Can Someone Explain The Power Of Magnetism?

[MRC01]

All kidding aside, the question, as asked, cannot be answered. We can predict magnetism's behavior, but nobody knows how it works. ...

True, but if one imagines magnetism as a bunch of atoms having electrically imbalanced + and - charges, all aligned in the same direction, it's a good enough intuitive analogy even if it's not fully correct. It's not that different from thinking of the coffee mug in contact with the desk. Or even Newtonian physics. It's not fully correct but it's a good enough model to be useful.

As mentioned earlier, these things are multi-layered. You can always peel another layer from the onion. But at some point you peel back enough to get an intuition for it and usually that is good enough for practical purposes.

 

[KrisZ]

People who navigate with map and compass already know this, but the Earth’s magnetic field moves around and is not aligned to the geographic N and S poles. You have to account for this difference between magnetic north and geographic north when using a paper map to navigate. It’s because the solid inner core moves within the liquid outer core that the magnetic field is able to shift.

I have always struggled with the solid inner core theory. How can a solid core exist being surrounded by a hot liquid outer core? And it’s theorized it’s an iron solid core. So nothing that would withstand the temperatures of the liquid core.

Then what about the sun, does it also have a solid inner core? Makes no sense IMO.

 

[KrisZ]

If you get down to it, nothing has any direct link. All forces are exerted over some distance in space, call them "fields". Even the coffee cup resting on my desk isn't actually touching the desk. By that I mean the atoms are never in contact, but are separated from each other. They are very close to each other. Close enough for the closest atoms of the desk and of the coffee cup to exert forces against each other over that tiny distance. Intuitively the terms "touch" or "in contact" don't mean what we think, but instead they mean close enough for these local forces to take effect.


The answer is that the force, like gravity, is inversely proportional to the square of distance. That means small changes in distance make big changes in the strength of the force. It's easier if you don't pull directly against the magnetic field, but perpendicular to it - slide them against each other until they are offset which weakens the magnetic attraction.

Well, the atoms form structures and those structures align with each other and form a material. There is obviously some physical interaction since when you drag that coffee mug across the table, you can clearly hear that physical interaction.

If you machine something, you’re obviously taking material away with the tool physically, not just by magnetic forces from the atoms. You have sound and heat produced.

So it’s not all just gliding and never touching atomic forces.

 

[kschachn]

I have always struggled with the solid inner core theory. How can a solid core exist being surrounded by a hot liquid outer core? And it’s theorized it’s an iron solid core. So nothing that would withstand the temperatures of the liquid core.

Then what about the sun, does it also have a solid inner core? Makes no sense IMO.

There is enormous pressure at the core of the Earth and this increases the melting point sufficiently to cause it to be a solid.

As for the Sun's core, well that is not even a solid like the earth. The electrons are stripped away from the nuclei and it is also where fusion is occurring. That is a strange place due to the immense pressure and temperature. It's only like a "solid" due to the extremely high density.

 

[KrisZ]

There is enormous pressure at the core of the Earth and this increases the melting point sufficiently to cause it to be a solid.

As for the Sun's core, well that is not even a solid like the earth. The electrons are stripped away from the nuclei and it is also where fusion is occurring. That is a strange place due to the immense pressure and temperature. It's only like a "solid" due to the extremely high density.

I’m not so sure how the mechanic of that works though. The inner core is acting separately from the outer core as if there was a layer separating the two.
Plus, do we even know that iron at those temperatures, even though it’s solid, will be ferrous?

 

[MRC01]

Well, the atoms form structures and those structures align with each other and form a material. There is obviously some physical interaction since when you drag that coffee mug across the table, you can clearly hear that physical interaction.

If you machine something, you’re obviously taking material away with the tool physically, not just by magnetic forces from the atoms. You have sound and heat produced.

So it’s not all just gliding and never touching atomic forces.

Not so. That physical interaction when dragging, the material you remove when machining, the sound and heat, comes from forces exerted over distance. Those distances are tiny, atomic in scale. The distances are so small that for practical purposes at human scale, we call it "contact". But that is just a large-scale approximation.

To suggest that actual physical contact occurs at the atomic level implies electrons hitting each other, or atomic nucleus in contact. That never happens.

PS: you can Google "do atoms touch" and get a bunch of explanations, like this one: https://www.discovermagazine.com/the-sciences/do-atoms-ever-touch

 

[Cujet]

Gravity is the force that really messes with my head. It acts instantaneously at infinite distance, and it isn’t polarized: unlike magnetism, gravity only attracts.

Gravity is just inertia. We can negate gravity by accelerating ourselves at the same rate as gravity on Earth, 9.8m/s2. Both the ISS and the Zero G flights do this.

