How do magnets work?
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 9 มิ.ย. 2024
- For centuries, people have been mystified by magnets and wondered how they worked. In this video, Fermilab’s Dr. Don tells us how.
How Einstein saved magnet theory:
• How Einstein saved mag...
Fermilab physics 101:
www.fnal.gov/pub/science/part...
Fermilab home page:
fnal.gov - วิทยาศาสตร์และเทคโนโลยี
After 37 years, you've filled a major gap in my understanding of physics. Your explainations are truely gifts that benefit all of humanity. From the bottom of my heart, thank you.❤
What were you doing 38 years ago?
same
they lie mostly and produce false perseptions. satanists. it takes HUGEBALLS to admint, everything you know is false or somehow manipulated, so you would not understand important stuff. And you will be materialistdumbfk forever. You are cattle to "elite" (khmrptls). In reality it is just "Friends" for those who cant stand fake laughter. Useless entertainment and predictive programming so you would not whine when the steal money from every country.
IN THE INTEREST OF FINDING THE THEORY OF EVERYTHING:
SOME THINGS MODERN SCIENCE DOES NOT APPARENTLY KNOW:
Consider the following:
a. Numbers: Modern science does not even know how numbers and certain mathematical constants exist for math to do what math does. (And nobody as of yet has been able to show me how numbers and certain mathematical constants can come from the Standard Model Of Particle Physics).
b. Space: Modern science does not even know what 'space' actually is nor how it could actually warp and expand.
c. Time: Modern science does not even know what 'time' actually is nor how it could actually warp and vary.
d. Gravity: Modern science does not even know what 'gravity' actually is nor how gravity actually does what it appears to do. And for those who claim that 'gravity' is matter warping the fabric of spacetime, see 'b' and 'c' above.
e. Speed of Light: 'Speed', distance divided by time, distance being two points in space with space between those two points. But yet, here again, modern science does not even know what space and time actually are that makes up 'speed' and they also claim that space can warp and expand and time can warp and vary, so how could they truly know even what the speed of light actually is that they utilize in many of the formulas? Speed of light should also warp, expand and vary depending upon what space and time it was in. And if the speed of light can warp, expand and vary in space and time, how then do far away astronomical observations actually work that are based upon light and the speed of light that could warp, expand and vary in actual reality?
f. Photons: A photon swirls with the 'e' and 'm' energy fields 90 degrees to each other. A photon is also considered massless. What keeps the 'e' and 'm' energy fields together across the vast universe? And why doesn't the momentum of the 'e' and 'm' energy fields as they swirl about not fling them away from the central area of the photon?
And electricity is electricity and magnetism is magnetism varying possibly only in energy modality, energy density and energy frequency. Why doesn't the 'e' and 'm' of other photons and of matter basically tear apart a photon going across the vast universe?
Also, 'if' a photon actually red shifts, where does the red shifted energy go and why does the photon red shift? And for those who claim space expanding causes a photon to red shift, see 'b' above.
Why does radio 'em' (large 'em' waves) have low energy and gamma 'em' (small 'em' waves) have high energy? And for those who say E = hf; see also 'b' and 'c' above. (f = frequency, cycles per second. But modern science claims space can warp and expand and time can warp and vary. If 'space' warps and expands and/or 'time' warps and varies, what does that do to 'E'? And why doesn't 'E' keep space from expanding and time from varying?).
g. Energy: Modern science claims that energy cannot be created nor destroyed, it's one of the foundations of physics. Hence, energy is either truly a finite amount and eternally existent, or modern science is wrong. First Law Of Thermodynamics: "Energy can neither be created nor destroyed." How exactly is 'energy' eternally existent?
h. Existence and Non-Existence side by side throughout all of eternity. How?
@@charlesbrightman4237 i´m pretty sure they know everything. they just dont tell you :D
You seeme te be type wordy guy, I may explain some things.
PS there is only one "constant". it is one.
All othger "constants" come from one.
That are trancentental values. Aka these are processes that affect evy level of the "symmetyry structure" [sorry, I do not have a "officially percice math language vocabulary]. Math as is scam anyways in so many levels, I dont want to start. Demons control the narratives.
