Feynman: Magnets FUN TO IMAGINE 4 But see NEW UPDATED file at
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 28 ส.ค. 2024
- This is the original upload of the piece. There is now a much higher quality version at tinyurl.com/yc... Enjoy!
See also Feynman MAGNETS EXTRA on TH-cam • Feynman: MAGNETS EXTRA...
"Water, fire, air and dirt/
F*cking magnets, how do they work?/
And I don't wanna talk to a scientist/
Y'all motherf*ckers lying, and getting me pissed"
- Insane Clown Posse, Miracles (2009)
Here, physicist and Nobel laureate Richard Feynman explains to a non-scientist just how difficult it is to answer certain questions in lay terms! A classic example of Feynman's clarity of thought, powers of explanation and intellectual honesty - and his refusal to 'cheat' with misleading analogies... From the BBC TV series 'Fun to Imagine'(1983). You can now watch higher quality versions of these episodes at the BBC website www.bbc.co.uk/archive/feynman/ Also the 1981 'Horizon' and 'Nova' Feynman documentary THE PLEASURE OF FINDING THINGS OUT
As the 'idiot' interviewer who asked the ' dumb' question, and having followed the Comments for some time with great interest, I'd like to say something about how I see it. Feynman - generally agreed to be one of the greatest scientists of the 20th century - understood very well what I was asking and he also understood very well what the answer is (within the limitations of current knowledge, which he also understood perfectly). However fumbling my question was (and it was!) I was clearly asking him to explain magnetic repulsion and attraction. I think he then explained beautifully (and entertainingly!) that he was not going to give me an answer I would find satisfying because, as a non-scientist, I don't begin to have the background, the physics knowledge and the mathematical training needed to understand magnetism. He wasn't willing to give an account in terms I could handle, ie. using attractive but misleading analogies ("it's like rubber bands", etc) because in his view that wouldn't be comprehensive and accurate and would be "cheating very badly". I didn't feel annoyed or insulted or patronised or any of the other things that some Commenters seem to imagine; I thought it was all very interesting! And, by the way - as many Commenters have pointed out - he does in fact give the answer if one listens carefully... Feynman says more here: MAGNETS EXTRA th-cam.com/video/IdA-l_Lnp2E/w-d-xo.html but sadly it's audio only. Anyway, I'm very glad I asked him!
+Christopher Sykes I loved this interview! To get the type of answer you got from Feynman shows you must have asked the question. I think you did a fantastic job with this and thank you for giving us a great (and very interesting) seven and a half minutes to enjoy sir.
beautiful clarity, Thank you
Feynman could have talked about electromagnetic fields and ferromagnetism a little at the end of it all; otherwise I have no complaints against anyone here
+Christopher Sykes great interview all around and this was a fantastic question that elicited a very useful answer. If anyone said you're an 'idiot' or 'dumb' that person is a stupid idiot.
+Christopher Sykes I do think he did a very poor job in explaining; the question was clear enough, and the framework in which he could have answered... he chose to be difficult, perhaps to explain the epistemology of causation, but you didn't ask about that; for me he just wanted to seem... aloof?
Me: I'm late... what time is it?
Feynman: What do you mean?
Me: I just asked what time is it
Feynman: Listen to my question. What do you mean when you say what time is it?
Me: the time.... cause I'm late
Feynman: of course you're late but what you wanna know?
Me: I don't understand. That's a totally reasonable question
Feynman: That's an Excellent Question... TIME...
Me: .... oh sh*t....
:)
Love this man
Has anyone ever said "I can't really explain that" in such a brilliant way before?
The math behind electrical and magnetic fields was perfectly clear far before Feynman. It's highly unlikely (impossible) that he didn't know how magnets work. Also, it was more "you can't understand that" than it was "I can't explain that". Which is in fact true.
You misunderstood what he was saying if you got "I can't really explain that". It's that for the scope laid out for these videos it was far too technical and couldn't be laid out in the analogous framework with which he explained other phenomena. He answered it as best you can which was that the electrons all moving in the same direction is what causes this attractive and repulsive force to be experienced over a longer distance than we're mostly used to seeing. I think what has confused you is that he's saying such an explanation doesn't begin to touch the depth of what is actually happening and for low level thought experiments like the ones he presents in this interview it's far better to just accept it as a fundamental thing which is true and not worry about it beyond that. Otherwise this would become a technical lecture about the electromagnetic force.
@@ka1e_chips Both
We dislike jobs
He can understand and explain it perfectly. The interviewer doesn’t have the knowledge and background to understand it. That was the point of this.
The underlying irony here is that Feynman won the Nobel prize for coming up with the modern mathematical description of the electromagnetic force. Indeed it has proven the most accurate theory in the history of physics, agreeing with all known experiments to an incredible degree of accuracy.
But it isn't intuitive.
+Sphere723 Of course it's not intuitive, it's extremely advanced QM. But I believe that his formulation (using Feynman Diagrams) was far more intuitive than any of the other existing approaches. There was some bitter quote by Schwinger to the effect of Feynman diagrams "bringing computation to the masses". So it was probably the best there was. Also you should read his book QED, he explains the theory quite well all things considered.
Well, because we invent theories to explain observed phenomena, the observed phenomena at the microscopic level is different( acc to experimental evidence) than what we experience in our normal macroscopic world. So it must be non- intuitive or the 'intuitive' theory is incorrect.
@@adrianllanos8562
Quantum mechanics isn't intuitive to a human being. It takes considerable-no-a LOT of effort and brains to reach a point where you can confidently answer questions of such calibre.
That's the thing with mechanics, it's not intuitive but provides such elegant solutions to everything as long as you're smart enough to ask the right question.
@@rudythecat7320 And Bob Dylan won the Nobel Prize for Literature. He won "for creating new poetic expressions within the great American song tradition".
Would you like some wine with that Word Salad? WTF are his new poetic expressions"? Even better, what is a poetic expression, and how can we tell its a new one? Isn't all poetry self-expression and new? Give one example.
Why say the "great" American song tradition? Who is to judge whether American songs are "great"? Are they better than, say, indian songs? Chinese songs
And does the word "tradition" mean anything? Couldn't one say, "...in American songs"?
If we untangle the word salad, isn't it more clear to say he won "for writing songs that are more poetic than are typically written by American songwriters" .
But if that is the basis of his award, how do you explain rogers and Hammerstein songs that are very "poetic" such as Reprise from Carousel?
It seems the Nobel Committee had to stretch the English language well past it's snapping point to obfuscate the reason for the award. To give him one for writing more "poetically" than most songwriters in this country is simply wrong. I think it demeans the Noble prize. It's just my opinion, but I think Phillip Roth was robbed of his prize that year that Dylan won. Roth is "literature". Dylan is "songwriting". They overlap, but it's a mistake to equate them. Let's give the Grammy for the Best Song to John Grisham, for "creating new vocal stylings within the Great American book writing tradition".
Feynman says something you rarely hear: " I don't understand it in terms of something that you're more familiar with". As a teacher, I regularly try to explain things in terms of analogies but there comes a point in physics where nothing acts 'like' the thing you're trying to explain...except the thing itself. In this case magnetism. That's when maths comes in because it can describe the situation in a more precise language. Feynman = legend!
