a particle that is less clustered around "now," then might it be possible to say that energy on the subatomic scale is just a measure of how tightly a particle is packed around "now." In other words, a high energy particle is "focused tighter" in time than a low energy particle. (See my reply to chrisg288.)

What is the force (when observed as vectors in space and time) that gives rise to the electric and magnetic force? I don't know, but that was not what you asked... You wanted to know what "magnetism was."

Also, iron has a magnetic field because its atomic structure is such that there is an unpaired electron in the outer shell. In turn, when all the atoms of the iron are aligned in a particular way, we can detect the temporal vector of the "electromagnetic force" i.e.; magnetism.

vermin my friend,

You said "I don't know, but that was not what you asked... You wanted to know what "magnetism was."

I beg your pardon! Go back and read my OP. In part, I said "I would like to hear opinions as to what this weird force called magnetism really is."

What exactly is it that pulls, or pushes, from a distance?

It's easy to visualize a mechanical lever pushing or pulling some object, but here there is mechanical contact! You can define all the poles you like, monopoles, dipoles, tripoles, and on and on. That still doesn't describe what causes action from a distance.

Even taking your case of temporal energy, large or small, now or hereafter, then or when, what is it that pulls or pushes from a distance (with no, apparent intervening medium)? Perhaps there really is an aether or something equivalent? Maybe the FORCE (may it always be with you) is a static conglomeration of photon like wave/particles (possessing mass in certain instances that gang up on ferous materials in the vicinity and act like a mechanical force lever to either attract or repell them).

I do stand corrected in my previous post regarding past/now/future occurences . You are right, of course, that "now" is continuously moving on the number scale, where past and future are simply static points on the line.

As I said, perhaps there is no answer but I did ask the question with all sincerity. No one really seems to care what this strange force is. Most folks just dismiss it and agree to utilize what it can do, seemingly oblivious to what it is. I wonder if there is a branch of science/physics that is pursuing magnetic force with the same fervor that other branches pursue gravitons, Higgs, etc. (but then maybe these are one and the same).

I think maybe chrisg288 had it right; a more difficult question might be "what is force?"

Kind regards,

-John

Yo, John...

As far as the force is concerned, I can tell you what the standard quantum physics model is. The electromagnetic force whether it be electrical attraction or repulsion or magnetic attraction or repulsion is based on the exchange of virtual photons.

All virtual particles have a certain life span and distance that they can travel, based on the energy contained within their rest mass (E=mc²). The interesting thing about electromagnetism is since photons do not have a rest mass, as virtual particles, they are capable of staying around for infinity.

Also, remember that regarding your "mechanical lever," it is the electromagnetic force that makes your lever "feel" solid, as well as anything that's connected to it.

Let me brown-nose you right here: What a shine!

Your elegance here on this thread is a breeze

However, let's humbly remind ourselves:

Being one of the Four Fundamental Forces in nature (Weak Nuclear - e.g, Beta Decay, Strong Nuclear - e.g, Nuclear Proximity Barrier, Electromagnetism, and Gravity), Electromagnetism has a lot of conjecture about it's essence, and admittedly, like Gravity, it has no origin.

It's just there, for us to measure, not understand.

Isn't this what Quantum Mechanics are all about?

Actually, QM is sort of the other way around...

In quantum mechanics, each force is caused by the exchange of virtual particles. For the electromagnetic force, it is the virtual photon. For the strong nuclear force, it's mesons and gluons (much shorter distances). For the electro-weak force, it's the exchange of intermediate vector bosons (I think!), which interact across even smaller distances. And this is why gravity seems to not fit into QM.

Quantum mechanics suggests that there must be a virtual particle that transmits the gravitational force - the all illusive "graviton." However, no such virtual particle seems to exist! So QM is in a tither about that!

The last time I went to a church carnival here there was a Gravitron. Is this the illusive device that transmits gravitational forces?

Is that the big drum that you stand in while it's spinning and you get stuck to the wall? And all of a sudden it feels like down is not where your feet are, but in front of you?! If so, that was really cool! The only other time I've ever felt that was on a race bike with sticky race tires and exceeding 1 G in a turn!

Actually Einstein would have loved that ride. In his day, he had to settle for elevators to talk about accelerations and free-falls. Imagine how he would have loved that ride!

Hi JJ,

"I would like to hear opinions as to what this weird force called magnetism really is."

I'll explain it like my High school physics teacher explained to me when we were studying the venturi principle. I asked him why the pressure is lower in the middle pipe. He went back through what it does again. Then I said "why is the pressure is lower in the middle pipe?" He was quiet for a few seconds and than he said "There is no way to explain it - it's just a law."