If you wanna chat live, please do that, i´m going show you smth... to become brighter man every day :D Occult scientist hide evrything or twist thing in that way, one cant get it, even if they are old math proffessors. :D
That was the clearest answer that I’ve heard to the question about why there are magnets. Thank you
The step-wise explanation from small to larger of what has to happen for something to be a magnet was so helpful! That really cleared up the concept for me. I really wish schooling and even universities could use such clear conceptual explanations
I can't say how many times I've wondered about this, thank you for the simple explanation 🎉
Insane Clown Posse has entered the chat.
Came to the comments section for this. Leaving satisfied.
sane fermilab posse doesn't have quite the same ring
I love how ever since that video of theirs, everyone (including physicists) have fully accepted that magnets are basically magic. They represent physics at such a low level at such a large scale that we kinda just have to accept the mechanics, even if we have solid understanding of particle physics.
Y’all lyin’. And gettin’ me pissed!
I don't understand this reference
2:15 One correction to Dr. Dan's narrative. Electrons are not FOUND INSIDE CLOUDS, they are most likely to be found in volumes of space that have different cloud shapes. There are no empty clouds into which electrons are located, the electrons themselves form clouds.
4:51 Unfortunately the term "electron spin" misleads people into thinking electrons are tiny particles spinning like tops or gyroscopes. Electrons exhibit a property similar to that which they would have if they did spin, but electrons DO NOT SPIN! In atoms the electron spin is the fourth quantum number for the electron and has values of +1/2 and -1/2, which we simplify this by saying up and down spin. Each orbital cannot be made up of two electrons with the same spin which limits each orbital to two electrons, one with spin +1/2 (up) and one with spin -1/2 (down).
The ability to retain magnetism after the magnetic field has been removed is called spontaneous or remanent magnetization. There are four elements that exhibit this attribute, Iron (Fe), Cobalt (Co), Nickel (Ni), Atomic numbers 26, 27, 28 as well as Gadolinium (Gd) atomic number 64. Iron, Cobalt, and Nickel all get their magnetism from 3d orbitals having four (4), three (3) and two (2) unpaired 3d electrons respectively.
Looking at Iron (Fe) on the periodic table we see that it has partially filled d orbitals. Iron has six (6) electrons forming d orbitals in the third energy level (3d) There are five (5) d orbitals each composed of two electrons. The rule is that all five orbitals must be formed by one electron before pairing occurs. Since there are six (6) electrons, one orbital has a pair of electrons leaving four (4) unpaired electrons. Cobalt (Co) has one more pair (one less unpaired), and Nickel has two more pairs (2 less unpaired).
Gadolinium is different with the electron configuration, [Xe] 4f⁷ 5d¹ 6s², having seven (7) unpaired electrons in 4f orbitals as well as a single unpaired electron in the 5d orbital.
We have all heard that neodymium magnets are the strongest magnets available, but they are not made of the element Neodymium (Nd) alone but are actually made of Nd2Fe14B (Neodymium, Iron, Boron).
There's another video in which Richard Feynman is asked the same question, but his philosophical answer left me somewhat unsatisfied. I appreciate your ability to explain material like this elegantly and in terms that a casual person like me can understand. Thank you, Dr. Lincoln!
I agree. Feynman sort of seemed frustrated to be asked.
@@ehrenloudermilk1053 I think Feynman's general answer to "why" questions was "Shut up and calculate."
He didn't know the answer and got pissed.
@@Slowekistan Sure, Nobel laureate Richard Feynman didn't know undergraduate physics (a subject he's famous for teaching). Makes sense.
Meanwhile, back in reality... Feynman's response isn't even about magnets - instead he uses the question to talk about the nature of explanation itself (but agreed, it's absolutely fair to be left unsatisfied by that if you just wanted to know how magnets work).
Watch again the Feynman video, “Feynman on magnets”, minute 5:30 where Feynman says: “…The question would then be: Why in iron it (the force) goes over a bigger distance than in ordinary (material)? In iron all electrons are spinning in the same direction. They all get lined up and they magnify the effect of the force until it’s large enough at a distance that you can feel it.” So Feynman knew and gave a perfect concise answer. But admittedly he talked 5:30 around this answer, pointing also at general questions about deeper understanding of physics.