1qp
1qp
1qp
I've seen this clip many times, and each time i'm astounded by the clarity of thought flowing from his mind.
I wish others could explain things like him. Imagine if all our teachers were so clear. My god! The things we would learn...
This is one of the most beautiful interviews I have ever watched
When he explains anything ...watch how excited he becomes ,as if he finds a beauty in all the phenomenon which others cannot feel . A true enthusiast..
"The question you ask is actually so advanced that if I simply told you the actual answer, it would sound like gibberish. You'd ask me, 'wtf do these words mean', again and again; by the time I'd finally explained myself completely, I'd have given you a two-year course on physics. I could slap together some nonsense and pretend it's the answer, but I won't."
Nicholas Chan
Thank you. Saved 7 minutes of my life and probably more trying to interpret it.
What are you filling your life with if these 7 minutes aren't worth your time?
I think when people die and face our Creator, they will find that He explains these things beautifully. I suspect that it is NOT complex, but elegantly simple.
He who thinks he knows it all, is stupid. He who knows he knows little, is smart. in short: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
@miniclip1162 What is the relevance here? Feynman is simply one of the many physicists who have been burned by other physicists who gave people easy to understand but ultimately incorrect explanations. These physicists then have to waste class time getting students to unlearn things, and they eventually come to a point where even the people asking for simple but technically incorrect answers frustrate them.
I see it this way.... Feynman was one of the most brilliant minds humanity has ever known. A force of nature and nigh on intellectual singularity. He was also an outstanding teacher and communicator. THIS is how he handled the question of electromagnetism in the eyes of the non physicist. THIS is how he chose to go about the question. To some it makes complete sense. Some may think "why could he not just explain it?" Through Feynman's lasting brilliance may be remember that it's not always that simple and humanity is not automatically entitled to understand how the universe works.. In the face of such complexity we may as well be beasts howling at the moon, still.
All you in the comments saying stuff like "he is just cant admit that he doesn't know" need to realize what he is saying. He is saying he cant completely answer that question to pretty much anybody that doesn't have extensive knowledge in physics. He won a nobel prize for coming up with the modern mathematical description of the electromagnetic force. He knows it so well that he knows he can only describe it down so many layers before he starts losing almost all people.
Colton McCoy why didn’t he just answer in terms of physics and let the man go look it up. Because he didn’t have an answer
A Person if he can’t explain it he doesn’t understand it. Go fuck your self
I had never listened much to Feynman as I was always listening to more astrophysics or biology, but I have to admit that this little session showed just how smart Feynman was but not just realizing the question, but the frame of reference that the questioner was coming from.
Rather than scoff or dumb it down, he reached out and helped him understand why the question was not quite correct and then went on to answer what could have been asked instead. That is the sign of a great teacher right there.
Fascinating and entertaining! Hearing this discussion reminds me of a friend who was struggling to separate a pair of neodymium magnets. Seeing that he did not have the grip strength to pull them apart axially, I tried and succeeded by shearing them sideways, perpendicular to his attempted motion. All present seemed duly impressed but moments after placing one of the magnets on the table I experienced great pain in a finger, like the pinching of pliers! That magnet on the table had shot upwards to rejoin its partner, and a bit of my flesh was caught between them in this energetic event. OUCH!!! I think everyone else found this greatly entertaining.
Judging by the video, the depths of science are not as comprehensible to the general public as perhaps most of us wish they were. Judging by the comments below the video, however, the general public is to Feynman in unadulterated brilliance what Vizzini was to Einstein.
Or in other words, Feynman had a point.
Imagine if you spent ten years building your own car from the ground up, not buying a single part, fabricating every last one yourself from basic materials. Then someone comes along and asks you how you did it? Any socially acceptable answer would be informationally pointless, because the true instruction manual would be tens of thousands of pages long. This is what Feynman was objecting to. The interviewer was asking a profound question that can only properly be answered through outrageous amounts of explanation; yet the interviewer's intention was not to learn physics but to get some kind of trite little morsel that Joe Average watching the show could digest and feel good about. Maybe if we all respected knowledge a little more, we wouldn't prefer meaningless answers to excellent questions.
On the other hand, and to Feynman's discredit, sometimes it takes a little dose of the meaningless to get laypeople interested in science in the first place. Those little morsels can act as a lubricant to lead a person down the road to meaningful scientific inquiry. Lots of engineers got started because of Scotty, even though the "engineering" depicted on the show was total rubbish and wouldn't teach you anything about operating anything. So perhaps Feynman could have been less churlish and impatient while still advocating for his underlying point that science isn't just a bunch of easily-digested factoids, which is a very good point. Alas, being good at science and being good at public relations are two completely different skills. In modern times, only Carl Sagan came close to mastering them both. All too many scientific geniuses had no clue how to promote scientific literacy in the general public.
Josh Fredman A fair point, but I've seen other places where he did give simplified examples. Actually, I think in another section of this same interview he had one about waves. In this case, he specifically saw the opportunity to address another issue in understanding.
"The analogy fails" is your assertion, and in no way correct. Suppose one doesn't know what a lathe is, or a mill? Suppose one doesn't understand the process of component fabrication? Eventually you would end up far enough removed from the original concepts that any imbued understanding on the listener's part would be minimal to the point that it would be misleading. Alternatively, you would have to teach the listener many fundamental concepts and first principles--a massive endeavor not well suited to a short, conversational reply. these are the things as what Feynman was addressing.
But I have to agree that Feynmen's manner was tone-deaf and tactless, which I more or less already said.
Josh Fredman That's the problem, Feynman doesn't even ATTEMPT to explain the concepts behind magnetism. Any other "teacher" would've at least tried and allowed the audience to ask questions about what they didn't understand, instead he just jams his fist up his ass and screeches out "you don't understand the word 'why.'"
Solypsys He does explain it, towards the end of the video. You weren't paying attention. Watch again.
Andrew M What are you talking about? Magnetism being coupled with electricity does not explain HOW magnets work. Electricity doesn't 'cause' magnetism.
Most satisfying explanation that I, a layman, have found. Better than just descriptions of how magnets interact.
funny considering it's not an explanation at all but rather an avoidance of one
SOME PERSPECTIVE: For those of you who think that the main purpose of this video is to hear an explanation about magnetism; you are mistaken. You have been misled by the current title (February 2022) which is "Feynman: Magnets FUN TO IMAGINE". A better title would be "Feynman describes the difficulties in explaining things".
The entire point of this video is to help us understand the difficulties in explaining ANYTHING. Feynman uses the question about magnetism merely as a vehicle to help us understand the difficulties encountered when trying to provide explanations. The main impediment is that the student has one level of understanding and the teacher has a different (and much higher) level of understanding.
TRIPLE-thumbs-up to RPF for the most lucid and honest "explanation" of magnetism that I've ever heard...