"I wonder if there is a branch of science/physics that is pursuing magnetic force with the same fervor that other branches pursue gravitons, Higgs, etc. (but then maybe these are one and the same)."

Just what I was thinking. Maybe the Higgs field is really a magnetic field. If it is all the same pole, then it might be repelling itself and causing the universe to expand.

regards,

S

all action is action at a distance

Distance makes the quark grow fonder.

Magnetism: a flow of electrons caused by natural expansion pressure to equalize a dearth of electrons on one end of the magnet to the other end with an abundance of electrons(note: electrons have no scientifically proveable thing known as "charge")^ All atoms and their subatomic particles have a universal expansion rate, and naturally, because we are part of that expansion, is not separately observable. Hope this helps.

I need more explanation. When I went to electronics school, they taught us that magnetism was a Result of electron flow through a conductor, but never that the magnetism was electron flow? They also taught us the rules for determining the orientation of the magnetic field based on the current flow through the conductor..etc. so I for one am missing how magnetism is actually electrons flowing through space?

Also I believe that magnetic fields tend to be conducted through some materials more than others, especially ferrous materials. I don't understand how this would be a consequence of "Natural expansion pressure" ?

My own beliefs tend toward all subatomic particles having a universal Contraction rate, and that it is the appearance of Motion/Rotation that creates the equilibrium.

but I'm still figuring out the universe.

What equilibrium?! So many people talk about equilibrium as being the reason for this and that... I think someone is stuck in the 19th Century!

"He died of biliousness of the vapors!"

Whose hat did you pull that bit of crap out of?!

In short, no one knows what magnetism is, just like no one knows what gravity or mass are. They know how to describe, measure and calculate it, but not what it is, what it originates from, or through what it transfers through distance.

Does anybody know what space is? We know how to take advantage of it, describe, measure and calculate it, but not what it is. Our minds are wired to compare for finding common denominators. To find patterns in chaotic assembly of objects. To measure. to Calculate. Not to understand.

The mere term of "Understanding" is hubris declared, because we all intuitively know that "understanding" is subject to context, prone to contradiction or misjudgement due to limited trivia collected for this so-called understanding.

Describe and measure the world honestly and accurately, and we will all be greatful for that. From there, we can calculate the rest.

Well said my friend.

-John

No it wasn't!

Uh, go back through this thread and you'll find that I gave you a perfectly good explanation of Magnetism.

Furthermore, there is a perfectly good explanation of the force of gravity, conceived by Einstein... All you have to do it be able to imagine space and time bending in at least three dimensions, better if you can imagine it in four.

To really understand why Relativity is so hard to conceive, remember that Galileo actually created the Theory of Relativity. He did this for static motion within space and time (sort of an algebraic version). Einstein furthered all of this work to encompass frames of reference in relationship to acceleration (rates of change) - sort of the calculus version of Relativity. And as we all know, the calculus of anything is always much more difficult to get your brains around.

Anyway, it is within the Relativity of all reference frames that are moving at different rates AND with different rates of change that answers like "What is Gravity" are discovered.

But vermin, the description of magnetism is a vehicle to the visualisation of the observable phenomena. It doesn't mean that we "understand", this or that phenomenon, in any true sense of the word.

For some semantics:

'Understanding', in my view, is more a drive, an intuitive drive, than it is a definite capability, or a goal achieved.

It is always evolving, never final, never fully conclusional. New data comes in, more refined. Do we omit our previous "understanding"? No. We "Correct" it. Adjust it. Hone it.

If we look to historical, past "understandings" of nature and reality (also a very problematic term), such as the sun revolves around earth, or that heat is the source of energy, it seem ridiculous, although it's not really so: in relative, 'einsteinian' motion, it doesn't matter which revolves around which, the sun or earth, and heat is a form, one possible "source" of energy, as "understood in modern terms of eternal energy, passing from one form to another, down the potential slope, and up the entropy scale.

Hang on, there is a point to all this:

My point is that our strive for understanding, which is fine and dandy, does not mean we truly, conclusively understand something.

The fact that we can accurately describe something, being able to harness it, doesn't mean we understand it's essence, it's being in context with the world it interacts with.

We cannot understand reality as a whole, because our minds are not wired to enclose and integrate so much. Instead, we 'parcel' bits, sections of reality, and try to categorise those according to common denominators we can perceive in the (P) group, the group of objects which is the world outside our subject. Such denominators are our basic concepts of mass, speed, direction, action, reaction, color, density, etc. etc.

These denominators are served as 'traits' attributed to the objects we try to understand, and in turn we try to describe the intricate ways in which different objects relate to each other, ourselves (as one of the objects) included.