The magic is really in Part 1 - why/how electrons are magnets. Great explanation of the rest!
I actually feel like I have a pretty good grasp on how magnets work now, an excellent video as always Dr. Don! What was once utterly opaque has been rendered transparent (much like the universe ;D )
Back in the day people were hatin' on ICP for asking the question, Magnets, how do they work? But its a fair question. Decade later and we still need fermilab to lay it down for us. Great video!
The problem with ICP is that they said "scientists are liars." That is, their explanations of magnets can be dismissed.
Err no, "people were hatin' on ICP" because they took _their own_ ignorance to mean _no one_ knew i.e. the answer to "...magnets, how do they work ?" was _very_ well understood, even "back in the day" (I get that it's a revelation to lots of people but it's been a standard part of the undergraduate - and even high school - physics syllabus for _many_ decades).
Kind of like how more recently Bill O'Reilly claimed no one knew how the tides work and most sensible people considered him an idiot for doing so (again, _he_ likely didn't but the mechanism of the tides has been understood since the time of Newton).
@@CosmoPhiloPharmaco Scientists are human, and therefore could be liars. I'm genuinely not pointing fingers, just trying to get into the mindset of the general population. As pointed out in the video, scientist's grasp of how these things work on a quantum level is not exactly bulletproof. Can't entirely blame people for skepticism. And I should now admit I never listened to the rest of the song, I'm only remembering some of the memes.
@@PhillStone Here's the lyrics:
_"F*cking magnets, how do they work?
And I don't wanna talk to a scientist
Y'all motherf*ckers lying, and getting me p*ssed"_
Sure, scientists *could* lie, but 'could' isn't the same as 'do' and that's his assertion. Moreover, while *some* scientists do indeed lie (e.g., those involved with 'gender studies'), it is not clear that all or most of them do. It would be a fallacy from hasty generalization to make this inference.
With regards to scientists' incomplete comprehension of things, that's not evidence of lying. All respected scientists admit that science hasn't figured out everything yet, and that their knowledge is incomplete and open to revision.
So, to conclude, this guy is just wrong. There is no way around that.
A great video with explanations easy to follow. Thank you 😊
Brilliant, Don. I love your videos, you explain really complicated things in terms I can understand!
Every time I see a video like this--or an earnest answer from a physicist to a truly vexing question--I think about how everyone dissed ICP for asking (in a song), "Magnets. How do they work?!"
I mean, we dissed them because it's _not_ "a truly vexing question" - it was well known when ICP asked (in bad faith BTW - their point was that scientists are liars) because it's been a standard part of university - and even high school - physics lessons for decades.
😂 Please do not send this video to Violent J
I can't as a scientist that question because he'll lie and get me pissed.
As a Juggalo, I appreciate the thorough explanation.
Thanks so much Dr. Don for that explanation!! Like many others, I can now understand the basic concepts of how a magnet works at the atomic level. I do have another question though: now that we understand how magnets generate their fields, can you please make a short video on EXACTLY how the magnet performs the action of attraction to other Ferro-metals? Thanks again for all you do!!
Yes your last point has always worried me… if I hold a permanent magnet over a ferromagnetic object it accelerates towards the magnetic pole. What is doing that work, where does the energy to do that work come from, can I repeat that work an infinite number of times?
@@Richardincancale Oh come on man! THINK A BIT! If you squeeze a spring where does that energy come from? DUH! For a magnet to attract or repel it has to be squeezed or stretched from what it is attracted or repelled from. The FDQ ( think and you can figure what that stands for!) is what is the invisible field itself!
Very good question!
@@Richardincancale @willeykev That's one of the laws of nature yo
As I understand it, the magnetic field itself has energy. Check out the energy density of the magnetic field of a magnetar.
This is by far the best video I've seen on the topic. Excellent job.
I love your videos so much. So happy to see new ones coming out :)
Great explanation Don!!
