After 37 years, you've filled a major gap in my understanding of physics. Your explainations are truely gifts that benefit all of humanity. From the bottom of my heart, thank you.❤
they lie mostly and produce false perseptions. satanists. it takes HUGEBALLS to admint, everything you know is false or somehow manipulated, so you would not understand important stuff. And you will be materialistdumbfk forever. You are cattle to "elite" (khmrptls). In reality it is just "Friends" for those who cant stand fake laughter. Useless entertainment and predictive programming so you would not whine when the steal money from every country.
IN THE INTEREST OF FINDING THE THEORY OF EVERYTHING: SOME THINGS MODERN SCIENCE DOES NOT APPARENTLY KNOW: Consider the following: a. Numbers: Modern science does not even know how numbers and certain mathematical constants exist for math to do what math does. (And nobody as of yet has been able to show me how numbers and certain mathematical constants can come from the Standard Model Of Particle Physics). b. Space: Modern science does not even know what 'space' actually is nor how it could actually warp and expand. c. Time: Modern science does not even know what 'time' actually is nor how it could actually warp and vary. d. Gravity: Modern science does not even know what 'gravity' actually is nor how gravity actually does what it appears to do. And for those who claim that 'gravity' is matter warping the fabric of spacetime, see 'b' and 'c' above. e. Speed of Light: 'Speed', distance divided by time, distance being two points in space with space between those two points. But yet, here again, modern science does not even know what space and time actually are that makes up 'speed' and they also claim that space can warp and expand and time can warp and vary, so how could they truly know even what the speed of light actually is that they utilize in many of the formulas? Speed of light should also warp, expand and vary depending upon what space and time it was in. And if the speed of light can warp, expand and vary in space and time, how then do far away astronomical observations actually work that are based upon light and the speed of light that could warp, expand and vary in actual reality? f. Photons: A photon swirls with the 'e' and 'm' energy fields 90 degrees to each other. A photon is also considered massless. What keeps the 'e' and 'm' energy fields together across the vast universe? And why doesn't the momentum of the 'e' and 'm' energy fields as they swirl about not fling them away from the central area of the photon? And electricity is electricity and magnetism is magnetism varying possibly only in energy modality, energy density and energy frequency. Why doesn't the 'e' and 'm' of other photons and of matter basically tear apart a photon going across the vast universe? Also, 'if' a photon actually red shifts, where does the red shifted energy go and why does the photon red shift? And for those who claim space expanding causes a photon to red shift, see 'b' above. Why does radio 'em' (large 'em' waves) have low energy and gamma 'em' (small 'em' waves) have high energy? And for those who say E = hf; see also 'b' and 'c' above. (f = frequency, cycles per second. But modern science claims space can warp and expand and time can warp and vary. If 'space' warps and expands and/or 'time' warps and varies, what does that do to 'E'? And why doesn't 'E' keep space from expanding and time from varying?). g. Energy: Modern science claims that energy cannot be created nor destroyed, it's one of the foundations of physics. Hence, energy is either truly a finite amount and eternally existent, or modern science is wrong. First Law Of Thermodynamics: "Energy can neither be created nor destroyed." How exactly is 'energy' eternally existent? h. Existence and Non-Existence side by side throughout all of eternity. How?
