/sci/ - Science & Math

>>10772873
Ken Wheeler. Look him up on youtube. Read his book.

>>10772873
Can you research subatomic particles to a point where you understand what they actually "are"? Of course not. No one can do this because no one has ever done it (and never will). Same deal.

>>10772873
ICP haha

actually magnets are well understood. PW Anderson did work on ferromagnetism and diamagnetism. the picture of “spins tend to align with an external field” is not that bad. and in particle physics, spins just werk as intrinsic properties of particles. CP symmetry is complicated

>>10772885
We know it's you ken. You don't need to direct more people to your dumb youtube videos ken.

>>10772885
I too enjoy the insane ramblings of internet schizophrenics.

>>10772873
My theory is they are simply the "momentum" of the electric field. I'm not sure how that would work, but my understanding of momentum is that an object with momentum is simply moving along lines of unchanging potential energy.
Therefore...magnetic flux lines follow paths of constant electric potential? They concentrate through cross-sections of equal magnetic potential? Does any of that sound right?

>>10772873
What is the difference between a magnet and a chunk of material unmagnetized made of the same thing? Obviously nothing quantitative because they have the same quantity. The same mass, the same everything.
One however has a different quality than the other. This is due to the alignment of the atoms that make up the material. This is mistaken as a "force", but it isn't a force at all because nothing has changed. The atoms are all the same individually. The only thing that really occurred is that they all were induced to have "more sameness" if that makes any sense. They are now mutually impelled together rather than opposed to each other chaotically. The self similar parts make a "whole" that work as one and are effected as one and that "whole" is expressed as a "field". "What the whole is" opposed to "what it isn't" (the stuff dissimilar to the coherent material).
And this is the case with any material really. You refine it down enough and they will exhibit different properties. A "crystal" or "aluminum" has a different quality "field" than a magnet. You just notice magnetism more because of the stronger effects of the paramagnetic iron. In super powerful neodymium magnets, a whole host of materials including copper, aluminum as well as ceramics go into making them. Obviously the qualities of those materials alters the quality of a field exhibited by a magnet.

TL;DR: Magnetism is basically subatomic geomancy that can't be reified because it also deals with the absence of the subject matter that is exhibiting magnetism. That absence is referred to as "the bloch wall", "counterspace", "domain wall" and is the disparity that causes "polarity" and the self similar splitting of magnets into other smaller magnets.

>>10772885
Great dude

>>10772928
It's all fun and games until you realize that a bunch of clown makeup wearing rappers posed a legitimate question that nobody really knows the answer to.

>>10772969
Yikes Ken, take your meds.

>>10772973
Ken wouldn't waste his time here, although he does browse /p/.

>>10772981
Sure buddy, you just say the exact same shit, right down to the obsession with the word "reification" but you're not Ken. Is Ken Wheeler wrong about anything? Does he have any faults? Give me your honest opinion, Mr. Not-Ken.

>>10772998
The tatoos are obnoxious/dumb imo and he could lose a few pounds. Honestly I don't know what you want me to say? OH, also that he takes forever to come out with new shit and repeats old shit a lot, but any critic could say that.

>>10773014
Awww come on Ken, you should just be happy with who you are. I bet you still think you're a photographer too.

Do you really think anyone would save the utter visual garbage of >>10772969 and repeat your Timecube-tier word salad? Your delusions of grandeur are showing.

>>10773017
(you)

...I just want to talk about magnets, what the fuck

>>10773038
>posts schizophrenic verbal diarrhea
>waaah stop trying to make me believe I'm crazy
Well at least you admitted you're Ken.

>>10772969
>There are 4 fundamental forces in the universe
>actually it's just 3, gravity is spacetime curvature
>oh, magnetism isn't a force either
Hiw long until the strong and the weak force are disconfirmed?

>>10773038
Nice light post aesthetics.

By the way, I suggested Ken Wheeler. Not OP.