Too bad that we didn't have the internet when I was a physics undergrad... :-/
"The real problem in speech is not precise language. The problem is clear language. The desire is to have the idea clearly communicated to the other person. It is only necessary to be precise when there is some doubt as to the meaning of a phrase, and then the precision should be put in the place where the doubt exists. It is really quite impossible to say anything with absolute precision, unless that thing is so abstracted from the real world as to not represent any real thing. Pure mathematics is just an abstraction from the real world, and pure mathematics does have a special precise language for dealing with its own special and technical subjects. But this precise language is not precise in any sense if you deal with real objects of the world, and it is only pedantic and quite confusing to use it unless there are some special subtleties which have to be carefully distinguished." Richard Feynman
+RichardFeynmanRules Well the jury is still out as to whether mathematics is an abstraction from the real world or fundamental to the real world.
+Kim Bheazley I believe he means the Platonism vs Nominalism schools of thought for the philosophy of mathematics. According to the Platonist viewpoint, mathematical entities exist outside of human imagination and mathematical proofs are discovered rather than invented (because they were true all along). I don't know if this makes sense to you - I have not gone into much detail here anyway - but you should look it up if you are interested. It is a long standing and unresolved philosophical debate plato.stanford.edu/entries/nominalism-mathematics/.
+Prescott Fulton Yes, I think it's fair to say the jury is still out on this, and it's an area of huge *philosophic* debate. Someone like cosmologist Max Tegmark, as you probably know, argues for the possibility of a *literal* mathematical universe, and some of the "digital physics" -- a computational universe -- ideas get deep into these ideas. And Scott Lowe, below, makes a very good point about Platonism and Nominalism. Roger Penrose, a terrific theoretical theorist, very much leans toward, even embraces, a very Platonic philosophical view of ultimate reality. I think his latest papers on the idea of repetitive Big Bangs are very exciting and intriguing. Although our beloved Feynman was one of the least "philosophical" of the great quantum physicists (compared to a mystic like Schrödinger), Feynman always argued that we be open-minded and comfortable with not knowing. Some of the mathematical stuff is just damn mysterious, as he wrote in "QED" on the numerical value of the fine-structure constant:
"It has been a mystery ever since it was discovered more than fifty years ago, and all good theoretical physicists put this number up on their wall and worry about it. Immediately you would like to know where this number for a coupling comes from: is it related to π or perhaps to the base of natural logarithms? Nobody knows. It's one of the greatest damn mysteries of physics: a magic number that comes to us with no understanding by man. You might say the "hand of God" wrote that number, and "we don't know how He pushed his pencil." We know what kind of a dance to do experimentally to measure this number very accurately, but we don't know what kind of dance to do on the computer to make this number come out, without putting it in secretly!"
These kind of conundrums always led to Feynman saying our *models* were wrong, and when we got it right, these complexities wouldn't be there. Well, we'll see!
+Scott Lowe Great and important point! And there's no consensus on this *philosophical* debate/issue, and greatest minds in physics have fallen on both sides of the issue. As a noted to Mr. Fulton in this thread, a Roger Penrose is very much a Platonist on these issues! And then, there's cosmologist Max Tegmark and his mathematical universe. :)
+Theoria Apophasis he simply wanted him to define "why"
A beautiful philosophical explanation on the difficulty of answering "simple why? questions". Every parent of a two year old has experienced this "Why? Tree of questions." LOL This was a great time to illustrate the difficulties, because electromagnetic forces generate "trivial" phenomenon we're all interested in. Plus, because explaining magnetic fields and forces, to someone without some basic physics educational background coursework, makes this question impossible. "Just because magnets do that" is about as good as you can initially do.
Masterful lecture! Who gives negative signs to this stuff? His remarks are insightful, obvious accurate, yet greatly worthy of his lecture. These negative people are dumb or weird. Why? LOL
+gedgar2000 +Langdon Harris He was a good physicist/lecturer, but not a good orator I've heard--which is nothing wrong and I'd admire in his personality. But, hey I'd bet if Carl Sagan was asked the same question he would taught and schooled the interviewer much more eloquently--rather than just add insult to injury.
Hey Mr. Feynman, ummm what is magnetism?
Feynman: I can't explain to you how little I know because of how little you know.
"If you can't explain it simply, you don't understand it well enough".
-Albert Einstein
+TheSocratesofAthens He actually explains easy enough :) But if you want a detailed explanation it can't be easy. Sorry
+StarNet420 , I said simple not easy: they are two distinctly different words. Also, smart ass, would you explain what he said to me SIMPLY. I assure you it won't be easy.
+jfyvneld I would say that Feynman is essentially saying "I don't know the underlying mechanism behind magnetic attraction". Feynman was good at manipulating equations but, apparently, not at explaining the physical phenomena represented in those equations: he didn't really understand the physical meaning of his mathematical work. In fact, he wasn't really interested in understanding quantum mechanics (which is necessary to explain how magnets work) as much as applying its mathematics to engineering. Consequently, Feynman's answer is confusing and negativistic.
+TheSocratesofAthens You mean he should have talked about the "exchange of virtual photons" (carrier of electromagnetic force)? But then again these "virtual photons" don't exist as real particles but are only some product of the equations.
He explained very simply that the magnets repel due to the same force that prohibits your hand to pass through the table but it get magnified because in iron the electrons are all spinning in the same 'direction' ( 5:29 ).
But what he did before was even better. He explained that everytime you stop asking why because you are satisfied with the (simple) answer, you could always go deeper.
+TakeoFR I mean, very simply, Feynman doesn't really understand the underlying mechanism behind magnetic attraction. Also, the reason we may "go deeper" into explaining this underlying mechanism is because it is, evidently, poorly understood: there is still much which we don't know so there is still much which we don't understand. Einstein recognized this and consequently was dissatisfied with quantum mechanics overall.
So to answer questions on why things are, there have to be "known truths" or assumed knowledge from which to base the answer, else one can simply keep asking why to go deeper and deeper. The electromagnetic force is a force we accept to be one of these known truths. Magnets work because this force exists and it happens to be that for the element Iron, it is visible to us because of the additive effect of the electrons all aligning their spin.
You can write down what he says; means nothing.
Yes, he was correct! And I agree that he avoided nothing - I think he explained very clearly why he was unwilling to give the kind of answer that I, a non-scientist, thought I wanted because I didn't understand the nature of question I was asking. But for what it's worth, I'm really glad I asked him because I think what he does say is so beautiful and profound.
Beautiful and elegant as all physics of Feynman is! Feynman explains how difficult (but how interesting) is to answer chain questions of why? Why? .. Why is ice slippery? Why two magnets repel? Why the chair pushes you back when you push it? Why can’t you put your hand through the chair? He explains in an elegant manner the nature of electromagnetic forces and how things and forces are related. Just watch it! Not once but many times. Recommended to all students as well as educators of physics!
He lands the critical strike around 5:30. Note it takes time for him to get to that point. Note there's more to say after that. This is what it's all about. Micro, macro, details and bigger pictures. We glance, fleetingly, around our world. Not a lot of people have the capacity, patience, and genuine curiousity to look longer, harder, critically. Btw, no idea why I'm on this video, but word up to Feynman.
114 people (downvoters) don't understand this. Too bad they understand how to use mouse's click to visit youtube and downvote such a wonderful clip.
I can agree with someone when telling that good Feynman, at the beginning of his answer, sounds a little "arrogant"... but it'd just a matter of seconds... because, to me, he then gives one of the most beautiful explanation about a "why?" question.