@@charlesbrightman4237 i´m pretty sure they know everything. they just dont tell you :D You seeme te be type wordy guy, I may explain some things. PS there is only one "constant". it is one. All othger "constants" come from one. That are trancentental values. Aka these are processes that affect evy level of the "symmetyry structure" [sorry, I do not have a "officially percice math language vocabulary]. Math as is scam anyways in so many levels, I dont want to start. Demons control the narratives. If you wanna chat live, please do that, i´m going show you smth... to become brighter man every day :D Occult scientist hide evrything or twist thing in that way, one cant get it, even if they are old math proffessors. :D
The step-wise explanation from small to larger of what has to happen for something to be a magnet was so helpful! That really cleared up the concept for me. I really wish schooling and even universities could use such clear conceptual explanations
2:15 One correction to Dr. Dan's narrative. Electrons are not FOUND INSIDE CLOUDS, they are most likely to be found in volumes of space that have different cloud shapes. There are no empty clouds into which electrons are located, the electrons themselves form clouds. 4:51 Unfortunately the term "electron spin" misleads people into thinking electrons are tiny particles spinning like tops or gyroscopes. Electrons exhibit a property similar to that which they would have if they did spin, but electrons DO NOT SPIN! In atoms the electron spin is the fourth quantum number for the electron and has values of +1/2 and -1/2, which we simplify this by saying up and down spin. Each orbital cannot be made up of two electrons with the same spin which limits each orbital to two electrons, one with spin +1/2 (up) and one with spin -1/2 (down). The ability to retain magnetism after the magnetic field has been removed is called spontaneous or remanent magnetization. There are four elements that exhibit this attribute, Iron (Fe), Cobalt (Co), Nickel (Ni), Atomic numbers 26, 27, 28 as well as Gadolinium (Gd) atomic number 64. Iron, Cobalt, and Nickel all get their magnetism from 3d orbitals having four (4), three (3) and two (2) unpaired 3d electrons respectively. Looking at Iron (Fe) on the periodic table we see that it has partially filled d orbitals. Iron has six (6) electrons forming d orbitals in the third energy level (3d) There are five (5) d orbitals each composed of two electrons. The rule is that all five orbitals must be formed by one electron before pairing occurs. Since there are six (6) electrons, one orbital has a pair of electrons leaving four (4) unpaired electrons. Cobalt (Co) has one more pair (one less unpaired), and Nickel has two more pairs (2 less unpaired). Gadolinium is different with the electron configuration, [Xe] 4f⁷ 5d¹ 6s², having seven (7) unpaired electrons in 4f orbitals as well as a single unpaired electron in the 5d orbital. We have all heard that neodymium magnets are the strongest magnets available, but they are not made of the element Neodymium (Nd) alone but are actually made of Nd2Fe14B (Neodymium, Iron, Boron).
Your first two points are overly pedantic. Electrons are found inside clouds the same way that water vapor is found in clouds. If there are no electrons then I think most people would agree that there's no cloud, not a cloud that happens to be empty. Also, it's disingenuous to say that electrons don't spin (because they're point-like particles) but then just gloss over the reason that there's a quantum number labeled spin is because point-like particles still exhibit angular momentum that influences atomic particles. Rattling off facts about why a metaphor is not literally correct is not helpful in correcting misconceptions if people don't understand why the metaphor has limits.
Back in the day people were hatin' on ICP for asking the question, Magnets, how do they work? But its a fair question. Decade later and we still need fermilab to lay it down for us. Great video!
Err no, "people were hatin' on ICP" because they took _their own_ ignorance to mean _no one_ knew i.e. the answer to "...magnets, how do they work ?" was _very_ well understood, even "back in the day" (I get that it's a revelation to lots of people but it's been a standard part of the undergraduate - and even high school - physics syllabus for _many_ decades). Kind of like how more recently Bill O'Reilly claimed no one knew how the tides work and most sensible people considered him an idiot for doing so (again, _he_ likely didn't but the mechanism of the tides has been understood since the time of Newton).
@@CosmoPhiloPharmaco Scientists are human, and therefore could be liars. I'm genuinely not pointing fingers, just trying to get into the mindset of the general population. As pointed out in the video, scientist's grasp of how these things work on a quantum level is not exactly bulletproof. Can't entirely blame people for skepticism. And I should now admit I never listened to the rest of the song, I'm only remembering some of the memes.
@@PhillStone Here's the lyrics: _"F*cking magnets, how do they work? And I don't wanna talk to a scientist Y'all motherf*ckers lying, and getting me p*ssed"_ Sure, scientists *could* lie, but 'could' isn't the same as 'do' and that's his assertion. Moreover, while *some* scientists do indeed lie (e.g., those involved with 'gender studies'), it is not clear that all or most of them do. It would be a fallacy from hasty generalization to make this inference. With regards to scientists' incomplete comprehension of things, that's not evidence of lying. All respected scientists admit that science hasn't figured out everything yet, and that their knowledge is incomplete and open to revision. So, to conclude, this guy is just wrong. There is no way around that.
