HOW MAGNETS WORK, AND RELATED CONCEPTS

[Physics Guy No.938040]

Magnetism and Electricity are esentaially two aspects of the same thing, hence the term electromagnetism. This is seen through basic special relativity.

All electromagnetic behavior can be described, by four equations, called maxwells equations. These explain how magnets work. You need to learn how to read these equations though, and that is a skill that may take months to several years, depending on how scientifically literate you are.

>How do maxwells equations work is next....give me a couple of minutes.......

[Anonymous No.938047]

You can write them in one equation if you have sufficiently powerful maths.
<span class="math">\nabla F = J[/spoiler]

[Physics Guy No.938068]

So, where do these maxwells equations come from?

Well, two of maxwells equations are sort of arbritrary and come from potential theory, we choose them to be in a form we wanted to make out calculations simpler. Yes we "choose" them to be that way. This works because of what we call gauge invarience. The only thing we actually chose in the "ground level". Just like in basic physics you can take your "ground level" to be anywhere you want, and all physics remains the same.

[Physics Guy No.938074]

The other two maxwells equations are derived form what we call the least action principle. The principle is one of the most key principles in physics. It basically say that whatever your system is, whatever you varibles are, whatever you trying to do, the "physics" of the system will take the simplest path (easiest, shortest, etc).

Hence in summary, for EM, we make up two eq, then use them with the principle of least action to make the other two. Hence the 4 equations are dependednt on each other, in fact we can change them and make new maxwells equations, but the physics wouls still be the same. Its the relationship between the equtions that is important, not the actual equations themselves.

[Anonymous No.938079]

>talking about Maxwells equations without vector algebra and Gauss' law

Well this should be interesting.

[Physics Guy No.938080]

In terms of matrix algebra (tensor algebra), we can then take all 4 of the equations to be 4 different aspects of one equation (one underlying principle). Hence all EM can be descibed by one equation.

This equation explains for magnets work, how electricty works, how magnetic and electrical interaction work, and pretty much everything related to charge, electricty, magnetism and current.

[Physics Guy No.938095]

>A digression about technology

If you ever think about it all our tech is pretty much built on EM, we have that shit pretty mcuh down. It was the first "pillars" of physics, that actually become completly explained. No new research or experiment is even down on classical EM, hasnt been for at least a hundred years. Its pretty much a "complete" science.

[Physics Guy No.938099]

>>938079
Im talking tensor cal and least action, gauses law is baby physics compared to that. You can derive it from least action if you want...lol. Baby physics, your so cute.

[Anonymous No.938106]

Hey physics guy.

Why does gravity exist? Why do two particles attract each other?

[Anonymous No.938122]

>>938106
Gravity is just a theory, the truth is the theory of intelligent falling

[Anonymous No.938128]

please continue

[Anonymous No.938131]

>>938040

[Physics Guy No.938133]

>>938106
Classical Grav theory is actually a carbon copy of the EM theory. Its what we call "classical field theory". In fact pretty much all equations for EM has an equivalent equation for grav. We just replace the charge for the mass, and some "strength" constants. That is Classical Grav theory.

Modern grav theory is General relativity. It talks about a mass curving space, and creating somthing analogous to a "well". Objects attract eachother because they get stuck in each others "wells". This theory is pretty much complete, and has been extensivly tested.
It is only applicable for macroscopic things though. Hence we have no "quantum theory of gravity".

A "quantum theory of gravity" would naturally superceed GR, and should approximate to GR from macroscopic bodies. No one has been able to come up with such a theory yet.

[Physics Guy No.938139]

>>938131
You are a faggot, the gay engineering thread is on page 10.

[Anonymous No.938143]

>>938139

Ya goddamn scientists lyin' an makin me pissed

[Physics Guy No.938151]

>>938143
I'm sorry I guess the gay engineering thread must have died. Im sure another will come up soooner or later, just hang in there little guy!

[Anonymous No.938154]

>>938143

[Anonymous No.938163]

>>938143
U mad?

[Anonymous No.938176]

[Anonymous No.938179]

>>938133
There are such theories involving exchange of virtual particles, but none of them are testable.

[Anonymous No.938185]

>>938128
alright then
As clearly stated here: >>938133 Scientists have no real idea what's going on. I mean getting stuck in each other's wells? Next time you're giving one to the missis you get stuck in her well and having to exert significant force to extricate youself, that'll never do.

If that were true you'd have cars crashing into each other all over the place just because they were falling into each others wells. Stuff would be crashing and falling into each other all over the place.

What's actually true is that you have an "intelligent puller" making sure everything is "falling" only towards one significant point, in the case of our world that's conveniently the approximate centre of the planet. You can't say that's by chance.

[Anonymous No.938190]

>>938099

>your so cute
>your

Thread derailed, scientist lost all credibility.

[Anonymous No.938211]

>>938131
This is the exact point at which this thread was beyond salvation. It started out alright, but was going down hill before this post. However, at this asshole's very post, this thread lost all hope of remaining /sci/ related, as all threads fail to do. I guess it isn't surprising, but it certainly is disappointing. For shame.

[Anonymous No.938222]

>>938185

>"intelligent puller"?

No,

1) I am dumbing everything down alot, wells is just a very bad dumbed down analogy for the kids here, to help them understand (no offense kids)

2) You are correct, the "force" seems to be pulling towards the center of a massive object.

Aka we are being pulled into the planet. You dont need modern physics or GR to explain this. This is actually explained by classical field thoery and its applications to Grav. Specifically Gausses law from gravity.

It you Integerate/sum over all bodies and the classcial force bewteen all bodies (say on earth), calcualte every single force. And flux denisties etc. Then Gausses law for gravity gives the results that in total, just about everything will "see" only one force, a force pulling it to the center of the earth. So yeah, your intellegent puller idea is bullshit (no needed).

Nice try though troll, 2/10.

[Anonymous No.938228]

>>938211

[Physics Guy No.938233]

>>938190
Could care less about spelling or grammer, its really not important.

[Anonymous No.938248]

>>938233

>Could
>grammer
>its

[Anonymous No.938254]

>>938040
Thanks for the info physics guy
pic just for you

[Anonymous No.938256]

>>938248
this is /sci/, not /grammer/

[Anonymous No.938261]

>>938248
YOU A FAGGOT! SHOULDN'T YOU BE SUCKING YOUR DAD COCK RIGHT NOW?

[Anonymous No.938262]

>>938248

[Anonymous No.938264]

>>938248
faggot

[Anonymous No.938269]

>>938256

>grammer

[Anonymous No.938271]

>>938233
So you do care to some degree.

[Anonymous No.938277]

>>938271
>>938269

[Anonymous No.938278]

>>938254
more

[Anonymous No.938281]

>>938269
>>938271
samefag

[Anonymous No.938288]

>>938283

[Anonymous No.938283]

>>938277

[Anonymous No.938299]

>>938288

[Anonymous No.938317]

>>938299

[Anonymous No.938319]

Can I cheer you guys up by poasting sum clowns??

[Anonymous No.938333]

Everything went better than expected.

[Anonymous No.938335]

>>938319
Maybe some tits?

[Anonymous No.938345]

>>938335

Is this satisfactory? Or do you require specifically boobs?

[Anonymous No.938354]

>>938345
Nice! Any pics of her boobs?

[Anonymous No.938364]

>>938354

Nope, but I got some IT as a cheerleader

(her name is Harley Quinn, you can probably google it if you want to)

[Anonymous No.938376]

>>938364
uhh, thanks...lol