While answering, he also tells us that Nature is both complex and amazing at the same time... That if we want to really know things we have to go deeper and deeper, to investigate and study, because an incomplete answer is bad. And that from a simple, single "why" question we could discover something more and unexpected. In this case I can bet that a lot of people (for istance...my mother... or my wife) don't know that we touch things because there is the electromagnetic force.
He tells us that a question is like an onion... the more you dig, the more you find.
He had prickly character I think: just take him for who he was and enjoy his teachings :)
He has such an exquisite way of explaining things and his ability to come up with analogies and explanations on the fly is unparalleled and comes from a knowledge and understanding on these matters that is so incredibly intimate on an unimaginable level, that it blows my mind. i could listen to him talk for hours.
"You're just stalling, now."
"You'd like to think that, wouldn't you?!"
That faucinni he like to fuss
This is beautiful. Thanks :D
+The Unknown Cat hi cat :D
mrajentman
ARE YOU FOLLOWING ME?!!!
Probably already been mentioned ,but Feynman in the video giving an illustration of the ancient Greek philosopher ,Aristotle's "four causes" .The four causes in Aristotelian physics being the fundamental answers, to the question "why?" ,concerning moving and changing things.
These answers being : 1) a material cause(what the thing is made out of), 2) a formal cause(the arrangement ,shape or appearance of the thing ), 3) an efficient or moving cause(the agent of the thing's change or movement) and 4) the final cause (the purpose or sake of the thing).
this is the most honest answer ever in science.
if you keep asking "why?" you will eventually reach a point where you cannot answer any further. if you could answer further, you wouldn't need to ask the question; you'd know everything.
Why?
Well said chris
@@jacobshirley3457 Why did u say why?
@@solcoster8110 Why not?
He doesnt say "i dont know"...He says:
1. "Why?" is a difficult question to answer resulting infinite "why?"s...
2. "How" about Magnetic forces cant be explained deeply in a short interview. You have to have some skill sets to understand it (Mathematics, physics)...
3. "I dont wanna cheat on explaining it simply because it ends up misleading and serious misunderstanding of the concept".
My favorite Feyman explanation. I remember a few months ago, somebody asked me why do objects move. I answered that if you apply a force, that force increases the acceleration of the object, then the object moves. But he asked then what happens exactly in that contact point between two objects, then he asked why do some systems have energy, then he asked if the acceleration increases instantly or if it increases gradually in time. Then he asked if there is a very maximum order of derivation of the position function in respect to time. Then he asked if the universe is continuous or discrete, then he asked several other topics related to movement. The discussion took about two hours and I think that the person was pretty much convinced that objects actually move. I know that this is a silly question, but the person was doubtful about this. He initially thought that it's just the perception of the human being that objects move, and this is not an actual, physical fact.
Must admit he's a great man. I saw some other lectures on youtube and in one or two of them he also talks about "cheating" people when explaining things in familiar terms. He's a very strategic (long term) thinker when it comes to explaining things to people. When he sort of refuses to explain things in simple & familiar terms it is his way of preparing you for more advanced study like quantum-mechanics where explaining things in familiar terms isn't possible but also possibly (and probably in his opinion and personal experience) holds back your building of an understanding of how the universe works.
This guy was BADASS. In every frame of reference possible. Well, except the literal ones, of course... I imagine he didnt have an evil bum, or a malfunctioning one, or a bad quality one.
ComandanteJ Nah, I read a biography of him and trust me (if you are italian you can read that biography by your own), he was a "Casanova" in terms of girls.
Continuum ST So... he had an evil behind? LOL.
ComandanteJ After one of his wives dead he just tried to had some fun with younger girls... indeed, students of the university...
So, yes,he had an evil behind.
He talks like a politician here, he should have just said that we can describe what happens by what we see, but what magnetism actually is, we do not know, like "what is gravity?".
LMAO! You gotta love Feynman. He is very correct, in what magnetism is, and the narrator would have to pick up a book on magnetism, electricity, and physics to understand it. Then, Feynman alludes to rubber bands, and in reality, that is getting into the most minute actions of physics, on how everything, all matter, resonates. Anyhow, a magnet, using a piece of iron, has all the magnetic domains aligned in the same direction, by applying a strong magnetic field, or by cold working the metal, so you have a north and south pole in the piece, and an invisible magnetic flux field is created and radiated between the two poles. One can align the domains by simply hammering on a piece of iron. Then, electricity is created by moving a magnet along a conductor, such as a coil of copper wire. The magnetic flux pulls electrons from one atom to another, when the circuit is closed. It works just like water running through a pipe, except instead of water, you have electrons. Thus, magnetism and electricity is intimately connected.
This is great. I have this problem whenever I visit wikipedia. I start at one level only to be confused by terminology and I find myself going deeper and deeper until I forget the original reason why I started looking at wikipedia.
Explained it perfectly. For those who think he didnt explain it, need to watch and listen again.
He remind me of my girlfriend, when I ask her what she want to eat tonight. :P
butdoesitfloat gallery brought me here, best answer ever. If you really think about and understand it you can apply it to any concept. Like for example what are strings in string theory? Just mathematical concepts, you can't ask things like what are they made of or why they behave like elastic bands you must simply accept that that it is the fundamental property of it's existence.
For anyone who found this video naturally intuitive check out his books on quantum electro dynamics, he is a genius in teaching people to see from his perspective without needing advanced maths/
I'd like to see him as a witness in court.
Why?
It's interesting you ask. What why are you asking why about?
a Life is what you have :'
you might be interested in his role in the Rogers commission report especially his essay Personal Observations on Reliability of Shuttle, which was part of the report. watch?v=4kpDg7MjHps
_Why_?
That's a long explanation for "fuck off".
This is excellent. As a layman, I can accept a simple explanation of why magnets repel or attract each other. It's by no means a complex answer so long as you accept the extremely complex theories that go along with it. However Feynman being who he is cannot so easily provide or accept a simple answer, he analyses to a degree I simply do not function on. That's what makes a great scientist. Anyone can learn and recite knowledge, but to be analytical and be able to decipher is entirely different
Richard Feynman is a magnificent orator when it comes to quantum mechanics; primarily using metaphors and analogies instead of physics jargon, so to masses can comprehend the ambiguity, uncertainty and unpredictability of the quantum world. I've been reading up a-lot on quantum entanglement, the complementarity principle and the theory of uncertainty. The schrodinger's cat experiment is an intriguing analogy to explain the superposition paradox between particles.
Richard Feynman is a legend. RIP in peace my role model.
legendary idiot, yes. You demented M-Fer
You must be extremely lonely
maybe I dont like being around STOOPID people.
Theoria Apophasis Well you don't look smart :)
what should he RIP in peace?
Wow everyone in the comment section is angry or in denial. Nobody got the point.
Welcome to the real world. Don't forget - you drive on the same street with them, vote in the same lines and get your medical care from them.
@tommy cane115 He got free food in Vegas, did you know that?
@tommy cane115 How many "arm chair theorists" go to Las Vegas to get free food and learn more about life? You know he got a Nobel Prize in Physics, right?
