/sci/ - Science & Math

>>12358714
Empty space isn't actually empty, and spacetime in general follows fluid dynamics. Magnetism is

>>12358714
That's because god exists, anon. Magnetism, gravitation, the expansion of space, it's all god.

>>12358757
*tips fedora*

>>12358714
I hate having to explain fields to brainlets. It's almost impossible since there is no tangible example for them to grasp.

>>12358942
>fields
Isn't that just a more secular way to say "hand of god"?

>>12358942
not op. how do fields work?

>>12358714
Magnets do not exist to make sense to idiots.

>>12359236
quite simply, properties spread at the speed of light, thats it.
a field, like the one in the picture.

>>12358714
>A magical force

Aether theory goes against the teachings of the church of science!!!

THOU SHALT NOT MENTION AETHER THEORY!!

>>12359291
What makes the field bend

>>12359306
the poles becaue they are poles, if you want something linear/homogeneous you need this.
like for example in NMR devices.

>>12359330
I assume you added ‘because they are poles’ because what makes the pole a pole would be a tedious question to ask? I’m not a sci native you can tell. I did some googling and there’s a lot of stuff just explaining where the earths magnetic poles are etc but couldn’t find something intuitive about what places the pole where it is.

>>12359372
the '..because they are poles' I added because of those line have to end at the pole.
this is what makes a pole a pole.

if this magnet
>>12359291
would be very very long, those lines would also be straight and parallel.

>>12359330
by creating the field by current and coils its a little easier.

>>12358714
There's gotta be a simple explanation. they're just magnets.

>>12359153
no

>>12358942
>I hate having to explain fields to brainlets
Try it please.
Brainlet here willing to learn

>>12358942
>>12359291
>>12359504
what is a field?

>>12358714
Which god?

>>12359431
what is in that pic the 1/x and the 0?

>>12359534
I just wanted to emphasize that there can be poles.

y = 0
and y = 1/x
obviously
shrug

>>12358942
>I hate having to explain fields to brainlets.
>>12359236
>>12359524
>>12359526
I would also like to learn how fields work.

>>12358942
>I hate having to explain fields to brainlets
>>12359236
>>12359524
>>12359526
I would also like to learn how fields work.

>>12359524
Quantum Field Theory is without a doubt the hardest subject in theoretical physics and is only taught at post-graduate level because even the mathematical foundations required before you can even attempt it can take a year or two to learn. So giving a "simple explanation" is 1) very hard 2) is impossible to give even close to a proper explanation on such a complicated topic. So any explanation here would be pop-science and very likely wrong.

A good place to start would be watching something like - https://youtu.be/zNVQfWC_evg

>>12358942
What fields do is high school stuff, but how does a field act over a distance?

>>12358714
They do make perfect sense... They are matter it does penetrate, and matter it does not.

>>12358745
Empty space actually empty, is not. SPacetime fluid dynamics follows, magnetism.

>>12358942
> there is no tangible example for them to grasp
Gravity lol, but I get it's still a shitty example since it only affects behavior in relation to mass, not charge and velocity.

My intuition of fields comes just from playing with magnets as a kid, understanding how they repel in certain orientations and attract in others, it allowed me to build some kind of kinesthetic "map" of how a field might work.

I think it would be much much easier to teach if there was a game that incorporated electric and magnetic fields into its physics somehow.
> puzzle game
> you have a gun which launches positive/negative particles
> have to hit targets within E and M fields

>>12359551
>I would also like to learn how fields work.
Nonono. I hear that more often than I should. Yes I have heard how they work. Now what are they? What is it doing the work of a field? What is a "field"?

>>12359552
>Quantum Field

What does "quantum" mean? I hear that word a lot here too, but it seems to be used in conjunction/addition with several other words/phrases that have been defined but never "quantum" by itself.

>>12359569
What is the difference between a magnet, and the same quantity/type of magnetic material not magnetized?

>>12359605
>Gravity lol, but I get it's still a shitty example since it only affects behavior in relation to mass, not charge and velocity.
Gravity is a description of mass accelerating. How does a description affect something?

Intuitively it makes sense, but I can't for the life of me tell you what flux....is. What its particles are, what it constitutes. In the same way I can only describe voltage as an electrical force, but I can't tell you what it....is. You know what I mean?

Such is the struggle of the engineer.

>>12359641
just joining this thread
>Now what are they?
they are a representation of the strength of a certain interaction at every point in space. a massive object has a gravitational interaction with other massive objects, and the "gravitational field" is just a representation of how strong this gravity would be for another massive object at any point in space.
>What does "quantum" mean?
it means quantized, i.e. there is some sort of discretization. a quantum field is a field that has properties of quantum mechanics, including commutation laws and uncertainty relations.
>What is the difference between a magnet, and the same quantity/type of magnetic material not magnetized?
the magnetization. you can demagnetize a magnet. by doing this, you're essentially scrambling all of the magnetic domains inside the magnet so that they are not aligned anymore. magnetic domains are just regions where the spin of the atoms are aligned to produce an additive effect.
>Gravity is a description of mass accelerating.
no, gravity is the interaction between massive objects.

