[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / g / ic / jp / lit / sci / tg / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports / report a bug ] [ 4plebs / archived.moe / rbt ]

/vt/ is now archived.Become a Patron!

/sci/ - Science & Math

View post   

[ Toggle deleted replies ]
File: 8 KB, 275x183, df3.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
12800990 No.12800990 [Reply] [Original] [archived.moe]

Unironically, how do magnets work?

>> No.12800993


>> No.12801014

>it works just beacause it works
I didn't ask why they work, I asked how they worked.

That's not very scientific.
He could have just said no one knows.

>> No.12801030

He knows how which is precisely why he gave that answer. Any answer that didn't require a deep understanding of QED would be simplistic and wrong.

>> No.12801037

The point is if he told you how, you wouldn't understand it anyway, so it's just wasting everyone's time. Best option is for you to not ask questions you're ill-equipped to understand the answers to.

>> No.12801042

something to do with electron spin, transition elements having half-filled orbitals, etc, etc.

>> No.12801043

>it works because numbers

>> No.12801044

Is this man the ultimate pseud?

>> No.12801047

This is proof of the metaphysical nature of reality

>> No.12801064

Quite the opposite. He's one of the last real scientists of the modern era. He spent most of his life speaking out against pseuds.

>> No.12801066

every pop-sci answer he could give requires a certain level of understanding the interviewer and his audience would simply not have

even a basic explanation would require knowledge of electromagnetism, special relativity, atomic orbitals, spin domains, quantum field theory, condensed matter theory and so on.

>> No.12801108
File: 84 KB, 1202x647, screenshot - Copy.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]

you don't really need all of that to explain why magnets are magnetic

If you remember basic chemistry and orbital theory, you can read this


>> No.12801121

there are always more layers beneath even a 'correct' answer and that was Feynman's argument.

why are some materials more magnetic than others?
what is the difference between ferro-magnetic, anti-ferro-magnetic and para-magnetic?
why do shells exist?
why do spins orientate en-masse?
what is spin?

>> No.12801142
File: 816 KB, 1263x1920, Annoyed.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]

Everything you just posted would seem like completely arbitrary rules if you didn't understand the fundamentals described by this anon >>12801066.
These rules came about to describe the apparent patterns and tendencies of magnets as they were being observed (before the fundamental physical principles which brought these patterns and observations about were really understood.)
This means they provide a rough description of the way in which this phenomena works but not HOW it works like >>12801014 says.
As >>12801030 >>12801037 and >>12801066 have already pointed out >>12801014 would only understand HOW magnets work if he understood physics on a deep level.
Feynman explains the problem in communicating such information to a layman in this >>12800993 video perfectly. Unfortunately it's lost on guys like >>12801044 and the faggots in the YouTube comments.

>> No.12801155

When someone wants a surface level explanation you give them just that. No need to have an autism attack anticipating further questions.

>> No.12801165

You don't ask Feynman for surface level explanations especially not in an interview about his work such as QED.

>> No.12801231

>just give a surface level explanation bro
Nigger, what does surface level mean though?
In my opinion, the first explanation Feynman gave
>there is a force which makes them attract
is already a simple, accurate, and extremely surface level answer if there ever was one.
>Well, that's not satisfying enough!
When would a curious person become satisfied with your answer?
Like I said, to move from no understanding to some understanding you would have to introduce concepts which seem arbitrary in their own right but have fundamental justifications (which are outside the reach of layman).
Surely an explanation that relies on new and completely different concepts that would, at this level of understanding, seem arbitrary would be just as or even more unsatisfying then the first explanation right?
>Hund's rule? What!
>Where did these arrows come from?
>What's up with these boxes?
>I don't get it, what's with these boxes? What are shells?
>Magnetic fields?
etc., etc.
If you're just some undergrad chem. fag who just accepts these concepts as they are fed to him by the prof then sure, your link might be convincing, but for an extremely curious person they will not.

>> No.12801348

>there is a force
That's not an explanation just a simple observation, can be said about anything. A simple explanation doesn't need to be concise, just throw in some keywords (electron spin, orbitals) which they might have heard about. If you can't do that without writing a short story or lashing out, then you don't understand how it works either.
Then there are two outcomes: 1. Satisfied with the explanation 2. Unsatisfied because they lack background, but now have a few useful search terms to go on, or because the explanation is too shallow. Either way it is much better than the obvious "there is a force" or refusing to answer without the full language toolbox of theoretical physics.

>> No.12801353

>just throw in some keywords (electron spin, orbitals) which they might have heard about.
That doesn't explain anything either. It just shifts the question.

>> No.12801377

If everyone agrees that the question is shit, why not shift it to a more meaningful one?

>> No.12801389

It's not a shitty question at all
Just a hard one that took humanity hundreds of years to answer.

>> No.12801899

spinning electrons create a magnetic field

>> No.12801922

[math]dF = 0[/math]
[math]d^*F = J[/math]

Name (leave empty)
Comment (leave empty)
Password [?]Password used for file deletion.