@tommy cane115 According to one site, in the 1960's a Nobel Prize came with around $26k in cash, equivalent to $219k today. Sadly, people don't care as much about prizes that don't give money, or don't seem to be worth money even if (as with the Olympics) it's just a thin gold coating over a cheaper metal.
@tommy cane115 Your reply didn't show up in my notifications. By the way, why using bad words is stupid: pastebin.com/6zhzPdyn
You have a strange definition of "idiot". I don't see any use for it.
This guy is my Idol from now on!
The underlying mechanisms of how magnets work are very well understood. It has to do with the relationship between the electricity and magnetism that Feynman alluded to. i.e., electrons produce electric fields. Now when you have a change in the electric field, such as when an electron moves, a magnetic field is produced. Electrons in orbit around an atom's nucleus produce a magnetic field. Aligning these fields together amplifies it (this is a magnet). But interviewer wouldn't get this.
People complaining that Feynman did not explain permanent magnetism well enough, uh, magnetism isn't something you can explain adequately to a layman of any caliber. Here is a fuller explanation if you are interested, but be warned again, it is not for the layman.
Permanent magnets are a result of magnetism arising from special relativity in the first place, and of the way things work on the quantum mechanical level.
Magnetism is a consequence of relativity. The motion of a particle with electric charge causes a contraction of its electric field (from the frame of reference of other particles that are moving slower compared to it). The contraction creates a spatial imbalance in the particle's otherwise uniform field, which can act to pull/repel unlike/like charged particles. Hence, you get a special type of electric field that only applies to systems with charged particles in motion: a magnetic field.
This is why the Lorentz Force Law, which describes the electromagnetic forces experienced by charged objects in electric and magnetic fields, clearly defines that although the electric force experienced by a charged object is simply a product of the electric field it's in and the object's charge, the magnetic force portion is dependent on the CROSS product of the object's velocity in the magnetic field and of the magnetic field's strength, which is then taken as a simple product of charge.
F = q (E + v x B)
where "x" denotes a cross product. As the force F, electric field E, velocity v, and magnetic field B, are all vectors (meaning they will point in a specific direction in 3D space), it is necessary to account for this when multiplying v and B, hence the "cross multiplication". To better understand what the hell all of that means, google "Right hand rule" and then go look at a simple electromagnet (a copper wire coiled around a pencil, or other such fun little experiment you can do at home).
Note the direction of the current through a coiled wire, and take your right hand and follow the Right Hand Rule as best you can. You should end up twisting your hand in the direction of the current flowing through the coiled wire. Force needs to point inwards because the electrons need to twist through the coil, which means you get a magnetic field that will point up or down (depending on whether your wire was coiled counter-clockwise or clockwise, respectively, for a current flowing from the bottom to the top of the coil).
If you can grasp all of that, you will have understood electromagnetism. These rules also apply to permanent magnets, albeit for those you also need to understand quantum mechanics, specifically quantum chemistry.
Atoms are composed of 3 kinds of particles: Neutrons and protons (with neutrons being Neutral in charge, and protons being Positively charged) which form the nucleus, and electrons (negatively charged) which "orbit" the nucleus. However, you CANNOT treat the electrons like planets orbiting a sun, because of a specific weirdness in quantum mechanics called the Pauli Exclusion Principle, which states that identical fermions (which includes Electrons) cannot have identical "states". Suffice to say, this means that the orbitals of electrons get... weirder, the more you have. You have spherical ones, tear-drop ones, donuts, and composite orbitals that are basically a combination of teardrops and donuts. You also have spaces where two electrons with the same Spin CANNOT be, and if electrons of the same Spin must be put in those spaces then the whole orbital becomes kaput and cannot actually be exist (this is of much greater importance when discussing molecular orbitals, and is beyond our scope), and so you end up trying to figure out how to distribute electrons around to avoid having some where they shouldn't be, a very common challenge for quantum chemists trying to model molecules. Anyways, for an electron "orbitting" an atom, it has two quantum properties that make up its state: The electron's "Spin", and the spatial region it occupies around the nucleus, called the orbital when only thinking of space, and more appropriately called the "magnetic" quantum number when thinking in space-time.
Both of these quantum properties are intrinsic: They are there, and we can observe them, but trying to reduce them to questions like "Why are they there?" is ultimately futile, just like trying to explain why energy exists or why atoms exist. It's just part of nature, and to explain their existence requires an explanation of the existence of our universe. Let's start with the easy property: Spin.
We call it Spin because it leads to properties that bear some physical resemblances to a "spinning object". You will remember from your understanding of electromagnetism that a current "spinning" around in a coil creates a magnetic field. The Spin property also ties electrons back to their ability to generate a magnetic field (if the conditions are right), which is why it's called Spin. BUT, it does not mean that the electron is actually "spinning". Electrons and other similar irreducible particles are infinitely small and uniform points; now try to imagine having an infinitely thin coil of wire and running a current through it, you basically end up with a single wire that is no longer generating a magnetic field Up or Down. But an electron IS generating that field Up or Down (for spin Down or Up, respectively). The take-away message is that even electrons at rest carry an intrinsic magnetic field, called its "magnetic moment", due to its Spin. And, it can spin pointing Up (+1/2) or Down (-1/2). Note that Spin is a property that both free and atomic electrons can have, so it is fairly easy to explain in that regard. Protons and neutrons also have spin, and for reasons that will become clearer later, lend their spin in a special additive/subtractive way to the nuclei they compose.
Now for the much harder property: the Magnetic quantum number, which is related to electrons orbiting atomic nuclei. This property also helps explain the properties of nuclei themselves, when treating the protons and neutrons that compose them as space-time-related particles locked in specific space-times by one another. Keep all of this in mind because the nuclear properties are what Magnetic Resonance Imaging actually makes use of, and is incredibly important in understanding the magnetic properties of ALL matter (even the common non-magnetic stuff).
To simplify the Magnetic quantum number explanation, quantum chemists will usually forgo the whole "time" stuff and simply focus on the "spatial" stuff. This ultimately leaves you perplexed about the definition "Magnetic", since it is ultimately related to space AND time, but trust me, it is going to be a lot easier for your understanding if we just ignore time for now.
Devoid of time, the Magnetic quantum number devolves into a simplistic spatial approximation. Basically, we become concerned only with finding out Where the electrons are, around the nucleus. We cannot determine exactly where an electron will be (due to the EPR paradox), but we can create fuzzy maps that describe where an electron probably is. Those fuzzy maps are called "orbitals", which are simply Magnetic quantum numbers without the pesky Time property. Again, it's not accurate, but it works for us.
Now we can add the Time back into our example, which leads to a much more recognizable problem: Why don't electrons just fly towards the nucleus? A good analogy to make is with planets orbiting a sun. The planets are constantly moving, while being pulled by gravity towards the sun, but because the planets move perpendicular to that pull, they never get pulled into the sun. Electrons are a tiny bit stranger, but essentially the same applies: They must be moving in order to continue "orbiting" the nucleus. That means they have velocity, and therefore momentum. And depending on how close they are to the nucleus, they must possess a specific momentum to stay there. That angular momentum is an important part of the Magnetic quantum number, because if you recall from electromagnetism, a moving charge creates a magnetic field.