>>12359648
flux is a general term to describe the amount of "stuff" flowing through a given cross-section. it doesn't have "particles," what you're asking is like asking "what are the particles for density?"
this obviously doesn't make sense because density is a concept, not a physical thing.

>>12359641
All quantum means is that something comes in discrete chunks. So you can have 1, 2 or 3 particles but you can't have 2.5 particles.

>>12358714
>conveying particle
particles don't actually exist, even physical matter can be broken down into electromagnetic waves in the right circumstances. you need to think bigger brained.

>>12359641
gravity is mass bending spacetime such that it changes the direction vectors of matter. hypothetically speaking, you could build a machine to continuously pick up and drop boulders such that it bent the trajectory of the earth and pulled it into the sun.

>>12358714
friend if you can objectively figure out the electromagnetic medium, you'll be remembered like the next isaac newton. good luck

>>12358714
>A magical force that requires no conveying particle
Pretty sure its conveying particle takes form in that of a virtual photon. Your premise is incorrect.

FUCKIN MAGNETS
HOW DO THEY WORK

>>12358714
thread theme
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8GyVx28R9-s

Ok bro it's not Ether but fields might as well be ether. A vacuum still has properties. It has space and time and fields. Think of any space as possessing its own value magnetically. When you put a magnet in that space it affects the space around it.

>>12358714
It's not magical because it's real. Ontologically speaking (not physically), whether there is a particle or not is arbitrary. Either you have a "magical" force or a "magical" particle conveying that force. You're looking for something fundamental to latch on to and you think it has to be a particle because the world being made up of solid things is intuitive and you conceive of particles as being these solid things. But really it's all abstract mathematics.

Surprisingly based thread. Thanks for proving that /sci/ isn't a complete shithole.

>>12359653
>they are a representation
So they aren't actually something. What does quantifying something that doesn't exist accomplish?

>it means quantized, i.e. there is some sort of discretization.
real or made up?

>a quantum field is a field that has properties of quantum mechanics
I'm going to guess, "made up"

>the magnetization. you can demagnetize a magnet. by doing this, you're essentially scrambling all of the magnetic domains inside the magnet so that they are not aligned anymore. magnetic domains are just regions where the spin of the atoms are aligned to produce an additive effect.
So why does "quantifying" matter when quantity is not what causes the effect?

>no, gravity is the interaction between massive objects.
Which is a description...specifically of mass accelerating towards "mass".

>>12359664
>So you can have 1, 2 or 3 particles but you can't have 2.5 particles.
Why? Where is the empirical evidence of this "quantity"?

>>12359776
>gravity is mass bending spacetime such that it changes the direction vectors of matter.
So a description...of mass...accelerating...to itself.

>>12359897

>A vacuum still has properties. It has space and time and fields. Think of any space as possessing its own value magnetically. When you put a magnet in that space it affects the space around it.

What properties does "space" have? Time? How were they measured? Time IS a measure no?

>>12358714
They're called photos

>>12360590
I want to help you but you're wrong on literally every conclusion you're reaching. How about you search up some of these questions so you can see what evidence supports quantized properties.

>>12360634
>I want to help you but you're wrong on literally every conclusion you're reaching.
So then tell that to all the posters I quoted who made those conclusions. Otherwise all I really did was ask questions.

>>12359641
>Now what are they? What is it doing the work of a field? What is a "field"?
You're thinking about it the wrong way. Nothing is doing "the work" of the field, "the work" IS the field, or rather "work" is a concept that exists only within the context of the field (I think you are using "work"colloquially, but this applies to the physical concept of work as well). Work, energy, forces, fields, flux, potential wells are all different ways describe one thing.
Your confusion is understandable though. The relationships between these concepts don't become clear until you've worked extensively with the mathematics, but then it becomes so natural you don't even have to think about it. It's like trying to explain how you breathe.

>>12359330
>>12359291
>>12359431
Meds: not taken

>>12359552
if you cant explain it you dont understand it

>>12360817
I can't explain addition to my dog it doesn't mean I don't understand it. For the same reason he probably can't explain quantum field theory to you.

>>12358714
nature does not adhere to your "common sense". It needs to be the other way around if you don't want to remain a complete brainlet for the rest of your life. Become familiar with electrodynamics and it will "make sense", trust me.