Linear, logic and above all convincing 👍
❤Doc Lincoln Rules.
Nicely done closed captions. Love he admits no one knows why electrons are magnetic. In 2023 we have so much to learn about physics.
I for one feel they're even more magical now - my understanding has passed from caution out of a sense of separateness from mystery into a sense of connection from wonder. Figuring out the universe seems to make it come even more alive to me. Thank you for the explainer!
Great explanation. Finally able to follow the whole thing.
I was wondering forever, how it works! Thanks you so much for all those great videos!
3:02 i like that he has the courage to say that nobody knows why the electrone behaves like a magnet on its own
the electron has a spin which makes is magnetic, but no one actually knows a whats a spin physically, they can only represent what they measre, so if you want to read about electron you will find a lot a description how does it behave, but what is it - no one knows.
i think the biggest issue here is that we should measure what happens inside an electron, but as its an elementary particle it does not have any internal structure, and cannot be probed inside, if if that cannot be measured we might never know the answer.
Thankyou. I have an additional question: when one permanent magnet is placed in the magnetic field of a second permanent magnet, it aligns. Where does the kinetic energy for that alignment come from? It doesn't come from the permanent magnet I assume (or it wouldn't be permanent). Does it only come from the kinetic energy used to move it into the field, creating a field potential that then becomes kinetic energy?
It's kinda like gravity, the closer you get, the more you slide into the lower energy state going into the magnetic field.
Wow this was a great explanation that tied together so many other principles!
While I know I wasn't the only person who asked for this video it still feels like I'm getting a personal response and I'd like to thank you for that, and everything else you do to further all of our understanding of the world around us!
Now that's what I would call a very magnetic discussion about magnetism Dr. Don! 👍👍
Thank you so much for this explanation
The explanation that I saw on another channel somewhere was the exchange of virtual photons between force-carrying particles (electrons) was causing a transference of momentum from those virtual photons to the emitting electron and the receiving electron, thus either bringing them closer together or pushing them farther apart, and that the summation of all of these exchanges created electromagnetic attraction. This also explains the mechanism behind why magnetically attracted items accelerate towards each other when they get closer. The transfer of virtual photons is something that happens at some distance, and the smaller that distance, the faster the exchange and finally, the more exchanges can occur, increasing the momentum transfer that is accelerating the attracted items together. Same in reverse for repulsive forces acting on two magnetic items that push them away.
The example was visualized with two people who are each standing on a boat, throwing items between each other. If they throw a ball from one to the other, the thrower gets pushed away from the catcher by the equal-but-opposite force to the force required to accelerate the ball towards the catcher, and the catcher is pushed away upon catching the ball and absorbing the momentum it had. In the inverse, they are throwing boomerangs away from each other, and it circles around to the backside of the catcher. In that case, the thrower is pushed towards the catcher by the force used to throw the boomerang, and the catcher is similarly pushed towards the thrower by the boomerang when caught. The former example is of magnetic repulsion and the latter of attraction.
Dr. Don, so good to see another great video.
Eagerly anticipating a comprehensive video about the NISST ANDT Entrance Exam for career-focused programs featured in the 2-8 December edition of the English Employment News Paper on Page 57. Your perspectives are consistently enlightening!
The best part that I love most is where you say 'No one knows'.
Fantastic video, I have always wondered about this.
Excelent video Dr. Thank you very much
Feynman has a lot of interviews and such online. One of them explains how magnets work. It's a rather awesome video.
The one huge piece I never understood until now was the crystalline fragment enforcing a single orientation. Now things make a whole lot more sense.
how magnets work is an interesting question, because no one knows what magnetic force really is including Fermilab
Really great video! Thanks!
Don, your videos are some of the most precious intellectual delights I can still have in this World...
Very good video.
He is one of those people who make TH-cam still worth viewing
Excellent detailed explanation, both visually and communicating. Thank you sir! On another topic just more of a muse metaphysical thinking, wondering about the math and if there is something with like the 4th spatial dimension and beyond regarding the whys? Also, if there are any fractal like metasubatomic relationships that explain?
i learned a lot. this answers the criteria for how atoms make magnets but does not satisfy the human scale perspective for how do they magically force each other before touching
This is really interesting video. Thanks
Wow out of all the youtube videos I've ever watched about this topic, i FINALLY understand it!