OK, so now we understand our two basic properties for magnetism: Spin and Magnetic. Now the question is, if ALL electrons have magnetic fields, both from Spin and from Magnetic quantum numbers, then why are only a select few materials magnetized? And why are even fewer capable of being permanent magnets? To answer that, we need to recall the Pauli Exclusion Rule, and that in the quantum realm we are dealing with particles that are "points" for all intents and purposes. Particles can be formed from smaller particles, and in the simplest image possible, the quantum properties of these conglomerate particles end up being the summation of the quantum properties of the composition particles.
For electrons, we have two properties that can vary from one electron to another, but that can never be the same: Spin and Magnetic. Electrons can share the same Magnetic number (or orbital), but if one has a spin of +1/2 then the other therefore must have a spin of -1/2. Those spins end up canceling each other out, with the conglomerate "electron pair" particle having no net spin, and therefore no net magnetic effect. For each Magnetic quantum number, you can have up to two electrons, and if all of your magnetic quantum numbers contain electron pairs, then you have no net magnetic effect from electrons in that atom.
The way orbitals end up working, in terms of space-time geometry, is that you will end up with multiple shells of orbitals depending on the number of protons in the nucleus. You start with singular spherical orbitals (called "s" orbitals) which are at the lowest possible energy and the first to be occupied by electrons, then with triplicate tear-drop orbitals (called "p" orbitals) which are the second orbitals to be occupied, followed by quintuplet dual-node orbitals (called "d" orbitals), then septuplet triple-node orbitals (called "f" orbitals), and so on and so forth. Basically, more possible orbital geometries become available as the atom gains electron density, due to the fact that electrons always have the same velocity (but differ in momentum) and so things work out that you get more space to play with as you get farther away from the nucleus. By the 4th shell, you have 4 possible sets of orbital geometries (s, p, d, and f), although the f orbitals are of such high energy that they are never occupied unless the electrons are particularly energetic for some reason.
In any case, unpaired electrons are more energetically favorable than paired (because they can have either spin up or down, which makes the system more entropically favorable; a consequence of thermodynamics on the quantum level), so as you go across a row in the periodic table of elements, your electrons will always begin by occupying every empty orbital they can, so long as it is energetically favorable. This means you get unpaired electrons, albeit only on the outermost orbital shells, but this is enough to make magnetism surface in some pure elements like Iron (which has 4 unpaired electrons in its d orbitals).
In molecules, atoms will form molecular orbitals, with the electrons effectively being shared between nuclei in these special orbitals. You get the same general idea, though, with electrons occupying the lowest energy states possible, whether that means being unpaired to lower energy while occupying slightly higher energy orbitals, or pairing up to slightly heighten energy while occupying much lower energy orbitals.
For some atoms, like Nitrogen (which by itself has 3 unpaired electrons in its 3 p orbitals), this means you end up with all paired electrons in the molecular orbitals, consequently leading to a molecule with no electron-derived magnetic effect. But, for other atoms, again like Iron, you still retain and sometimes even get a stronger magnetic effect in the resulting molecule. This is the case for Magnetite, which contains both Iron (II) and Iron (III) oxides, with the Iron (II) being magnetic specifically. This can work backwards, though, with things like rust which is purely Iron (III), and not appreciably affected by magnets.
The attractive force experienced by magnetizable matter in a magnetic field is a result of the re-alignment of the unpaired electrons so that their Spins align with the magnetic field. Regardless of the direction of the magnetic field, the electrons will flip so that their fields align (because that is the lowest energy state), and because the electrons are negatively charged, this will cause the electrons to experience a pulling force towards the source of the magnetic field, pulling the rest of the matter with them. Hence, ferromagnetism. In the case of positively-charged particles, the opposite occurs, where the alignment of the positive particle's magnetic field causes a repulsion force (diamagnetism).
Note that so far, all discussion of magnetism in ordinary matter has been in terms of matter that can be affected by a magnetic field, and NOT actually matter that emits a permanent magnetic field. For that, you need another condition: the magnetic fields in the matter need to be permanently aligned in a specific direction. Atoms and molecules have individually weak magnetic fields that can cancel each other out if they are countering each other. If atoms/molecules are aligned with each other (all the orbitals face the same directions) then we get the sum of individual magnetic fields. This alignment process usually goes through multiple steps of size: Individual atoms/molecules align to form Crystal Domains, which align to form a whole crystal. But growing a single crystal of Iron (III) oxide is not exactly simple. Instead, we will align the orbitals of the individual atoms/molecules using heat-treatment in a strong magnetic field: breaking and forming molecular bonds with emphasis on unpaired electrons that can align their magnetic fields with that of the outside magnetic field, because it is the only way they can achieve the lowest possible energy in this situation. After this treatment, the molecular bonds remain the same, and so too do the alignments of the individual orbitals, with all the unpaired electrons having a Spin that points in the same direction. You now have a permanent magnet!
And if your mind is still intact, you might be interested in the fact that even the nuclei of atoms have Spin, and therefore magnetic fields. The net magnetic field is incredibly weak, but it does lead to even atoms/molecules with all paired electrons having magnetic properties. Such atoms are are called Diamagnetic, because unlike ferromagnetic material, they are repelled by magnetic fields (albeit very weakly so) because their magnetic properties arises from the Positively charged nucleus. If you don't believe me, go look up the video on youtube with a carbon stick on a styrofoam boat being pushed around a water bath using a neodynium magnet.
Where is the magnetic property of a nuclei useful, you may wonder? MRI. Yes, MRI is a process that studies your atoms nuclear magnetic fields, and can even build a pseudo-elemental map of your body's hydrogen (and sometimes even carbon and phosphorous!). Any atom with Spin is a possible subject of study in MRI and its grandfather technology, nuclear magnetic resonance. What MRI does is it forces all of the nuclear magnetic fields to align with the immense magnetic field of the instrument. Then, it irradiates those nuclei with radio-waves of just the right energy to cause their magnetic fields to "flip". The instrument then "listens" to your body's nuclei, which re-emit the radio waves. With some savvy placement of antenna arrays in the MRI, we can then figure out where specific radio signals come from within your body, and build a map.
Again, I've simplified everything greatly here. The mathematics gives you a much better picture and explanation of what's going on. For that I would recommend looking at MIT's free lectures for a better understanding.
So, in other words, you can't explain why electrons have magnetic poles. They just do.
Hey, thats the same way the posi trac rear end on a plymouth works!
Feynman was sought out by physicist Niels Bohr for one-on-one discussions. He later discovered the reason: most physicists were too in awe of Bohr to argue with him. Feynman had no such inhibitions, vigorously pointing out anything he considered to be flawed in Bohr's thinking. Feynman said he felt as much respect for Bohr as anyone else, but once anyone got him talking about physics, he would become so focused he forgot about social niceties. Did that help?
I believe that when we think we understood something that's not really an understanding. It's actually just an analogy with something we think we understand but, in fact, we don't. As Feynman explains, we feel a force pushing us back when we try to push something and we don't try to explain it because it's something very familiar to us. So, if we can construct an analogy to something pushing another object, just like we are used to doing, then that will be a satisfactory explanation for a phenomenon.
Everyone understands far less than we think we do.
So why do magnets attract each other?
+zagyex The power of "love" and "hate" ;)
+zagyex Your going to have to read multiple books just to understand it. That or take classes...
