[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/sci/ - Science & Math

View post   
File: 25 KB, 729x451, 1327789001596.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4364235 No.4364235 [Reply] [Original]

Everyone laughts about them for that stupid question, but if you think about it, the question is not so stupid at all.

I know, there are magnetic fields that provide a force. But what is it?

How does a piece of iron know, "oh! I feel a magnet, must move there!"

WTF is a magnetic field?

>> No.4364244

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virtual_particle#Manifestations

>> No.4364250

the question is not stupid, calling it magic is

>> No.4364252

>>4364244
But thats only a visualization like the field lines are. it does not explain what a field consists of.

I can understand the concept of photones - a little at least and I got an image of them in my head, but I can not figure fields.

>>4364250
Magic is everything one can not explain. It does not mean that it has no cause at all, it only means that the cause is not obvious.

>> No.4364256

I agree with the OP insofar as I enjoyed when my friends would tell me about this and I would ask them, "but how do they work?" and get either a blank face or annoyance at having ruined the joke.

That said, this meme was more about how far ICP had fallen from the height of their career post-Jekyll Brothers than about the retardedness of thinking magnets are magic.

>> No.4364258

>>4364256

I just noticed the meme when it came up but I never looked close at it nor ICP as this is not the music nor the style I like at all.
It just remembers me of a question I had since I was a child playing with magnets and wondering the soft force of an invisible matting that appears when you push N and N together.

>> No.4364280

>>4364235
No one knows, which is the funny thing about how this became a meme. I pointed this out so many times here and in other places, but no one listens. Its a big question they're asking.

>> No.4364283

The problem is that magnets work because of smaller magnets, since electrons have an intrinsic dipole moment that is only due to their spin, in addition to the orbital dipole moment that can be explained as arising from a current.

>> No.4364295

Look guys, I agree there are a lot of things we don't know about the world but the reason ICP said "magnets, how do they work" was not because they wanted to bring a scientific debate on the table, it's because they're ignorant clowns.They probably stand in awe of everything that happens around them like any retarded junkie does.

>> No.4364301

learn about the electricity/magnetosphere around us
harness the aether
magic
>prophet?

>> No.4364375

>>4364283

I heard about the spin thingy. But the funny thing is, what causes the spin of such a small particle like an electron influence another particle meters away? The distance is huge compared to the size of an electron.

And another question is, how fast is a field? When you move a charged particle, a magnetic field appears. Is it there suddenly or is it spreading thru the space around the particle?

>> No.4364378

>>4364375
Gauge bosons, which have already been mentioned ITT.

>> No.4364381

>>4364378

Which one is it then? Photon? So a magnet hanging on your fridge emits endless photons?

>> No.4364382

>>4364375
>Is it there suddenly or is it spreading thru the space around the particle?

It spreads at the speed of light.

>> No.4364384

>>4364381
Yes.

>> No.4364386

>>4364250
>>4364250
>>4364250
>>4364250
>>4364250
>>4364250

It's actually a very interesting question that does not have a straightforward answer. What's retarded is a) calling it magic and b) getting mad that it doesn't have a straightforward answer and accusing scientists of lying to you

>> No.4364387

>>4364384

The problem what I have to understand is a permanent magnet. If it emits photons, then where do they come from (without violating thermodynamics). Photons have energy and this energy needs a reason and a source.

>> No.4364389

>>4364387
Exchange of virtual photons does not violate thermodynamics. Virtual particles don't need to be on mass shell.

>> No.4364399

How has nobody posted the Feynman video yet? Youtube: magnets and why questions.

>> No.4364401

>>4364386

I think the problem there is, for their defense, that science often fails to explain things understandable. Who said this "who claims that he has understood quantum physics, did not understand it". And when even physicists can not understand it, how can one explain it to laymen?
We use it and know it works - somehow. But don't dare to ask why. I can put up formulars describing "virtual particles" but it is impossible to explain them in real world terms. The quantum world completely escapes our limits of imagination.

>> No.4364406

>>4364401
>I think the problem there is, for their defense, that science often fails to explain things understandable.

But it's not the fault of scientists that reality is hard to understand, and demanding that it should be is silly.