I’ve have 1 biopolymer coated neodymium implant in each hand, for quite a few years.
They vibrate in response to EM fields allowing me to physically feel them.
It’s pretty interesting to have another sensory input specifically for that.
Read about these some years ago? Any issue in airports? And what about being unconscious after an accident and given an MRI?
What's the goal for that in the first place anyway?
Excellent. Never quite understood ferromagnetism. Now I do
I enjoyed this. In my workshop I have cause screwdrivers to become magnetic by stroking them with a magnet before I use them. This causes the screws do stick to the screwdriver even if I fumble them. Great to know!
THANK YOU...
PROF.DR. LINCOLN...!!!
that was very cool, can you now do one on the 4 types of magnetism and what they are good for?
This video is great and I’m going to start to use it in my classroom. Thanks! If possible, you should do a video on the enigmatic statement “magnetic forces do no work” but explain then how magnets pick things up. Based on other videos published recently in the physics TH-cam space, this would also be very helpful for students studying E&M.
How does the magnetic force propagate over distance? Does it work similar to gravity? I have studied some physics at university but never understood how that really worked.
Sort of; magnetic force is a long-distance force, except for that it's a dipole field whose force decreases with a cube of the distance. (As opposed to a point field, like gravity of a point mass or electric force of a point electric charge, which decreases with a square of the distance. If there exist magnetic charges, or magnetic monopoles [which haven't been observed], they would also follow the inverse square rule.)
Nice, a video on Sheldon Cooper's kindergarten work
great video!, can you make video on energy bands in periodic table as well
This was really good. But I'd like to find a video explaining how a magnet and a magnetic substance know that they are in close proximity.
A few infographics for the crystalline stage would have been a wonderful addition
Thank you for a great video.
I am just wandering about the energy stored in permanent magnets, is it simply the same, similar to the initial energy of the magnetic field used to align the domains? And how long does this energy stay in a permanent magnet?
Huh. This explains why metal fillings are magnetic. I'd always thought something about the grinding process somehow made them magnetic (heat + high magnitude force with a distinct vector = teeny tiny magnets?), but it's actually just that grinding metal breaks off bits tiny enough that they were already magnets! Cool.
Where does the energy come from to lift something and not be dissipated by age or use? Or do they dissipate?
OK, this is the best explanation I've heard about permanent magnets. But I have a question no other website/chat room/blog has ever answered. If that bunch of atoms are holding up that paper clip they are doing work. I'd they are doing work they are expending energy. So does the permanent magnet lose its atomic alignment over time? Will my fridge magnets eventually fall off the fridge? Where does that energy come from? Thanks.
I don't know if this is right, but I think of it the same way I think of stable atoms. The electrons spinning around are doing "work" but the atom can last billions of years or more.
A magnet holding up a paperclip is doing no more work than a table holding up a plate. Work is force x distance. Since there is no distance, there is no work.
@@drdon5205 True. I should not have used 'work'. But there is a force, correct? And the force requires energy? Just trying to wrap my head around something that sounds pretty close to perpetual motion.
@@tomhauer6528 Do you think a table holding up a plate is an example of potential energy? Because it's the same thing, energetically speaking.
Yep, permanent magnets do indeed lose their magnetism over time (basically, the domains become unaligned) but left alone it's pretty slow - if you keep it away from other fields, heat/cold, collisions etc. a high quality magnet may only lose a few % of its strength per century. Your (probably fairly low quality) fridge magnets will degrade more quickly but it'll still likely take many years, maybe even decades, for them to lose all sticking power.
And the energy of a permanent magnet's field comes from the original magnetic field that aligned its domains in the first place (so for natural permanent magnets that's the Earth's magnetic field). Just like Earth's field aligns a compass needle (itself a small permanent magnet), it can align the domains in ferrous rocks (most easily when molten).
Yay! Another Dr Don video! 😁
Thank you, Sir.