>>12360590
>real or made up?
>I'm going to guess, "made up"
>So why does "quantifying" matter when quantity is not what causes the effect?
Quantum states are well documented empirically. Magnetic domains are a good conceptual example of this actually, though they're not usually what we think of as "quantum behavior". If you have a chunk of iron or other ferromagnetic material that's cooled below it's natural Curie point, the bulk material will form discrete and well-defined regions where magnetic charge (moment) is uniformly aligned, essentially becoming microscopic magnets (magnetic domains). Pic related are the magnetic domains of a neodymium magnet under a special microscope. If you put the iron in a magnetic field, the moments of the magnetic domains' throughout the bulk iron will reorient to align with the applied field. The domain's fields will then add constructively, and the iron chunk "becomes" a magnet, though technically it was already made of a bunch of magnets.
>What properties does "space" have? Time? How were they measured? Time IS a measure no?
Space has spatial dimensions, obviously, but it also has properties like magnetic and electric flux density, among other things. Time is a dimension that extends space in the spacetime model.

>>12360853
isn't this all still just reaffirming that a forest is green?

>>12359552
this is spoken like a true undergrad who heard about QFT and now thinks it's cool just for knowing what it means.
t. took QFT in undergrad

>>12359653
gravity is not an interaction between massive objects at all. All mass has gravity, it's just so incredible weak that you need ALOT of mass to start seeing any noticable effect. It's by far the weakest of the 4 forces.

>>12359755
this, the idea that at the fundemental level everything is tiny marbles bouncing around is complete bullshit. At the fundemental level it's all waves, ie disturbances in equilibrium which is what gives rise to "stuff"

>>12360869
wat

>>12360912
gravity is not a force at all. We perceive it as a force as a consequence of using Euclidian geometry on curved spaces.

>>12360949
false

>>12359291
cool thanks

>>12361009

>>12360903
> took QFT in undergrad
No you didn't. You make have taken a high level overview of field theory, spinnors and symmetries but I find it very unlikely any undergraduate course would teach things like creation and annihilation operators, quantization of non-albeian gauge theores, renormilization and calculating scattering matrices in QED all in a rigorous way and from first principles.

>>12360756
>You're thinking about it the wrong way.
Which is why I'm asking a question.
>Nothing is doing "the work" of the field, "the work" IS the field, or rather "work" is a concept that exists only within the context of the field
So does that make the field just a concept then? You're defining it by that which is conceptual anyway. If it IS the work then what is it that makes it confined to boundaries/particularization? What is the mode it operates? What causes this "work" to form "field" instead of some boundless formless flow?

>Work, energy, forces, fields, flux, potential wells are all different ways describe one thing.
Which is fucking what? What is a goddamn field?

The relationships between these concepts don't become clear until you've worked extensively with the mathematics, but then it becomes so natural you don't even have to think about it.
Math is a description. If a "field" is only a mathematical description then yeah, I can understand not being to understand that aspect of it. But that's why I asked "what it is" not "how it's described in terms of quantification".

>It's like trying to explain how you breathe.
But you can still tell me what by breathe is, what its made of and why I have to do it. You've explained what constitutes a field, you've explained that it is describing, or perhaps is another name for one thing. But you haven't told me "what that is".

1/2

>>12362197
>creation and annihilation operators
dude this is literally the first fucking week of the class. are you out of your mind?
I don't know what to tell you, but I did all of those things. it was a graduate course, I just happened to take it as an undergrad. because that's not illegal.

>>12360853
>Quantum states are well documented empirically.
"quantity of qualitative" is how I am reading this. What is a "quantum state"?

>Magnetic domains are a good conceptual example of this actually, though they're not usually what we think of as "quantum behavior". If you have a chunk of iron or other ferromagnetic material that's cooled below it's natural Curie point, the bulk material will form discrete and well-defined regions where magnetic charge (moment) is uniformly aligned, essentially becoming microscopic magnets (magnetic domains). Pic related are the magnetic domains of a neodymium magnet under a special microscope. If you put the iron in a magnetic field, the moments of the magnetic domains' throughout the bulk iron will reorient to align with the applied field.

That's a great description of magnets and how they have domains, regions and alignment. Now explain why it does that. "big magnet was just a bunch of little magnets" is just circular reasoning.

>Space has spatial dimensions, obviously,

Oh well shit, what a great explanation and list of properties. It has the property of itself, that being in constant lack of something that defines it other than ideas.

>but it also has properties like magnetic and electric flux density,
The stuff IN space has those properties, but I have yet to see an experiment that shows this "space" as something that does something.

>Time is a dimension that extends space in the spacetime model.
The spacetime model is a description of two things that have no properties which is why they're described mathematically, invented because it produces a result in the physical world that works accurately. Time is a measure, not something that does something. By what means could it? It's the movement of energy/"work" that causes the difference by which time can be used as measure. Then there's instantaneous action at a distance which also negates time altogether.