I for one feel they're even more magical now - my understanding has passed from caution out of a sense of separateness from mystery into a sense of connection from wonder. Figuring out the universe seems to make it come even more alive to me. Thank you for the explainer!
There's another video in which Richard Feynman is asked the same question, but his philosophical answer left me somewhat unsatisfied. I appreciate your ability to explain material like this elegantly and in terms that a casual person like me can understand. Thank you, Dr. Lincoln!
@@Slowekistan Sure, Nobel laureate Richard Feynman didn't know undergraduate physics (a subject he's famous for teaching). Makes sense. Meanwhile, back in reality... Feynman's response isn't even about magnets - instead he uses the question to talk about the nature of explanation itself (but agreed, it's absolutely fair to be left unsatisfied by that if you just wanted to know how magnets work).
Watch again the Feynman video, “Feynman on magnets”, minute 5:30 where Feynman says: “…The question would then be: Why in iron it (the force) goes over a bigger distance than in ordinary (material)? In iron all electrons are spinning in the same direction. They all get lined up and they magnify the effect of the force until it’s large enough at a distance that you can feel it.” So Feynman knew and gave a perfect concise answer. But admittedly he talked 5:30 around this answer, pointing also at general questions about deeper understanding of physics.
I actually feel like I have a pretty good grasp on how magnets work now, an excellent video as always Dr. Don! What was once utterly opaque has been rendered transparent (much like the universe ;D )
Every time I see a video like this--or an earnest answer from a physicist to a truly vexing question--I think about how everyone dissed ICP for asking (in a song), "Magnets. How do they work?!"
I mean, we dissed them because it's _not_ "a truly vexing question" - it was well known when ICP asked (in bad faith BTW - their point was that scientists are liars) because it's been a standard part of university - and even high school - physics lessons for decades.
Thanks so much Dr. Don for that explanation!! Like many others, I can now understand the basic concepts of how a magnet works at the atomic level. I do have another question though: now that we understand how magnets generate their fields, can you please make a short video on EXACTLY how the magnet performs the action of attraction to other Ferro-metals? Thanks again for all you do!!
Yes your last point has always worried me… if I hold a permanent magnet over a ferromagnetic object it accelerates towards the magnetic pole. What is doing that work, where does the energy to do that work come from, can I repeat that work an infinite number of times?
@@Richardincancale Oh come on man! THINK A BIT! If you squeeze a spring where does that energy come from? DUH! For a magnet to attract or repel it has to be squeezed or stretched from what it is attracted or repelled from. The FDQ ( think and you can figure what that stands for!) is what is the invisible field itself!
While I know I wasn't the only person who asked for this video it still feels like I'm getting a personal response and I'd like to thank you for that, and everything else you do to further all of our understanding of the world around us!
❤Doc Lincoln Rules. Nicely done closed captions. Love he admits no one knows why electrons are magnetic. In 2023 we have so much to learn about physics.
3:02 i like that he has the courage to say that nobody knows why the electrone behaves like a magnet on its own the electron has a spin which makes is magnetic, but no one actually knows a whats a spin physically, they can only represent what they measre, so if you want to read about electron you will find a lot a description how does it behave, but what is it - no one knows. i think the biggest issue here is that we should measure what happens inside an electron, but as its an elementary particle it does not have any internal structure, and cannot be probed inside, if if that cannot be measured we might never know the answer.
Thankyou. I have an additional question: when one permanent magnet is placed in the magnetic field of a second permanent magnet, it aligns. Where does the kinetic energy for that alignment come from? It doesn't come from the permanent magnet I assume (or it wouldn't be permanent). Does it only come from the kinetic energy used to move it into the field, creating a field potential that then becomes kinetic energy?