Thanks! I was hoping you would explain how magnetism itself works (like the fields themselves and how they do what they do over distance) rather than what magnets are but I learned something either way.
Very interesting. Now please have video on how magnets are made (if that is the right word) in a practical sense for consumer use.
A good video to explain how magnet works....I'm structural engineer but very interested in physics
Thank god I’ve been waiting for this video. The question stuck in my head for months was “do magnets bend space time”
thank you Don. Big fan .
Thank you very much. Very good explanations. As allways. FEMILAB is super!
Thanks! They should teach this in secondary science classes. Would you be able to extend the explanation to magnetic field lines?
Logical explanation
Thank you!
One thing I have never received an answer to (yet?) is about energy. Put something like paper clips on a table. Take a magnet, hold it above the table, approach it slowly bringing it towards the paper clips. At a certain distance the paper clips will jump to the magnet, UPWARDS. Where does the energy come from? I assume potential energy plays a role somewhere. But in any case I don't understand the energy balance.
What I draw from all Dr Don’s videos is that a big bloke can also have a big brain, both literally and figuratively! 😊
I would add one thing... Tell which atoms specifically are magnetic. Iron, cobalt, etc. Other than that, great explanation. We just studied this in my science class!
Is there a relationship between the attraction between positive and negative electrical charges (or repulsion of like charges) and the magnetic force?
The movement of an electron is interesting. "Spin" despite the early experiments needs more thought regarding what possible movements might cause magnetism and how filling the shell prevents the unbalanced magnetic movement.
Very nice and straight forward explanation. I was hoping for THE answer to what the magnetic field really is, which like many others, I'm still trying to figure out, and won't quit until I do (or pass away). Most likely it is something so simple that we just can't think of it, and some 5 year old will just point it out as the most obvious thing ever 🙂
So you did great so far, but now can you do it showing how the probability orbital "shapes" interact and influence the magnetic configurations?
Excellent video, thank you! What I would like to know is how two magnets attract or repel each other, not in terms of magnetic field gradients but in terms of fundamental particles. Do they exchange virtual photons?
Yes, they exchange virtual photons. That's how _all_ electric, magnetic and electromagnetic forces work.
Cool thanks for sharing.
For me, magnetic attraction at a distance is the 'magic' part. It's as if invisible arms are reaching out and pulling.
That's the point of the field. The action is always local in the field. Any force is defined by the value of the field at that point.
Do you ask the same question about gravity and electrostatic attraction?
If you think about it, gravity is exactly the same. The sun doesn't physically "touch" the earth and pull it around in a circle, but the earth goes around in a circle, regardless. The strong force is similar inside of individual nucleons, no quark actually "touches" another quark, but they are all constantly interacting via the strong force (via neutral pions) keeping them tightly packed. Once you fully couple the action (force) to the field (the math) in your head, it just kind of makes sense suddenly. Photons are pushing and pulling electrons. Pions are grabbing all the quarks together inside a nucleon. All the particles and the forces interact directly, via Feynman diagrams, and trying to to imagine the sum of all diagrams for the total force on a particle is quite a bit of effort.
Thanks for this, could you do some more to explain why the crystal structure (point 3) could encourage or dis-encourage the alinement's of magnetic atoms please?
On behalf of all the fans of the musical group Insane Clown Posse, I just want to say, this video is miraculous.
Superb and concise explanation of what makes a permanent magnet! Also besides artificially making a magnet there are actually natural occurring magnets found in nature as a mineral compound called magnetite (i.e. Lodestone). It is amazing that all these 4 conditions described in the video that must be fulfilled in order to have a permanent magnet are natural occurring in the magnetite mineral!... This material has not to be made a magnet but is a natural permanent magnet. By "permanent," it is meant that the material maintains a magnetic field with no external help.
ICP: How the f- do magnets work?
Fermilab: How does ketchup on hot dogs work?
Great video
Well done 👏
Hey, this is one of the next lessons we are going to take next semester in my Astronomy course.