>We use it and know it works - somehow. But don't dare to ask why. I can put up formulars describing "virtual particles" but it is impossible to explain them in real world terms. The quantum world completely escapes our limits of imagination.

Yes. If it helps, I think that's a bit backwards. The quantum world IS the "real" world. It IS in "real world terms." Everyday experience is the net result of countless quantum interactions. It is the the everyday terms and ways of thinking - solid objects with definite position, etc. - that are not "real," but rather just useful approximations.

>> No.4364412
File: 191 KB, 744x2807, Thrilla_Killa_Klownz.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4364412

>> No.4364414

>>4364235How does a piece of iron know, "oh! I feel a magnet, must move there!"

It doesn't, you superstitious twit.

>> No.4364419

>>4364412
That doesn't actually explain the functional basis of the force of magnetism, i.e. what is a magnetic field, what is it made of, how does it influence the world?

>> No.4364423

>>4364406
>But it's not the fault of scientists that reality is hard to understand, and demanding that it should be is silly.

I think it is, because it's their job to understand how things work. That's why I like guys like Hawking that write books like "Universe in a Nutshell" where they try to explain the stuff to laymen. Society pays science to discover things, on the one hand to use it but on the other hand for the deep humanic crave of understanding what happens around them and why it does. We would not be what we are if we wouldn't ask "why". That's also why humans developed religion, to explain things they wondered about. And every time when science failed to explain something, because they did not have a good illustration yet, religion and "magic" filled the gap.

>Yes. If it helps, I think that's a bit backwards. The quantum world IS the "real" world. It IS in "real world terms." Everyday experience is the net result of countless quantum interactions. It is the the everyday terms and ways of thinking - solid objects with definite position, etc. - that are not "real," but rather just useful approximations.

With "reality" I did mean my subjective reality, that what I can imagine. There are two different realities, the one of the outside wold thats just there and the one of the subjective world inside my mind and imagination. And since the human mind is limited, it has difficulties to understand things that do not fit in their "inside reality".

>> No.4364424
File: 17 KB, 400x300, dealwithit.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4364424

>>4364399

He says "because they do".

>> No.4364427

>>4364406
No, he's got a point in that scientists don't tend to do a great job of dumbing the concepts down for laymen and neophytes. The wikipedia articles on most scientific concepts are so thick with technical language and references so many other similarly opaque scientific articles that it's difficult enough for people without a significant amount of schooling on the subject to understand that they made a "simplified" wikipedia to make it coherent.

Not everybody has been blessed with ideal access to educational resources or cognitive ability. There are lots of scientists who have recognized the importance of educating the uninformed and undereducated (your Carl Sagans and Neil DeGrasse Tysons, for instance.) It is a legitimate issue and if scientists want scientifically literate politicians being voted for it behooves them to help make the concepts easier to digest for the common person.

I'm not saying they're easy subjects and can be effectively dumbed down, but not making an effort just proves all the stereotypes about the academic sitting in his ivory tower and cursing the neanderthals that are beneath him.

>> No.4364430

>>4364423I think it is, because it's their job to understand how things work.

>it's scientists' fault that the universe is the way it is, they're responsible for god not being the catchall explanation for every phenomenon! quantum mechanics is super easy but the mean old scientists are hiding the answers behind veils of technical jargon and stupid math that nobody can understand because math is stupid!

That really is basically what you're saying.

IF scientists want to enlighten the masses, they need to find ways to explain advanced concepts to the uninitiated. If a scientist testifies before congress or something like that to try to influence national policy or get support for his research, he's not going to get a good response if they ask for an explanation and he just sneers and tells them to get a masters' degree in physics if they're not willing to defer to his superior intellect.

>> No.4364433

>>4364427

To add there, everyone is a layman somewhere. Ask a physicist how a data-packet travels thru the internets and you will much likely earn a shrug. Probably it's easier to explain a physicist how IP works than to explain quantum physics to a Clown, but the challenge remains. I heard someone saying once: "We know more and more about smaller and smaller subjects until we once know everything about nothing". This is actually a problem, science is developing faster than humans are able to keep up.