If this video doesn't prove that "physics is everything," nothing would. The periodic table, the chart of every chemistry classroom, is shown to have its underlying structure dictated by Dr Don's favorite topic! Thank you for explaining magnets (and for admitting that there's a lot we don't know about them).
ah, when you see that from a historic perspective, you are perfectly right. The first guys to really understand stuff were the chemists 200 to 150 years ago, but what are the underlying structures that make up the periodic table? It’s physics again. You can learn a lot about physics without understanding anything of chemistry. But you cannot understand any of chemistry without understanding physics.
I’ve have 1 biopolymer coated neodymium implant in each hand, for quite a few years. They vibrate in response to EM fields allowing me to physically feel them. It’s pretty interesting to have another sensory input specifically for that.
I enjoyed this. In my workshop I have cause screwdrivers to become magnetic by stroking them with a magnet before I use them. This causes the screws do stick to the screwdriver even if I fumble them. Great to know!
The explanation that I saw on another channel somewhere was the exchange of virtual photons between force-carrying particles (electrons) was causing a transference of momentum from those virtual photons to the emitting electron and the receiving electron, thus either bringing them closer together or pushing them farther apart, and that the summation of all of these exchanges created electromagnetic attraction. This also explains the mechanism behind why magnetically attracted items accelerate towards each other when they get closer. The transfer of virtual photons is something that happens at some distance, and the smaller that distance, the faster the exchange and finally, the more exchanges can occur, increasing the momentum transfer that is accelerating the attracted items together. Same in reverse for repulsive forces acting on two magnetic items that push them away. The example was visualized with two people who are each standing on a boat, throwing items between each other. If they throw a ball from one to the other, the thrower gets pushed away from the catcher by the equal-but-opposite force to the force required to accelerate the ball towards the catcher, and the catcher is pushed away upon catching the ball and absorbing the momentum it had. In the inverse, they are throwing boomerangs away from each other, and it circles around to the backside of the catcher. In that case, the thrower is pushed towards the catcher by the force used to throw the boomerang, and the catcher is similarly pushed towards the thrower by the boomerang when caught. The former example is of magnetic repulsion and the latter of attraction.
That's the point of the field. The action is always local in the field. Any force is defined by the value of the field at that point. Do you ask the same question about gravity and electrostatic attraction?
If you think about it, gravity is exactly the same. The sun doesn't physically "touch" the earth and pull it around in a circle, but the earth goes around in a circle, regardless. The strong force is similar inside of individual nucleons, no quark actually "touches" another quark, but they are all constantly interacting via the strong force (via neutral pions) keeping them tightly packed. Once you fully couple the action (force) to the field (the math) in your head, it just kind of makes sense suddenly. Photons are pushing and pulling electrons. Pions are grabbing all the quarks together inside a nucleon. All the particles and the forces interact directly, via Feynman diagrams, and trying to to imagine the sum of all diagrams for the total force on a particle is quite a bit of effort.
i learned a lot. this answers the criteria for how atoms make magnets but does not satisfy the human scale perspective for how do they magically force each other before touching
How does the magnetic force propagate over distance? Does it work similar to gravity? I have studied some physics at university but never understood how that really worked.
Sort of; magnetic force is a long-distance force, except for that it's a dipole field whose force decreases with a cube of the distance. (As opposed to a point field, like gravity of a point mass or electric force of a point electric charge, which decreases with a square of the distance. If there exist magnetic charges, or magnetic monopoles [which haven't been observed], they would also follow the inverse square rule.)
Huh. This explains why metal fillings are magnetic. I'd always thought something about the grinding process somehow made them magnetic (heat + high magnitude force with a distinct vector = teeny tiny magnets?), but it's actually just that grinding metal breaks off bits tiny enough that they were already magnets! Cool.
Thank you! One thing I have never received an answer to (yet?) is about energy. Put something like paper clips on a table. Take a magnet, hold it above the table, approach it slowly bringing it towards the paper clips. At a certain distance the paper clips will jump to the magnet, UPWARDS. Where does the energy come from? I assume potential energy plays a role somewhere. But in any case I don't understand the energy balance.