>>10772969
>faggy atoms in electromagnet have a big orgy and are all over the place
>give them electroshock therapy
>now they are all "straight" and therefore magnetic
Did I get that right?

>>10773047
Sorry, but you've stepped into the ken-zone.

>>10773047
...
0wn3d

>pic related. Theoria.

Transformers don't really make sense to me. Like, I get the basic shit for an ideal transformer like Your output voltage is the turns ratio times the input and the output current is the inverse of that. The secondary impedance is the square of the primary blah blah blah.

What I don't get is the magnetics of switched mode power supplies. Saturation, hysteresis curves, leakage inductance, and weird shit you need to account for in your designs like that. How do I know what core shape, size, and material is appropriate for a given application? Do I go gapped or un-gapped? There's just so much information to take in.

>>10772873
If you wanna find some natural magnets just find a lightning strike and dig up some of the rocks

>>10773069
>disconfirmed

They were never "confirmed". All it is is the actions of the electrostatic/magnetic fields. A disparity of "what is" and "what is not". Ultimately it is one field (the dielectric/electrostatic field) and magnetism is a conjugate of that field, what "it does". "What it is" is..well again a matter of negation. "The hole in the donut". It is "not a thing in particular", "what it does" can be measured at least and that is the effect dubbed "magnetism". What is manifest. The conjugate of that is....What IS NOT manifest aka the absence of manifestation.

>>10773087
>Saturation, hysteresis curves, leakage inductance, and weird shit
Hysteresis is basically power loss, or resistance - what goes in doesn't fuly come out. Leakage might be the same thing, or general inconsistencies in diameter or whatever. For saturation: the part of the toroid that carries magnetism is actualy a single unpaired electron IIRC. Unpaired electrons are magnetic. A toroid only has a certain amount of magnetized electrons; when they're all already pointing up, how can you force even more to point up? In a way, it's a chemical saturation.
>How do I know what core shape, size, and material is appropriate for a given application?
Notive the curvy shape of hysteresis curves? That's annoying and unpredictable. The ideal toroid for your application remains linear in the region you need it for.
Engineers hate calculating shit, so you just know there's a reference sheet somewhere.

>>10773075
>faggy atoms in electromagnet have a big orgy and are all over the place
>give them electroshock therapy
>now they are all "straight" and therefore magnetic
"straight" as in "working together as one to increase their effectiveness multiplicatively" then yeah. If it has matter it has magnetism so everything is inherently "magnetic". It doesn't "obtain magnetism", it already has it.


>impel atoms with other like atoms just in a different form that you want it to take.
>atoms are easily manipulated by their likeness, they are already self similar. Much like how a poor metal will melt well with itself, but not necessarily another metal
>atoms mimic the actions of other atoms they were impelled by steadfast perturbations/induction

Kind of like how your parents would normally teach children like yourself some goddamn manners so that the quality of your posts would be better.

>b-but what if you don't

>>10773098
He's an engineer. He can't handle those curves and has no interest.

>>10772873
Try any advanced stat mech book that delves into the Landau Ginzburg Hamiltonian and the Ising model. That'll give you a rough picture of how they work.

>>10773098
I don't want toroids. So for a 20W 12V in 170V out full bridge DC-DC converter switching anywhere between 80-400kHz is reasonable, what kind of core is optimal? EI, EFD, ETD, EER, EC, ER, planar EI, PQ, EP, RM? Then what material? J, W, F, L, P, R, T, C, E, V? What size? How do I figure this out? How do I deal with the large DC component that could cause the core to saturate? Do I need a reset winding like with forward converters?

>>10773124
>How do I figure this out?
look at what the pros do and do it, lmao. If it works, it works, if it don't, it don't.

>>10773126
That's the most stupid generic advice I've ever heard and doesn't apply at all here.

>>10773128
Either rip somebody off or RTFM, what answer are you looking for?