+zagyex you can search and download the book (legally free) Uncovering the Missing Secrets of Magnetism
JunK Don’t waste your time reading this nonsense.
This is exactly how I feel when my wife asks me what I'm doing in the garage.
I CAN'T ADEQUATELY EXPLAIN IT IN TERMS OF ANYTHING THAT IS FAMILIAR TO YOU!
When my young son walks in on me programming and asks "What are you working on?"
Sometimes I just tell him "I'm trying to figure out how to make this thing tell this other thing to do a thing, but you can't do this thing that way with these kinds of things apparently, so I made this other thing do a thing that I think might make the first thing do the thing that will tell the thing to do the thing like I want it to. Make sense?"
The best thing about this is Feynman's very smug expression at the end. One of my favourite Feynman segments. Thanks for sharing.
I am not trying to be a wise guy or anything, but I remember my physics professors explaining to us that he wasn't going to explain "why" anything. Why was for philosophers, writers, and lawyer. "How and what" based on experimental evidence and observation was what we would cover in physics. I believed him then and I still do and it was nice hearing Mr. Feynman re-affirm this.
The "Why?" question is for philosophers. I tend to leave that to them, so that they can get lost in that -mine- mind field.
+LeeboProductions The why question is as important for the philosopher as it is for the scientist. If those who built the theories we have now didn't ask to themselves why planets move the way they do, why ice is slippery or why two magnets repele(or attract), we would have any understanding of the fundamental reasons.
I think you guys are missing my reference here. I'm responding to Nietzsche.
First up, the title of the video somewhat sets the tenor of the video. I feel that clickbaits are especially bad because they sour the video content to some extent as they put the viewer in a certain frame of mind. And yes, I did look up the song. But really, there was no need to quote that song unless the interviewer harbored some sense of anger toward Feynman.
Having said that, it was somewhat uncharacteristic of Feynman to assume that tone of voice early on. He mellowed down as the video continued, but his initial reaction did seem to be one of chagrin. The fact of the matter is that his chagrin was, in fact, justified.
The real kicker about this is that only about 1% of folks who watched this video saw the complete version of it. In the second part, he goes on to say that there are some things in science that tool 400 years to fully explain. You can't expect an honest answer, one which lacks platitudes, unless you have certain background of physics. The whole argument of teaching sixth grade kid with no background about extremely complex physics is unfounded. If the sixth grade kid is well versed in the background of physics, he/she can probably understand the correct explanation too.
Finally, the odd part about these sets of comments is claim of several people that Feynman really didn't know how to answer the question. I would advise such individuals to find out what Feynman's Nobel Prize was for! Quantum Electrodynamics (QED) was his bread and butter. And in case you didn't know, QED unifies concepts of electric and magnetic field. There were few out there who could, in fact, answer the question posed by the interviewer in an accurate manner!
You are quite right about the title so I've changed it! Thanks...
In fact, Feynman helped lay the foundation for electroweak theory, while robustly laying out quantum electrodynamics, meaning that this man in particular won his Nobel Prize for being able to explain the electromagnetic interaction.
Remember though that the ONLY time we need a model of quantum gravity (IE 'how do the electromagnetic force and gravity relate') is needed for black holes, and to explain the big bang prior to a planck time.
'Why magnets repel', however, is very well understood.
On one hand I understand this approach, but on the other hand, I care about the "why" and want to have the a deep and complete understanding of whatever I want to, and in this light, I'm going to go down the rabbit hole to answer every "why" I need to to get to the bottom of what I want to.
This takes you to crazy places, but why is it not worth the effort to have understanding for fun?
This must be why ended up in Philosophy instead of Physics :D.
"How" is science.
"Why" is philosophy.
This is so weird, I actually wanted to know how magnets work and this video pops up on my youtube start page.
Big brother is watching you.
+Adam A. Afif Big Brother would have to read my mind, because I didn't tell anyone about this or done anything about it.
+Militaru Tudor proof of the matrix.
That would be the thought police.
How does deja vu work would be the next video on your list?
what amazes me about interviews with Feynman, when he talks you can hear the shear clarity of thought going on in his mind, i love this. He explains so much in so few words, this is a very very rare talent. Simply beautiful.
Best dodge.. ever. Basically his point is I can't explain it to you because of you.
Some questions require a course (or several) in physics to answer.
Feynomenal.
He's doing both at the same time by explaining that why is a question which doesn't inherently have a limit. This is true of all questions but as why is the most fundamental of the questions which drives science, it is infinitely more obvious that it does not have an end.
He makes a long and labored process of explaining that he can only explain "why" so far. It doesn't take seven minutes to do that unless you treat your audience as if they've never heard the question 'Why?" before.
He didn't say the interviewer wouldn't understand it, he said you can't answer such a vague question reasonably without knowing who you're talking to. Simply asking "Why do magnets work?" is a crazy question. And he did explain it (iron molecules line themselves up and magnify the magnetic force). You can't say much more than that because why magnetic molecules are magnetic in the first place are only understood in physics equations. It's like asking why is fire hot? Or why do things exist?
Feynman has a very eloquent way of saying "THINK about your question before you ask it."
I would like to have seen him say "What's the _feeling?_ ... you'll need to ask the magnets about how they feel, not me."
+dieselscience I have a slightly different take, the original verb "feeling" question was triply ambiguous, I think perhaps Feynman understood it as a multi layered deeper question, what, in the case of macroscopic magnetism, is responsible for such an action at distance? How does a particle separated by "empty" space "feel" or sense the presence of another particle, let alone the "why?" ( note the questioner actually asks Feynman both questions simultaneously).
As noted he could on and on about the "how?", but in the end you would have the story that fundamental particles have intrinsic properties that are mediated by other fundamental particles, in the is case photons, which "talk" across "empty" space and allow collections of fundamental particles to have a "direction or orientation to their response to "feeling" or sensing the presence of the other collection of particles and finally their induced collective response to the other collection of other fundamental particles separated by some, now slightly changed distance. So in the end as you peel back the onion by asking why ? why ? why? ( which Feynman strongly encouraged, calling it an excellent question) you end with axiomatic conclusions, "it is just the way nature is". Because his intended audience did not likely have the background to understand the underlying "beauty " of the intellectual journey, he found it a long, winding story about nothing.
His true caring and genius then shows, he asks his audience something that, for at least some portion of those listening independent of their grounding in the physical sciences,, would be a lesson with value: to question what they were seeking to understand in the first place, and more deeply how the why? and the how? could eventually lead to a collection of ideological constructs which can form the intellectual framework upon which deeper understanding of the world around us could be pursued
+Steve Bergman
Your inability to understand what he is saying is not proof that he is saying nothing.
+Steve Bergman the fundamental point is that there comes a point where you just have to accept some facts as 'axioms' that have been demonstrated to be true emperically and from witch you can derive other stuff, but don't have an explanation of their own based on more fundamental principles. This was in fact what he was saying to the guy by using an analogy.