There is one question I think is important (people have wondered for ages ...)which remains largely unanswered in this video. If we have to make iron magnets by putting them under a very strong magnetic field, in order to align the domains, then how was magnetic iron formed naturally? Already the ancient Greeks knew how to find natural magnets, so, how was this formed? By what kind of natural magnetism?
lightning, perhaps.
the Earth has a magnetic field
Molten iron, like in a lava flow or primordial conditions, is easily magnetized by the Earth's own magnetic field. Which comes from a spinning iron core surrounded by molten material.
yep, I was going to go into lava flows, and how you can track the pole flips in them.
Cheers for doing the typing 👍😊
It all begins with galactic seed fields................how they f´get created is yet another fantastic stories, with still some gaps though.
If this video doesn't prove that "physics is everything," nothing would. The periodic table, the chart of every chemistry classroom, is shown to have its underlying structure dictated by Dr Don's favorite topic! Thank you for explaining magnets (and for admitting that there's a lot we don't know about them).
ah, when you see that from a historic perspective, you are perfectly right. The first guys to really understand stuff were the chemists 200 to 150 years ago, but what are the underlying structures that make up the periodic table? It’s physics again. You can learn a lot about physics without understanding anything of chemistry. But you cannot understand any of chemistry without understanding physics.
Chemistry is """only""" the physics of the electrons of the atoms - so they say.
thank you for the video
thank you very much
when i first heard about the Pauli principle in my Atomphysics class it really blew my mind. The universe is magnificent.
Maybe a follow up showing the mechanics which draws magnets together.
Brilliant...
Thanks for the explanation. One problem, though. Everyone shows electrons (in this context) as little spheres that can be oriented one way or the other and thus their magnetic field is oriented one way or the other.
The problem is, that's not how electrons "look" like so that visual is good only at already quite high level. How does an excitation in an electron field have "an orientation" that "forces" its magnetic property to change orientation? Especially if it is in a funky-looking cloud around an atomic nucleus?
When two electrons or two protons are compressed together, the 1/r^3 magnetic energy (positive when magnetic dipoles attract) and the 1/r Coulomb energy (negative when the electric charges repel) can reach a minimum when they are at nuclear distances. Two electrons (Cooper pairs) or two protons (occurs inside neutron stars and perhaps near black holes) can also bind magnetically. The proton and neutron can bind stably by positive magnetic dipole energy (attractive) , positive electric energy (attractive) and negative rotation and vibrations (repulsive or tending to separate them) . It is simple to look up the neutron binding energy and solve for valid configurations and spectrum. Likewise it is simple to solve for proton pairing energy in the context of real nuclear isotopes and reactions. Deuteron, Triton, and many isotopes with magnetic moments. The alpha particle (helium) excited states have multiple configurations and those can be given precise dynamic magnetic interaction energies, orientations and field shapes. The experiments can check it and solved for configurations.
It is also possible to bind particles and antiparticle with magnetic dipole (and higher magnetic moments) energy contributions. A proton and antiproton: positive magnetic dipole binding energy, positive Coulomb binding energy, negative rotational binding energy. I am fairly certain there is no singularity if there is not enough rotational energy to reach a bound state. The proton - antiproton (I think) can be massless because the binding energy is gravitationally invisible. Check. The binding energy in mass terms does not contribute to inertia or gravitational mass. A bound particle antiparticle pair can have zero mass with the right rotational and vibrational states. I think that is likely what the neutrinos might be. And the very very very specific orientation and timing required for resonant interactions, is why the cross-section is small. But cross section has a larger meaning of "probability or reaction" than just "probability of collision". It you want to bind two protons, they have narrow orientation (in 3d and time) constraints.
If you take an electron and positron and bind them magnetically, they will have a spectrum that can be estimated by "magnetic dipole approximation" which is very close to the non-linear Schrodinger solutions (which can be thought of as solitons or particles). More like molecules than simple particles. The simplicity for screening reactions for economic value or "chemistry at atomic and nuclear energies" is that classical analytical models can be used for getting close enough for the more expensive exact models to converge. I learned that lesson when I was working with Steve Klosko on using measured satellite orbits to calibrate the earth gravitational potential field model. I would find a rough orbit, then he would run the full model and it would most often converge. But if he took the full model and guessed, it would be too expensive or simply not be a good staring point. I think the "full model for nuclear magnetic binding" will adjust for relativistic effects at high particle speeds and intense fields. So the "nonlinear" part of the nonlinear Schrodinger model is likely largely relativistic in nature, and very dependent on the experimental noise spectrum.