>>10773189
There are no designs that meet all my specifications that I can rip off. I'm looking for design guidelines and resources. Not to be spoonfed the answer contrary to what you believe.

>>10772969
>Magnetism is basically subatomic geomancy
>This is due to the alignment of the atoms that make up the material

So we could theoretically have a magnetic loaf of bread if the atoms were aligned "correctly"?

>>10773245
Yes.

But it would never happen because of statistical mechanics.

>>10773124
toroids have the best specs of all cores for starters they have low inductance leakage...but anyways... the next best thing is that you must use a "closed" type core this means the ends must meet for the magnetic field to stay withing the core

to reduce saturation by a DC field an "air gap" is used this means avoid direct contact of the core at the meet point (or points) normally a waxed paper is used, this gap is very small one or two sheet of paper is enough but if you want max efficiency you gonna have to meassure and adjust.

pic is an open core type

>>10773250
>Permanent magnetization with surge
HAHAHAHA

>>10773250
this is an closed type core. in this pic the blue lines outside the core can be viewed as "inductance leakage" , this basically means magnetism that doesn't stay withing the core not doing any work and finally lowering efficiency.

>>10773251
this doesn't happen, magnetization by a DC field only impairs the efficiency during the time this current is present... the core can not hold appreciable permanent magnetization! like iron does, thats the whole point of transformer cores or laminations!.

>>10773095
The only thing manifest in your post is your mental illness.

>>10773245
>So we could theoretically have a magnetic loaf of bread if the atoms were aligned "correctly"?

The quality of it would be different as well as the effects of magnetism. It probably wouldn't act like iron under a magnet, but maybe something diamagnetic like a crystal. Also the heat from baking the bread would make things difficult, and the end result would probably be a bread loaf as hard as graphite.

>>10773510
I don't care about your opinion, I only care about the facts presented that backs up that opinion. No disparity=no poles=no fucking magnet. You wouldn't even have electricity were it not for disparity (you know this thing called a "Cathode" and "Anode"). You wouldn't have anything really, there would be no change. That's why when you split a magnet, the block wall instantaneously "Splits" and recenters/readjusts itself to the new disparity mediation. The two new magnets formed, also have a disparity in them which makes a new "north and south pole".

It certainly is a better explanation than "HURRR MAGNETS ARE MAGNETIC CAUSE THEY HAVE "POLES"- which is basically an elaborate description of what a goddamn magnet is, not how it works.

>>10773619
to be honest with you I really like the ideas of "incommensurability" and "coherency" to explain magnetic field phenomena

maxwells equations do not explain electromagnetic phenomena only discribes the behaviour , same as with newtons equations. this are facts.

currently I'm trying to learn about quantum FIELD theory because it seems to have much better grasp of electromagnetism.

...it could all be just "vibrations" after all...

(I was looking for a graph but I found this quote that I find quite beautiful so here it is instead)

>>10772885
Shut the fuck up Ken, go plagiarize some pictures or whatever it is you do

>>10773047
/sci/ sucks for certain topics because they set off cranks who salivate at the thought of a new person to dump their word salads on

>>10772873
>>10773047

I'm sorry that you've asked a question that tends to attract schizos on /sci/ - I'll try my best to make up for their bullshit and salvage this thread.

Magnetism is essentially a thing that happens when things with charge (such as ions, or electrons in a metal wire) have a velocity.

As you can see in the picture, a wire makes a magnetic field that 'curls' around the axis of where electrons are moving. If you have a decent compass and a copper wire + battery, you can show that if you align the wire up such that the magnetic field arrows are pointing, say, CCW across the compass, the needle will deflect that way.

(1/2)

>>10773809
In QFT, I think you'll find Maxwell goes a lot deeper than you imagined.

>>10772873
>>10773047
>>10775308

(2/2)

So you probably ask yourself - how does that explain permanent magnets?