This is measurement, description, calculation, not understanding. For instance: we describe a relationship between objects using comparison of common denominators as reference points for that comparison, and call this description "understanding"

Although my strive to understand is as strong as any, I intuitively know that my "understanding" is limited to context and prone to contradiction by new data, new trivia, new outcome to calculation.

in short:

I try to understand. I don't think this understanding is final. I keep an open mind.

This is most profound I think. Well said and um.. understood. lol

Candy is dandy, but liqueur is quicker.

Oh, by your introspective comments, I finally understand the crux of the matter... You do not want to talk physics, you really want to talk metaphysics! My mistake!

If you ask me what an orange is, I can tell you by describing many of its physical (and even poetically romantic) components. However, you would reply, "Yes, but what is the true nature of an orange? How can I fully understand this orange?" By these remarks, you invoke the language of the meta-physicist (just as the calculus is the language of the physicist). If stated from the beginning that you are pluming for the answer to a metaphysical question, then it would not take us so long to sync-up and come to a satisfactory answer.

As for the "true" nature of the orange, from your metaphysical frame, the only possible satisfactory answer I might propose is to "eat the orange." Yes, I think that answer would suffice! Therefore, in answer to all of your other metaphysical inquiries, "Eat it."

Vermin, I know you know me better than that. Metaphysics couldn't be farthest from my intended point.

I'm talking about the mistaken view of "description", taken as "understanding".

We had this debate in the past, when you raised the point of "quantum magic" being understood apropos the famous Slit Experiment if I can recall correctly.

As I maintained then (and now), it was Bohr, De-Broglie and Heisenberg's view, that the Mechanic's aim is not to explain the quantum reality, only to measure and describe it accurately, which they did, with flying colors, as we have to admit, utilising the fruits of QM in today's brilliant electronics.

I think it was De-Broglie who said as early as the nineteen-forties "I'll leave the explanation to philosophers, I'll only describe" - or something to that effect.

My consequent point, follows all this. There is a chasm between an accurate, intricate, comprehensive description, a description which enables us to utilise this knowledge into technology - which is probably your end-point, and understanding as such.

It just may be a debate about semantics, but this difference is essential for me, because I'm trying to keep aware of the limitation inherent to our brains (I know you're into it) - and the way they function. In this scope - it is my view, that we don't really understand, but instead, we categorise, associate, link, and integrate these criteria to utilise all of it, into technology.

Yes, I maintain that our brain is not wired to "understand" only to compare, sort, categorise, to sort trends, to find emerging forms, identify common denominators, - sort order from chaos.

johnjohn, where are you my friend. I googled "what is magnetism really" and landed here. I share your question. Some of my co-workers share your question. It seems as if we are on the verge of knowing what has yet been unseen. I do not subscribe to other viewpoints that assert that we can't know what magnetism and other forces really are. I believe we are missing something very basic - only able to see a small point on a much larger (but unseen) apparatus. I suspect that there is in the unseen world with much going on in perfectly logical and comprehensible ways. Unfortunately we are unable to perceive most of it and instead have only glimpses of points and can't see the additional and larger unseen portions. You have a perfectly good question. So basic and yet so unanswered. Where does the persistent energy of the magnetic field come from? I conjecture it comes from an unseen world (some call it the vacuum). I believe the answer to what forces really are lies within a deeper understanding of this unseen world.

My friend Adrian has a ready-made answer to any question in fundamental physics, anything from 'what is a particle' or 'chemical bond', to 'what differentiates a Fermion from a Boson', to 'is the Pauli Exclusion a real repulsive force', to 'how the can the photon exist without mass' to 'what is anti-matter': "...It all results by the inevitable interaction between the four fundamental forces of nature: the weak and strong nuclear, electromagnetics and gravity, - their force-fields entangle, interact, create particles each with their own typical quantum attributes, and those in turn, entangle, interact, create atoms each with their own nuclear attributes and those in turn, entangle, interact, create molecules each with their own chemical attributes , and so on and so forth, as eternal potential energy being invested in higher and higher order of less and less stable form, of increasing complexity - the order of forms we see, is an expression of the energy invested - destroy them, and that invested energy is released"

The only possible problem I can see with such attitude, is that those four fundamental force-fields are axiomatic, and cannot be taken for an "explanatory" ride, whatever THAT may be...

You need to take a look at quantum mechanics and quantum electrodynamics... And by the way, there are really only three forces in nature: the strong, gravitational, and the electro-weak force. Quantum physics was able to combine the electromagnetic and the weak force into a single force.