 

[KrisZ]

Not so. That physical interaction when dragging, the material you remove when machining, the sound and heat, comes from forces exerted over distance. Those distances are tiny, atomic in scale. The distances are so small that for practical purposes at human scale, we call it "contact". But that is just a large-scale approximation.

To suggest that actual physical contact occurs at the atomic level implies electrons hitting each other, or atomic nucleus in contact. That never happens.

PS: you can Google "do atoms touch" and get a bunch of explanations, like this one: https://www.discovermagazine.com/the-sciences/do-atoms-ever-touch

I’m my pretty sure the answer is that we just don’t know it at that scale yet.

Magnetic forces don’t make sounds or produce heat. If that were the case we would “hear” the galaxy grinding against itself as it rotates with all the mass and gravitational forces involved.

Touch is not a proper word for this, more like physical interaction. Neutron and protons constantly jump from one atom to the next. You cannot tell me they never collide. That’s quite preposterous.

 

[KrisZ]

Gravity is just inertia. We can negate gravity by accelerating ourselves at the same rate as gravity on Earth, 9.8m/s2. Both the ISS and the Zero G flights do this.

That would mean the earth is constantly falling if you describe it as inertia. The truth is that we don’t really know what exactly are gravitational forces and how they’re being generated.

 

[Cujet]

That would mean the earth is constantly falling if you describe it as inertia. The truth is that we don’t really know what exactly are gravitational forces and how they’re being generated.

Time dilation related to mass. The closer one is to a mass, the slower time flows, creating the acceleration of gravity.

 

[MRC01]

Touch is not a proper word for this, more like physical interaction.

Agreed.

Neutron and protons constantly jump from one atom to the next. You cannot tell me they never collide. That’s quite preposterous.

If we define "touch" or "collide" as actual physical contact, atoms never collide in everyday events like coffee cups resting on tables or a bench grinders scraping away at material. They may collide in unusual events such as inside an accelerometer slamming them together at near the speed of light.

However, this uses a strict definition. If you broaden the definition to include forces acting at atomic scale distances, then the coffee cup "touches" the desk and the baseball "collides" with the bat. In this sense we're debating semantics, but the point is that the semantics of everyday intuition don't apply at atomic scales.

 

[KrisZ]

Time dilation related to mass. The closer one is to a mass, the slower time flows, creating the acceleration of gravity.

The mass model only seems to work in our solar system. Distant galaxies don’t seem to follow the mass relation. They appear to have much greater gravitational forces than their combined mass would suggest. Hence we have dark matter and dark matter energy concepts.

Therefore, we still don’t really know what generates gravity.

 

[KrisZ]

Agreed.

If we define "touch" or "collide" as actual physical contact, atoms never collide in everyday events like coffee cups resting on tables or a bench grinders scraping away at material. They may collide in unusual events such as inside an accelerometer slamming them together at near the speed of light.

However, this uses a strict definition. If you broaden the definition to include forces acting at atomic scale distances, then the coffee cup "touches" the desk and the baseball "collides" with the bat. In this sense we're debating semantics, but the point is that the semantics of everyday intuition don't apply at atomic scales.

I’m having a hard time understanding how atoms never collide. If we can collide them, why can’t they collide on their own at much slower speeds?

You still didn’t explain how the small magnetic forces that act on ach atom would create sound and heat when two object interact.

The action clearly destroys the bond or the atomic fabric by physical interaction not just magnetic one. And that ripping apart of the atomic bond is what creates vibration (sound) and heat. During that chaotic event, there must be physical interaction between the atoms.

 

[MRC01]

I’m having a hard time understanding how atoms never collide. If we can collide them, why can’t they collide on their own at much slower speeds?

You still didn’t explain how the small magnetic forces that act on ach atom would create sound and heat when two object interact.

The action clearly destroys the bond or the atomic fabric by physical interaction not just magnetic one. And that ripping apart of the atomic bond is what creates vibration (sound) and heat. During that chaotic event, there must be physical interaction between the atoms.

Those "small" forces that act on each other get much stronger as they get closer to each other. When two atoms get close enough to each other, those forces are strong enough to repel them like two billiard balls hitting each other and bouncing apart, even if the atoms never actually touch each other. So once again, define "collide". As they jiggle around, they "bump" into each other, by that I mean they get close enough to repel each other with great force. That doesn't imply they actually touch.

Define "ripping apart the atomic bond". If you mean at the electron clouds, that is a chemical reaction. If you mean at the nuclear level, you're talking about fission or fusion. Now consider an everyday event that creates vibration and heat like sawing a piece of lumber. Clearly there is no fission or fusion involved. It may involve a small amount of chemical reaction, as some of the wood might burn due to the heat, and burning is a chemical reaction. But the heat and sound from the sawing comes from friction, which is atoms "colliding" with each other - not interacting at a chemical (electron cloud) or nuclear level. Atoms are always jiggling around, temperature is essentially their speed or kinetic energy. Thus getting hot only means they're jiggling faster, it doesn't imply they actually hit each other, see above. Sound comes from periodically varying air pressure, which results from the aggregate motion of millions of atoms getting further apart (less dense) then closer together (more dense) - not their individual kinetic energies. So that's not due to atomic bonds either.