Well, first - when your wire curls around an axis like a spring, you get a magnetic field that looks like the one in the picture. Why that pattern exists in a spiral-shaped wire can be demonstrated with calculus. If you notice, that actually looks very similar to the magnetic field you would expect from a permanent magnet, correct?

Like I mentioned in (1/2), you get a magnetic field any time there's velocity. This also applies to angular velocity, and anything with charge and angular velocity will give you a magnetic field that looks very similar to the one in the picture.

As it happens, electrons do have angular velocity - in the form of 'spin'. While they aren't actually spinning, the laws of how their physics works makes them behave as though they are. So an electron actually produces a magnetic field by the nature of being a charged particle that has angular velocity. But in a large piece of metal, these fields are generally very small and cancel out because the electrons are mostly 'pointing' in random directions.

But why are some objects permanently magnetized? It's because if you align all of the electrons in your piece of iron in the same way (for instance, by striking it with lightning and making a lodestone), the magnetic fields of each electron become aligned together and add up to make one really big magnetic field. Then you can observe stuff like entire magnetized objects sticking together.

>>10775325
For permanent magnets that's the case - the magnetic domains in ferrite have arrays of unpaired electrons oriented in the same direction. Unpaired electrons carry magnetization. This inherent spin is included in the quantum number "m_s," where I believe the 'm' stands for magnetic.

Is there any chance the magnetic field generated by current trough a wire is related to the "m_l" number - the magnetic quantum number related to angular momentum?

>>10773095
>What is special relativity?

>>10775466
I don't think orbital angular momentum plays a role in generating the magnetic moment of electrons

in the case of the wire, that curly magnetic field is due to the axial flow of current, not due to intrinsic properties of the electrons themselves (besides the fact they're charged)

>>10775481
Why would spin angular momentum play a role, but not orbital angular momentum?
>that curly magnetic field is due to the axial flow of current,
Does axial movement not have angular momentum?

>>10772873
Why horse shoe shaped? To magnetize other objects? Then why do I own a magnet to begin with.
How many magnets is optimal. Or even producible, should owning a magnet entail creation of further magnets.

>>10775503
>Why would spin angular momentum play a role, but not orbital angular momentum?

because orbital angular momentum isn't a property that tells you the intrinsic angular momentum of the electrons themselves, it basically just tells you the shape of the orbitals they end up in

>Does axial movement not have angular momentum?

the electrons in a solenoid have some angular momentum but in a straight wire, it's linear

>>10775308
>But why are some objects permanently magnetized? It's because if you align all of the electrons in your piece of iron in the same way (for instance, by striking it with lightning and making a lodestone), the magnetic fields of each electron become aligned together and add up to make one really big magnetic field. Then you can observe stuff like entire magnetized objects sticking together.

So it's subatomic geomancy like described here >>10772969. All you're doing with "electrons" is aligning them like you would your furniture.

>As it happens, electrons do have angular velocity - in the form of 'spin'. While they aren't actually spinning, the laws of how their physics works makes them behave as though they are. So an electron actually produces a magnetic field by the nature of being a charged particle that has angular velocity. But in a large piece of metal, these fields are generally very small and cancel out because the electrons are mostly 'pointing' in random directions.

So "spin" is magnetism?

>>10775478
A theory.

>>10775543
I'm sorry man, you unironically have schizophrenia and there's no reality where I write a comment and you walk away without still being fucked up

I saw the TimeCube guy present live back when I was an undergrad, and there's effectively no difference between that clusterfuck of a diagram and TimeCube guy's ramblings

>>10772873
You’ve obviously never had a physics class in your life. Come back after high school.

>>10775521
>because orbital angular momentum isn't a property that tells you the intrinsic angular momentum of the electrons themselves, it basically just tells you the shape of the orbitals they end up in
I'm not entirely sure if the m_l has a precise mathematical meaning. However, "the shape of the orbitals they end up in" is literally a layman's term for "their angular momentum" -- it's what you teach undergrads so you don't scare them off with quantum mechanics.