>>12363065
particle spins lead to a magnetic dipole moment. these dipole moments add up to a larger magnetic moment

>>12363035
> it was a graduate course
I can't facepalm hard enough.

>>12363077
? what did he mean by this
>unlikely any undergraduate course would teach things like creation and annihilation operators
I'm telling you it wasn't an undergraduate course

>>12363075
>particle spins lead to a magnetic dipole moment. these dipole moments add up to a larger magnetic moment

"magnets have poles"
"little magnets make big magnets"

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WEhS9Y9HYjU

>>12363090
>I don't understand something so I'm just going to put it in quotes
explain?

>>12363100
>I don't understand (particular thing) which is why I describe it in a more complicated way which is still circular and defines (particular thing) with itself.

basically.

>>12363106
that's literally how you explain magnetism you fucking retard

>>12363114
>that's literally how you explain magnetism
No, it's how you describe it. That's what the quotes are, descriptions. An explanation would tell me why the magnet has poles described and why little magnets make big magnets, as described.

>>12359664
>All quantum means is that something comes in discrete chunks
wrong

>>12363025
>So does that make the field just a concept then?
Yes, in the sense that everything is a concept. A person is just a concept that we use to describe a sack of chemicals with a name. Chemical is just a concept that we use to describe molecules, molecule a concept to describe atoms and so on.
>If it IS the work then what is it that makes it confined to boundaries/particularization?
Nothing. The strength of any field is directly proportional to [math]1/r^2[/math] where r is the distance from the "source" of the field. That equation gets very small very fast, but it never equals zero. Ergo, fields are infinite. One way to look at it is there is one electromagnetic field spanning the universe and magnets, charged particles and such create local distortions in that field.
>>12363065
>That's a great description of magnets and how they have domains, regions and alignment. Now explain why it does that.
Why it does what? Do you want an explanation of why ferromagnets form domains or how magnetism works?
>The stuff IN space has those properties,
No. "Stuff" in space, if by space you mean the universe, interacts with the energy in space. Concentrating it, dispersing it, warping it, and so on, because the "stuff" is another property of the space, or rather a property of the energy within the space.
>The spacetime model is a description of two things that have no properties which is why they're described mathematically, invented because it produces a result in the physical world that works accurately.
You were originally conflating "space" with "vacuum." Now you're using "space" to refer to the purely mathematical concept. Even a perfect vacuum is not "empty space." A vacuum is just a region with no matter, but there's still energy.

>>12363090
You're an idiot and that's a terrible version of that song.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qKV9bK-CBXo

Magnetic fields don't ever begin nor end, unlike electric fields which have sources and sinks. This is a fundamental property for m fields.

>>12363512
>Yes, in the sense that everything is a concept.
The water I am drinking is not a concept, it's water. There is something there "as it is", it's not an idea.

>Nothing. The strength of any field is directly proportional to 1/r2 where r is the distance from the "source" of the field.
So at the center of any field there is *none of that field*? The cause of a field is no field?

>That equation gets very small very fast, but it never equals zero. Ergo, fields are infinite. One way to look at it is there is one electromagnetic field spanning the universe and magnets, charged particles and such create local distortions in that field.
But those are just actions of that one field aren't they? If it is *one field that is. Is it not the distortions of that field which constitute those charged particles?

>Why it does what? Do you want an explanation of why ferromagnets form domains or how magnetism works?
That's the topic of the thread, yes. I'd assume both have the same answer?

>"Stuff" in space, if by space you mean the universe,
See that just leads me back to "What is space"? A mathematical description/model doesn't hold "stuff", it's an idea/concept as I mentioned earlier. "The universe" encompasses everything and I'm assuming that includes "space", or is it the other way around? Either way makes no sense and I don't see how "space" interacts with anything or does anything.

>Concentrating it, dispersing it, warping it, and so on, because the "stuff" is another property of the space, or rather a property of the energy within the space.
If energy is in space then what is space?

>You were originally conflating "space" with "vacuum."
I said it had no properties.

>Now you're using "space" to refer to the purely mathematical concept.
No you did when you used the "Spacetime" model to define it. It does define it, as a mathematical description. Mathematical concepts don't have properties.

>>12358714
Think of empty space as a massive field of zeros, just billions and billions of 0. The space is "empty", but not really, because empty space isn't actually 0, it's more like 0.0000001, or 0.00000000001, etc. With fluctuations. The energy is basically just moving through those 0.0's

>>12363888
your responses miss the point so much that I have to assume you're being intentionally dense

>>12364086
How so?

>>12358714
We simply don't know how magnets works. "Virtual photons" fit calculations.

>>12364033
But the real world isn't math.