 

[KrisZ]

Those "small" forces that act on each other get much stronger as they get closer to each other. When two atoms get close enough to each other, those forces are strong enough to repel them like two billiard balls hitting each other and bouncing apart, even if the atoms never actually touch each other. So once again, define "collide". As they jiggle around, they "bump" into each other, by that I mean they get close enough to repel each other with great force. That doesn't imply they actually touch.

Define "ripping apart the atomic bond". If you mean at the electron clouds, that is a chemical reaction. If you mean at the nuclear level, you're talking about fission or fusion. Now consider an everyday event that creates vibration and heat like sawing a piece of lumber. Clearly there is no fission or fusion involved. It may involve a small amount of chemical reaction, as some of the wood might burn due to the heat, and burning is a chemical reaction. But the heat and sound from the sawing comes from friction, which is atoms "colliding" with each other - not interacting at a chemical (electron cloud) or nuclear level. Atoms are always jiggling around, temperature is essentially their speed or kinetic energy. Thus getting hot only means they're jiggling faster, it doesn't imply they actually hit each other, see above. Sound comes from periodically varying air pressure, which results from the aggregate motion of millions of atoms getting further apart (less dense) then closer together (more dense) - not their individual kinetic energies. So that's not due to atomic bonds either.

Please explain how that repelling force creates heat and sound.

 

[MRC01]

Please explain how that repelling force creates heat and sound.

I already did, but I can do it again from a different perspective.

The saw blade cutting the lumber applies energy to the atoms. That makes them jiggle faster/harder which is heat. That energy imparted by the saw blade is not perfectly uniform over time, but pulses. For example as each saw tooth "hits" (see what I did there ) the wood, it imparts a burst of energy. The sound results from these pulses. If you take the number of saw teeth and multiply by the blade's rotational speed you can estimate the frequency of the sound being created. The sound results from the aggregate behavior of millions of atoms, while the heat results from their average "jiggle energy".

This all stems from the fact that 2 atoms cannot occupy the same space at the same time. As they near each other, electromagnetic forces push them apart. The closer they get to each other, the stronger that force gets. To be more precise the force increases with the inverse square of their distance. So whether the atoms actually touch each other is irrelevant. In fact, it's not even clear that it makes sense to say whether atoms "touch" because they are more like tiny clouds than tiny billiard balls. Atoms don't have precisely defined boundaries; their electron clouds are "fuzzy". For example two atoms in the same molecule having a covalent bond means they "share" one or more electrons. That means some electrons jump back and forth orbiting first one, then the other nucleus. But even then the electrons never hit each other, and the nucleuses are obviously separated. So no touching, at least not in the intuitive conventional sense of the word.

 

[MolaKule]

Magnetism is fascinating...
But they never really explained it's invisible power, or how it actually works. Or where the actual physical force it applies to objects, comes from?... Without any physical connection or link between the 2.

How can something, (besides gravity and / or centrifugal force), exert physical force on to something without any type of direct link? What got me thinking about this, was when I was going through my tools and stuff a while back, I found a really strong pair of Neodymium magnets I had from years ago.

Back to the topic of magnetism:

"...To comprehend what causes magnetism, we must delve into the atomic and subatomic realms. At the heart of magnetism lies the behavior of elementary particles, particularly electrons and their intrinsic magnetic moments. These magnetic moments result from the electron’s spin and orbital motion around the atomic nucleus. The combination of these movements generates a tiny magnetic field, contributing to the overall magnetism of an atom..." Emphasis mine.

https://physicscalculations.com/what-causes-magnetism/

Summary--In the field of Electromagnetics (EM), an electron represents a charge. A moving charge gives rise to a magnetic field. A magnetic field represents a force at a distance.

A wire moving through a magnetic field will generate a current (Example, a DC generator) because it induces a movement of charges in the wire called a current. A magnetic field in motion with a wire or coil nearby will induce a current in the wire. It's a complimentary situation.

While we may not be able to see this field, we know from experimentation and experimental history that this is the physics of the matter. James Clerk Maxwell and others before him have verified the existence of both the magnetic and electric fields.

So yes, we do understand magnetism and magnetic fields both at the atomic level and at the macro level.

I would recommend to all a study of this basic information:

https://byjus.com/physics/electromagnetism/

 

[KrisZ]

I already did, but I can do it again from a different perspective.