Furthermore, concerning materials. p-orbitals form pi-bonds, and pi-bonding networks are famous for their conductivity. Pic related shows the conductive layer for graphene - they all have the same relative m_l/orbital shape. At the same time, the valence and conductance bands in a material, I believe, are defined by being either sigma-bonding networks (non-conductive) or pi-networks (conductive). This implies that in a conducting material, all the m_l's are oriented the same way.

It's not entirely clear from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magnetic_quantum_number whether or not it can generate a field or not.
>The magnetic quantum number m {\displaystyle m} m only affects the electron's energy if it is in a magnetic field because in the absence of one, all spherical harmonics corresponding to the different arbitrary values of m {\displaystyle m} m are equivalent.
>Since each electron has a magnetic moment in a magnetic field, it will be subject to a torque which tends to make the vector L {\displaystyle \mathbf {L} } \mathbf {L} parallel to the field, a phenomenon known as Larmor precession.

>>10775580
I'm not a physicist, so some of these questions are outside of my scope of knowledge. That being said, there exist materials that are magnetic but not conductive, so definitely don't confuse the two.

>>10775590
I need a mathfag to help me formalize what I'm trying to say

>>10775613
They wont help you. Their literally just here for the I can't believe it's not homework thread.
They would't even post a link to a rosetta stone to so you'd be able to decipher their glyphs.

>>10775543
>a theory
A theory that underlies all of electrodynamics, I mean that's where lorentz transformations came from. The electric and magnetic fields are just different aspects of the electromagnetic field.

>>10773095
>All it is is the actions of the electrostatic/magnetic fields
>>10773619
>I only care about the facts
Demonstrably, you dont.

>>10772885
KEN WHEELER IS BASED.

Why do neutrons have magnetism
Neutrons dont have a charge or current or electrons

>>10775840
Ken Wheeler is optimum as fuck. Magnetism is a perfect fluid,Ken figured it out. Only a few people have

You can bang an iron rod against another surface to make it go from non-magnetized to magnetized.

I saw it on macgyver which is a very credible source.

>>10775555
>I'm sorry man, you unironically have schizophrenia and there's no reality where I write a comment and you walk away without still being fucked up.

"Magnets are magnetic"-t. you and everyone other moron who thinks things explain themselves. You literally wrote the exact same fucking things as "geomancy"

>But why are some objects permanently magnetized? It's because if you align all of the electrons in your piece of iron in the same way (for instance, by striking it with lightning and making a lodestone), the magnetic fields of each electron become aligned together and add up to make one really big magnetic field.

the only difference is that you used more descriptions of what was being geomanced.
"electrons aligning themselves"
"the fields add up to make one big field"
"electrons moving"
"it cancels when the pointing in random directions.

All sounds like fucking geomancy to me. What do you want me to take from this? It doesn't explain anything to me. It still doesn't explain what causes the field. And you had the audacity to write
>So you probably ask yourself - how does that explain permanent magnets?
That's why I asked "is spin magnetism"? That's basically what you equated it to in some portions of a your post, Or is it "velocity as you stated here
>you get a magnetic field any time there's velocity.

>I saw the TimeCube guy present live back when I was an undergrad, and there's effectively no difference between that clusterfuck of a diagram and TimeCube guy's ramblings

You mean other than the fact that this actually has been empirically proven you mean. The pressure gradients of a magnet that is, that is what the image is explaining. Time cube guy doesn't explain anything in particular other than shit he made up which is why none of it makes sense. Ken at least makes sense if you're actually smart enough to understand what those big mean old hard words mean instead of casting it off aside as "word salad".

>>10775734
>A theory that underlies all of electrodynamics, I mean that's where lorentz transformations came from.
Which also does not explain what causes magnetism.

>The electric and magnetic fields are just different aspects of the electromagnetic field.
Yes, you once again described a field. Now how does the conjugate actually work?

