But 'what' 'is' 'it'? Is it 'particular'? If magnified adequately, would it be seen? Lots of text that talks 'about' it, but none declares what it is in tangible terms. I get that the theory behind it is that electron 'spin' within the material is what produces it. But what does the actual force itself consist of? It has to be 'something'. It apparently is in motion.
Last edited:
Its very very important. It stops our atmosphere from being bombarded by solar rays and the oxygen molecules being stripped away from the earth.
It also creates those nice whip-like shaped solar flares that come out of the sun. They create a channel if you will for the plasma to go from one point on the sun to the other.
Need I mention again that these forces are really really important.
It's not substance, it's a field, in the same sense that a test charge can have an electrical force on it in the vicinity of other charges. It is the necessary consequence (due to relativity) of electrical charge flowing or spinning- when you plug relativity into the force equations from electrical fields, a cross-term comes flopping out, and in an amazingly beautiful result, that cross term corresponds to the magnetic field.
This is covered in most E&M textbooks.
But how can there be force exerted with no contact by another body? If it has a name, ie: magnetic flux, then it must have tangible properties. Otherwise, isn't it just a matter of identifying an unknown? As in 'field', or 'force' etc.? There is no clear answer to be found anywhere. It seems that science has yet to discover very basic fundamental behaviors of matter. Either that or it just isn't conducive to a present day socioeconomic model and efforts/funds are being directed accordingly.
The answer has been found..if you look hard enough.
The word seems to be photons. Linked to electron spin.
The problem is when "they" use the word virtual photon..
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fwMSaCrcAmM
However the LHC wasn't running then...and now we have..
The question you seem to be asking is what is it that has substance that I can feel pushing or pulling..or how can a lump of magnet generate a force..(with no moving parts)<<not true but interesting..
https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=feymnan+lectures
Perhaps its interesting to think of the universe as one thing not many things..everything interacts because its all part of the whole.
If you think magnets are strange look up spooky action at a distance..
Regards
M. Gregg
Last edited:
If you need to think in terms of mechanical analogies (or, even worse, mechanical realities) then you will always find electromagnetism baffling.Discopete said:
That depends on what you mean by "tangible". A field has momentum, energy and angular momentum. Most physicists would regard these as tangible properties.
There can never be a "clear answer" for people who want to explain fundamental things in terms of more fundamental things. If something is fundamental then there can be no simpler explanation: it just is what it is. We can describe it, but not explain it in terms of simpler concepts. If we could explain it then it would not be fundamental.
There is a sense in which magnetism is not entirely fundamental, as it is the result of a Lorentz transformation on an electric field. On the other hand, you can regard the magnetic field as being merely one aspect of an electromagnetic field and then it is fundamental. Or you can regard a magnetic field as merely a computation device for calculating the effect on test charges etc. - with the real field being the combination of the vector and scalar potentials. Advanced physics suggests the latter may be the correct view, even though most physicists and almost all engineers are taught the opposite as undergraduates.
Why bring in matter? We were talking about fields, because you asked about fields. If you want to talk about matter then tell me this: what is an electron? What is it made of? How is it constructed? (Hint: the electron appears to be a fundamental particle)
I think its really interesting,
this question is asked quite a lot on the internet. People are getting curious and its quite refreshing.
Here is an example:
What particle carries magnetic field?
The word Boson is now also interesting.. Probably because of the Higgs popularity.
Regards
M. Gregg
this question is asked quite a lot on the internet. People are getting curious and its quite refreshing.
Here is an example:
What particle carries magnetic field?
The word Boson is now also interesting..
Probably because of the Higgs popularity.Regards
M. Gregg
Its also interesting to watch this:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fY9B95ntVik
The thing is to actually think what he is saying in relation to the universe.
The Magnetar:
http://www.discoveryuk.com/web/how-the-universe-works/videos/?video=how-the-universe-works-magnetar
The interesting thing Feynman is explaining is..that the question isn't why can I feel the force between magnets at a distance its why is it so controlled that we don’t feel it all the time..
Regards
M. Gregg
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fY9B95ntVik
The thing is to actually think what he is saying in relation to the universe.
The Magnetar:
http://www.discoveryuk.com/web/how-the-universe-works/videos/?video=how-the-universe-works-magnetar
The interesting thing Feynman is explaining is..that the question isn't why can I feel the force between magnets at a distance its why is it so controlled that we don’t feel it all the time
..Regards
M. Gregg
Last edited:
A quick video..
Spooky action at a distance the idea is:
What is spooky action at a distance? - physicsworld.com
Regards
M. Gregg
Spooky action at a distance the idea is:
What is spooky action at a distance? - physicsworld.com
Regards
M. Gregg
If an electron is a fundamental 'particle', then having accumulated enough of them all in one place, you should be able to see/touch the lump. Opposite to electrons, protons are positive charges. What would you see if you stripped a piece of matter of all of it's electrons? If I could reduce my size to that of a hydrogen atom, what would I see?
Quark..oups pardon..
http://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&rc...I48nCOb2lkFlHWTuQaHmOWg&bvm=bv.82001339,d.d24
Regards
M. Gregg
http://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&rc...I48nCOb2lkFlHWTuQaHmOWg&bvm=bv.82001339,d.d24
Regards
M. Gregg
I'm not understanding the dilemma. If the decaying particle always leaves a residual + and - particle, then it's just a matter of identification, no? What's the spooky part?
You can control spin..
In theory any two particles entangled will react at a distance
(just for fun if everything came from a singularity "big bang" is it all entangled?)
In theory it happens at any distance billions of miles apart instantly..change one the other reacts..
Regards
M. Gregg
Last edited:
- Status
- This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.