The saw blade cutting the lumber applies energy to the atoms. That makes them jiggle faster/harder which is heat. That energy imparted by the saw blade is not perfectly uniform over time, but pulses. For example as each saw tooth "hits" (see what I did there ) the wood, it imparts a burst of energy. The sound results from these pulses. If you take the number of saw teeth and multiply by the blade's rotational speed you can estimate the frequency of the sound being created. The sound results from the aggregate behavior of millions of atoms, while the heat results from their average "jiggle energy".

This all stems from the fact that 2 atoms cannot occupy the same space at the same time. As they near each other, electromagnetic forces push them apart. The closer they get to each other, the stronger that force gets. To be more precise the force increases with the inverse square of their distance. So whether the atoms actually touch each other is irrelevant. In fact, it's not even clear that it makes sense to say whether atoms "touch" because they are more like tiny clouds than tiny billiard balls. Atoms don't have precisely defined boundaries; their electron clouds are "fuzzy". For example two atoms in the same molecule having a covalent bond means they "share" one or more electrons. That means some electrons jump back and forth orbiting first one, then the other nucleus. But even then the electrons never hit each other, and the nucleuses are obviously separated. So no touching, at least not in the intuitive conventional sense of the word.

That doesn't explain anything. It doesn't explain why different materials have different coefficient of friction, different amounts of heat generated etc. If at the end of the day the atoms simply move away from each other due to these tiny magnetic forces, then there would be no friction, no heat and no sound.

It's all pretty much theoretical gibberish because we cannot see any further. We don't even know what is the space between the atoms, neutrons or protons made of.

Here is a picture of a structure at a atomic level. It's rather clear there is some sort of "bond" between these atoms and they are touching. Tearing apart this bond is probably what creates heat, sound and require energy.
Tearing apart a magnetic bond doesn't create heat or sound, just requires energy. So if at macro level, there is no heat or sound, what makes you say that it's there at the atomic level?

 

[MRC01]

That doesn't explain anything. It doesn't explain why different materials have different coefficient of friction, different amounts of heat generated etc. If at the end of the day the atoms simply move away from each other due to these tiny magnetic forces, then there would be no friction, no heat and no sound.

The explanations of friction, heat & sound can be made in terms of what's happening at the atomic level. I explained it as best I could, but if that is not making sense to you, I can only suggest reading a physics textbook or similar.

Here is a picture of a structure at a atomic level. It's rather clear there is some sort of "bond" between these atoms and they are touching. Tearing apart this bond is probably what creates heat, sound and require energy.

There are several types of atomic chemical bonds. None of them require physical contact. One common type is covalent which I already explained. Another analogy: consider 2 people juggling 4 balls each, and some of the balls they toss back and forth between each other as they are juggling. If the people are atoms, this is a covalent bond between them. And there is no contact whatsoever. Their bodies don't touch, and none of the balls ever hit each other. Yet they are bonded, and applying sufficient energy will separate them.

Ultimately, you need to think about precisely what you mean by "contact" and how does this term apply to things like atoms whose physical dimensions are not precisely defined.

Tearing apart a magnetic bond doesn't create heat or sound, just requires energy. So if at macro level, there is no heat or sound, what makes you say that it's there at the atomic level?

I didn't say that heat & sound exist at the atomic level. I said that they are phenomena that arise at the aggregate level of millions of atoms and mentioned how atomic level interactions contribute to them.

 

[MolaKule]

It's all pretty much theoretical gibberish because we cannot see any further. We don't even know what is the space between the atoms, neutrons or protons made of.

I think you may have an incorrect view of the scientific method.

Generally, we see some phenomenon happen and then make some guesses and conjectures about why it or how it happens. These guesses are then grouped into one or more "hypotheses." Added to these hypotheses are mathematical equations that we think might describe the phenomenon.

Experiments are then carried out, which may subsequently modify both the stated basis of the phenomena and the equations.

All sciences frequently rely on indirect evidence. Physicists cannot see subatomic particles directly, for instance, so they verify their existence by watching for telltale tracks that the particles leave in cloud chambers or accelerators.

Black Holes are also inferred from X-ray telescope images and relativity equations, and the LIGO experiments on gravity waves also inferred the collision of two black holes.

If the experiments on the phenomena are repeatable and continue to support the hypotheses, then we know the theory is on good footing.

Here is a picture of a structure at a atomic level. It's rather clear there is some sort of "bond" between these atoms and they are touching. Tearing apart this bond is probably what creates heat, sound and require energy.
Tearing apart a magnetic bond doesn't create heat or sound, just requires energy. So if at macro level, there is no heat or sound, what makes you say that it's there at the atomic level?

This may help your understanding of magentism:
"A magnetic domain is a region within a magnetic material in which the magnetization is in a uniform direction. This means that the individual magnetic moments of the atoms are aligned with one another and they point in the same direction." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magnetic_domain

View attachment 261243

Are these ESM pics? The resolution determines what we can really see.