In fact this is inescapable, even in the future. A theory can't contain an infinite amount of information, you can always ask why. Why does gravity exist? Because spacetime curves under the influence of mass, why does space time curve under the influence of mass? You can just keep going on and eventually you will always reach some point where you just have to accept something without being able to explain it. This applies to every theory, even a so called theory of everything will have axioms. Even mathematics has axioms, although they seem so obvious you probably won't question them.
Another interesting point he made is, why do we ask why magnets attract each other but don't ask ourselves why we can sit in our chair without passing through it. I think Feynman did a very good job there, the things we assume as being self evident are not that self evident when you think about them. And the fact that both questions are intimately related, and there is only a difference in the distance involved is very interesting.
Re. the many commentators who see arrogance in Feynman's explanation and regard the interviewer as in any way humiliated: one big problem with today's educational system is that it doesn't deflate people's ridiculously overblown egos more and maybe even helps to blow them up. As a result, these egos become so big that they don't even allow someone with Feynman's credentials to speak to them (or their representative, i.e. the interviewer here) from the position of a teacher who knows better than them. In order to be addressed as an equal by a proven top notch thinker, you need to prove yourself first or his precious time gets wasted - and yes, his precious time is most probably much more precious than yours (or mine, of course).
I think this is actually a problem with "news as entertainment". In what context would people be watching an explanation of a complex scientific phenomenon like magnetism?
All he had to say is that there are 2 streams of current winding in opposite ways creating a field... one centrifugally, the other centripetally. When one aligns with another, the field either becomes one, or repels the other. Faraday explained it better.
What simple brilliance this guy has/had. I sat here mouth agape at how often I feel that way when someone asks me why.
fucking magnets how do they work??
This is why I hated and still hate history class.
Test: "Why did Hitler invade?"
Me: "I dunno... Go ask him."
+Zynoa Piano Hahahahaha
Because he wanted Lebensraum for the German people. That "why"-question is nothing like why magnets repel/attract each other
really? let me show that you are wrong. Why did he want lebensraum for the german people?
Because he wanted Lebensraum for the German people.
Oh, I do. :) It can be exhausting sometimes because you end up trying to explain not only why the sky is blue, but why there even is a sky. Actually, I'm constantly amazed by and proud of the profound questions my son asks and the ideas he comes up with. Little people are truly amazing and can teach us as much as we can teach them. :)
this was Feynman basically losing his sh*t and raging, while still keeping his calm and keeping up a smile, with a definitive "f off" at the end
Great take, but, he is actually struggling to articulate an answer to the guy's question. The question was vague enough that a 'how' answer would have been fine. Instead he bumbles into this ramble about 'why' questions. On the other hand, he could have discussed 'frames' or frames of reference. This is classical 'talking past the question.
By the way I know and believe the guy is brilliant, this just wasn't one of his brilliant responses.
Anyone can interpret the physical phenomenon. not the reason.
We should give the interviewer props for not interrupting him though. I feel most people today would’ve stopped him at some point.
The Question and the Answer is a good example of “measurement-omission” theory of abstraction; that is, concept-formation is a matter of grouping items together on the basis of a commensurable characteristic while omitting the specific measurements (e.g., grouping red objects together while omitting specific shades of red). Such abstraction does not falsify its objects, as in omitting specific measurements we do not claim that they do not exist, we merely omit to specify them. The similarities on the basis of which we form our earliest concepts are perceptually identified; more sophisticated concepts involve conceptually identified similarities. (the foregoing is taken from Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy re: Ayn Rand's 'Objectivist Epistemology').
Basically, "dont ask such a loaded question about things you cant possibly understand"
Somebody give this man a Nobel p... oh wait. They already did.
Nevermind.
That interviewer pressed all the wrong buttons. Longest cool answer ever.
And that's the brain of a genius, ladies and gentlemen.
Feynman trolling lol
The answer is easy if you're a Creationist. "God made it that way...now stop thinking so much."
lol
He mainly was pointing out that the repulsion was from the same electrical forces that we are familiar with when we bump things together. Due to the nature of the iron atoms homogeneously acting together, the force was noticeable at a greater distance than a chair, for instance.
....this also means, that a WHY question you answer as far as you areinterested in, or how deep you´re engaged, and WHEN you´re satisfied...he explains brilliant that, a WHY question is a personal thing.that means- i stop asking WHY when i feel i am satisfied, and this also has to do, with my personal understanding, and personal imagination. i guess the most important message in this video, was this.
So how do they work?
It's incredible difficult
the electromagnetic force is known to be simple because we can control it, but in fact, to fully understand HOW it works, we have to understand the whole standard model, with the Higg's mechanism, strong/weak nuclear forces and gravitation/dark energy.
it's a part of a whole thing that defines reality as a whole thing. the truth.
whoever claims "I know how to explain X" will only explain until the actual advancement of scientific knowledge, which is right, 90-99% of the truth, but claiming as it to be the definite truth is foolish.
atheists who brags about the wonders of science, GMO supporters, all these people who claims that science and technology delivers something definite and that they "know" are themselves fools who don't understand science. most of them could not barely understand the true meaning of E=mc2 but will brag about it for the sake of sounding clever. (anecdotal because one of them explained me it was the theory of relativity. which is false.)
the most wise thing to say then is "i know that I don't know" and aspire to future discoveries.
Check Out The Videos by theoria apophasis on TH-cam. he Made Tons of Videos about magnetism and wrote a book about it. he may be the one and only Guy who finally understood and explained magnetism
*****
i'm electronician, i perfectly understand magnetism, and it's surprising.
now we have to understand that the three other forces have as much properties. especially gravity. it will explain dark energy as well.
strong and weak forces eventually might have much more than nuclear reactions, who knows, maybe the weak force could carry a signal one day.
Electromagnetic forces are fundamental. We don't have a theory about more fundamental properties of matter than give rise to electromagnetism. So it's as Feymann said: _they just do_ because that's how the universe works.
Oh come on...he dodged the fukin question.. :)
I could listen to him all day long...
His admission at minute 7 was that "the relation between the electric forces and gravitational forces remains unknown".
That's not to say the reason why magnets work remains unknown, it just is his reference to the greatest unsolved problem in physics, the unification of the 4 fundamental forces. We have already measured the electroweak interaction (electromagnetic and weak forces), and have a "Grand Unification Theory" for weak/strong/electromagnetic, but gravity remains a mystery.
What I got from this is
Richard Feynman is clearly against dummying down things.& doesn't like to use forced analogies to explain nature.
Dumbing is the word ;-)
This guy is just lying, and getting me pissed.
fuckin magnets.
how do they work?
Feynman said in this whole video that there is no way to explain how magnets work in layman's terms. It requires careful study if you want to have an intimate understanding of what they are. If you are a student of physics, you know that electricity and magnetism are manifestations of the same thing (and thus one of the four fundamental forces is referred to as the electromagnetic force). For example, in relativity the magnetic and electric fields "rotate" into each other. In one stationary frame a situation may appear electrical in nature, but in a moving frame it will appear magnetic.
He always believed that the question is more important than the answer.
Man... a simple "I don't know" would suffice. Tesla didn't know, he wasn't chicken to say so, nor would he attempt to rationalize it as "a flaw of the other". I'd presume he'd consider that pathetic. This poor dude can hardly express himself, let alone give a relevant, concise answer. Read a little Bacon and you'll see what I'm talking about.