I wrote to Emilio Segre (antiproton) back about the end of 1980 (his letter back to me is Jan 1981). I was seeking encouragement to spend more time on modeling the orbits and forces on electrons and positrons (positronium), using the precise measurements to test. He basically said, "go ahead and try to do a good job". My take was "you have not said anything stupid, it is possible, just keep at it."
Here are some distances for different reactions when the magnetic contribution is 2 MeV. To give a sense of the scale. I am checking all the reaction energies at NUDAT 3 for all ~3500 isotopes. For a given distance PP is stronger then NP, is stronger than NN magnetic bonding energies. That has consequences for stable isotopic internal structure, and indirectly on electron and magnetic binding of partially and fully stripped (of electrons) reactions. I have been looking for "atomic fuels and materials" where the macroscopic bond energy density is KeV and MeV per pair rather than just eV 'chemical' bonds. A rocket fuel would be correspondingly smaller. A 10 KeV material would be about 1000 time smaller than chemical combustion fuels like StarShip. 100 meters of fuel down to 10 cm?
Variable Radius Unit Note
r_PP_2MeV 0.43585 fm PP Magnetic Binding Energy
r_NN_2MeV 0.33868 fm NN Magnetic Binding Energy
r_NP_2MeV 0.38420 fm NP Magnetic Binding Energy
r_ee_2MeV 32.97970 fm ee Magnetic Binding Energy
r_dd_2MeV 0.19835 fm dd Magnetic Binding Energy
r_HeHe_2MeV 0.36355 fm HeHe Magnetic Binding Energy
r_MuMu_2MeV 0.94318 fm MuMu Magnetic Binding Energy
r_TT_2MeV 0.45500 fm TT Magnetic Binding Energy
r_eP_2MeV 1.45500 fm eP Magnetic Binding Energy
There is a lot of work to find the proper geometries. But the order of magnitudes and possible geometries are a good start. I am using single bonds, but many bonds and types are possible and likely contribute. First you get close, then use more and more precise models. Measure and calibrate to 32 digit accuracy or it won't converge.
Boron 11 Neutron Separation Energy 11454221 eV r_B11->B10+N 0.185514604 fm
Boron 12 Neutron Separation Energy 3369600 eV r_B12->B11+N 0.318816993 fm
(There are end to end magnets, as well as side by side, and many dynamic interactions in 3D and time. End to end allows "strings of particles. And those seem to be operative at gluon energies too. But magnetic chains of a few particles (6 electrons binding?) or 6 neutrons binding in a ring. Those can be solved and likely tested. It is easy "chemistry with KeV and MeV bonds and energies". Then you do the details, measure and test and calibrate.)
Richard Collins, The Internet Foundation
Question - does the alignment of the electron's magnetic orientation differ in solid iron exposed to a magnetic field versus liquid iron solidifying in a magnetic field? In other words, can you make a stronger magnet by exposing liquid iron to a magnetic field as it cools and crystallizes than just exposing solid (crystallized) iron to the same strength magnetic field?
This video is worth to archive the title the Don of science communication.
Sir, is it the domain that is oriented in a particular direction? or the magnetic moments of the domain get aligned in a particular direction? Please respond.
Amazing content
Nice video, but I would like to see an explanation of whats happening between the magnet, and the thing is sticking to. Are the exchanging electrons? What makes them stick together? Why do magnets not stick to some kinds of metal? What are the properties a metal think has to have for a magnet to stick to it? Basically, i would like to know what's happening between the magnet and the thing it's sticking to.
I already understood all of this; what I did not understand was how magnetic force actually worked. We have been told that gravitational attraction is not actually a force as we know it, but a consequence of Spacetime being warped by the presence of mass. I was hoping for an explanation of magnetic force along similar lines.