>>10775839
>light is not an electromagnetic phenomena
>radiation isn't just EMR

So since you're so smart why don't you tell me what a field is?

>>10776227
so instead of showing your schizo scribblings of rainbow triangles and made-up mathematical operations, why don't you show that your bullshit can actually make the planes land?

build a radio transmitter or something from scratch using only your model's description of electromagnetism as the basis for how you construct it. show all your 'math'

>>10777176
>so instead of showing your schizo scribblings of rainbow triangles and made-up mathematical operations, why don't you show that your bullshit can actually make the planes land?
Wheels and wings make planes land.

>quantify a field

There's no quantity to a field.

>>10777215
>Wheels and wings make planes land.

It's a metaphor to imply that you're selling cargo cult science. 'Making the planes land' means showing that your model can do stuff like allow engineers to design electronics.

If you truly believe you have a model that usurps everything physicists have known for two centuries, then you've gotta be lazy as shit to not put some work into making an experimental proof of concept. Build your geomancy-based radio transmitter.

>>10777215
>There's no quantity to a field.

Electric field strength is a quantity with units of newtons per coulomb

>>10776235
Holy shit its the TELL ME WHAT IS A FIELD guy

Lmao your idiotic rambling was the funniest shit Ive ever seen the other day

>>10777236
>Build your geomancy-based radio transmitter

That's already how it works though lol. You electrify an antenna and electricity is just flipping the polarity of a magnet around a conductor. All you're doing is orienting "electrons" like the tables in your living room. Oh and also the shape of the antenna alters it too, indicating that it's basically geomancy. Unless of course you have a better explanation.


>>10777238
>Electric field strength is a quantity with units of newtons per coulomb
That is indeed how it's measured, but that doesn't quantify what the field actually is. What it does yes.

>>10777240
I don't really care about what someone who doesn't contribute thinks. If you'd like to answer that question though be my guest.

>>10777277
>That's already how it works though lol.

Cool, so build one from scratch without using any classical E&M mathematics except for your own model

What use is your alternative if it can't even make simple electronics?

>>10775325
Dumb ass question but if iron was heated to the curry limit, exposed to the earth's magnetic field, and then cool down, would that make it slightly magnetic?

ur all dum

>>10775543
The fact that you use "theory" diminutively only shows that you don't know what theory means.

>>10777286
>Quantum Mechanic Physicists Hate Him!
>Find out how he gets energy from a quacker oats container a copperwire and a combination of other materials with this one simple trick!

>What use is your alternative if it can't even make simple electronics?
Math doesn't make electronics, materials do.

>>10777438
>Math doesn't make electronics, materials do.

spoken like a true person who has no clue what they're talking about

>>10778060
>math is a battery
>math is a change in polarity
>numbers are materials and form

What world do you live in?

>>10772969
>but it isn't force at all because nothing has changed
Something has changed though, a measurable "thing" related to the position and orientation of the particles.
Two fans on either side of a piece of paper won't do much of anything, but two fans below a sheet of paper can send it flying into the air.

>>10778090

>Something has changed though, a measurable "thing" related to the position and orientation of the particles

What "thing"?


>Two fans on either side of a piece of paper won't do much of anything, but two fans below a sheet of paper can send it flying into the air.

So what are the spinning electrons "blowing" then?

>>10778063
math is figuring out what battery makes a functional radio transmitter versus a pile of smoldering resistors and burnt insulation

imagine being such a unit that you claim to have reformulated E&M entirely but won't build a $50 proof of concept that your model is an actually-useful tool for engineering

>>10779345
>math is figuring out what battery makes a functional radio transmitter versus a pile of smoldering resistors and burnt insulation

No, the relationship and interaction of types of materials do that. Math certainly helps when it comes in and records the results once you make a working model though.

>radio doesn't exist
>somehow knowing math will make it exist
>using only math you must figure out how to make a radio

We'd never have a radio, or even a lightbulb for that matter.