>> No.4364435

Not the guy you were talking to but first I want to say that I'm not a scientist ( I graduated from law ) so I'm not going to be biased when I'm going to say that you have a wrong view on what their job is.Like any professional they are supposed to do everything in their power to advance in their field, not drag the lesser minded after them.People always accuse us as well that we always use jargon and that they can't understand anything from a law book because many words that people use in common language mean something else inside a law system and I always tell them that we have a terminology because it enhances communication with those who learn it, if we didn't there would be confusion because a word has a slightly different meanings for every individual.People always think that we live in an ivory tower also, that we created the jargon and the law system simply so we can profit from it.If you want to understand something pick up a book and learn it but I'm under no obligation teach you ( unless you pay me ).

>> No.4364436

>>4364424
>He says "because they do".

Kind of. He tries to explain why the question is flawed. "Because they do" is always going to be the eventual answer if you keep asking why about anything. It's just a matter of whether you think an answer is "satisfying" before you reach that point.

e.g. "Why did she fall?" "She slipped on the ice" "Oh, ok." But slipping on the ice is a complicated physical event, it's just satisfying because it relates to direct experience.

>> No.4364438

>>4364430
>mean scientists hide answers

Nope, that is not what I was saying. All I say is that there are concepts that are not even understood by those who developed or discovered them, and therefore to bear with "clowns" who wonder what scientists do there all day long.

>> No.4364439

>>4364412
>this

>> No.4364446

>>4364435
>unless you pay me

Actually, when you do research, we do.
You can not compare natural sciences to law professionals. Law professionals learn the stuff to use the knowledge like engineers learn their stuff to work with it, while scientists, especially in fundamental research explore the things for the mere understanding (and on the second step maybe to discover ways to use it).

>> No.4364447

>>4364436

Yes, so there is a limit of insight and cognition. But unfortunately that does not stop the human from asking "why".

>> No.4364448

>>4364447

Or maybe rather fortunately, because we reached this point often in the past and then extended the limit.

>> No.4364457

>>4364446
Even if I would agree that all scientists study and research just for curiosity and all law graduates do it just for the money that doesn't change that time is money and when somebody reaches a certain level of knowledge in any field he will always seek 1)his dream job 2)that pays the most and the money always comes from private corporation ( as in not you ) or from the state and the state pays them so they can do what they do best, not waste time with knuckleheads with a short attention span.

>> No.4364466

Electromagnetism is one of the fundamental forces. Magnets work because everything is magnetic, or nearly everything, anyway. Electrons and protons are magnetic, and they're a major part of every known solid outside of a neutron star or black hole.

>> No.4364468

>>4364466
>implying neutrons are not magnetic

>> No.4364470

>>4364457

Scientists like Einstein, Maxwell, Planck or Newton much likely didn't do it for the money at all. Kepler was paid for astrologic prophecy and used the chance to explore why planets move like they do and Galileo even risked his job and still continued with his research and tried to publish his findings without getting in trouble with the church.

>> No.4364474

>>4364466

We already discovered this, but this does not explain the nature of a magnetic field.

>> No.4364476

Anyhow, got to continue work
Have a great day /sci/

>> No.4364480

>>4364468
I wasn't sure either way and didn't feel like looking it up.

>> No.4364481

>>4364480
Yeah, it's not like neutron diffraction is the most common analytical technique for magnetic samples or anything like that.

>> No.4364482

I can tell you how magnetic fields are produced. I can tell you how they affect charges and magnets. I can give you detailed predictions on the motions of charges and magnets placed in a magnetic field. I can tell you the magnetic field's relationship with the electric field.

What is the magnetic field, if none of those thing? What type of answer are you looking for?

>> No.4364487

You are always going to be able to over-analyze anything to the point where you cannot answer the question about it. I literally mean anything.

>> No.4364488

>>4364474
Exactly, that's what I meant. Everything we know about is made out of fields basically, and it seems the most likely explanations for magnetic fields could just consist of combining it with other fields, and then we'd be asking "Fucking Grand Unified Field of Everything, how does that work?"

>> No.4364489

OP can't into religion.