There is one question I think is important (people have wondered for ages ...)which remains largely unanswered in this video. If we have to make iron magnets by putting them under a very strong magnetic field, in order to align the domains, then how was magnetic iron formed naturally? Already the ancient Greeks knew how to find natural magnets, so, how was this formed? By what kind of natural magnetism?
Molten iron, like in a lava flow or primordial conditions, is easily magnetized by the Earth's own magnetic field. Which comes from a spinning iron core surrounded by molten material.
OK, this is the best explanation I've heard about permanent magnets. But I have a question no other website/chat room/blog has ever answered. If that bunch of atoms are holding up that paper clip they are doing work. I'd they are doing work they are expending energy. So does the permanent magnet lose its atomic alignment over time? Will my fridge magnets eventually fall off the fridge? Where does that energy come from? Thanks.
I don't know if this is right, but I think of it the same way I think of stable atoms. The electrons spinning around are doing "work" but the atom can last billions of years or more.
A magnet holding up a paperclip is doing no more work than a table holding up a plate. Work is force x distance. Since there is no distance, there is no work.
@@drdon5205 True. I should not have used 'work'. But there is a force, correct? And the force requires energy? Just trying to wrap my head around something that sounds pretty close to perpetual motion.
Yep, permanent magnets do indeed lose their magnetism over time (basically, the domains become unaligned) but left alone it's pretty slow - if you keep it away from other fields, heat/cold, collisions etc. a high quality magnet may only lose a few % of its strength per century. Your (probably fairly low quality) fridge magnets will degrade more quickly but it'll still likely take many years, maybe even decades, for them to lose all sticking power. And the energy of a permanent magnet's field comes from the original magnetic field that aligned its domains in the first place (so for natural permanent magnets that's the Earth's magnetic field). Just like Earth's field aligns a compass needle (itself a small permanent magnet), it can align the domains in ferrous rocks (most easily when molten).
Fun fact: We know our planet's magnetic pole flips regularly from observing "zebra stripe" patterns in the polarity of the metals in the seabed parallel to the lines where the crust is being renewed. The polarity of the domains in volcanic material align to the earth's field and are locked in once cooled.
Eagerly anticipating a comprehensive video about the NISST ANDT Entrance Exam for career-focused programs featured in the 2-8 December edition of the English Employment News Paper on Page 57. Your perspectives are consistently enlightening!
As a boy, Richard Feynman played endlessly with a pair of magnets, fascinated by their behavior and stimulated by a desire to know why they did what they did. I think it is safe to say that those experiences helped to launch his historic career in physics. Even today, noodling with a pair of magnets, especially the strong ones, reveals the wonder of invisible forces and the vital concept of energetic fields.
When two electrons or two protons are compressed together, the 1/r^3 magnetic energy (positive when magnetic dipoles attract) and the 1/r Coulomb energy (negative when the electric charges repel) can reach a minimum when they are at nuclear distances. Two electrons (Cooper pairs) or two protons (occurs inside neutron stars and perhaps near black holes) can also bind magnetically. The proton and neutron can bind stably by positive magnetic dipole energy (attractive) , positive electric energy (attractive) and negative rotation and vibrations (repulsive or tending to separate them) . It is simple to look up the neutron binding energy and solve for valid configurations and spectrum. Likewise it is simple to solve for proton pairing energy in the context of real nuclear isotopes and reactions. Deuteron, Triton, and many isotopes with magnetic moments. The alpha particle (helium) excited states have multiple configurations and those can be given precise dynamic magnetic interaction energies, orientations and field shapes. The experiments can check it and solved for configurations. It is also possible to bind particles and antiparticle with magnetic dipole (and higher magnetic moments) energy contributions. A proton and antiproton: positive magnetic dipole binding energy, positive Coulomb binding energy, negative rotational binding energy. I am fairly certain there is no singularity if there is not enough rotational energy to reach a bound state. The proton - antiproton (I think) can be massless because the binding energy is gravitationally invisible. Check. The binding energy in mass terms does not contribute to inertia or gravitational mass. A bound particle antiparticle pair can have zero mass with the right rotational and vibrational states. I think that is likely what the neutrinos might be. And the very very very specific orientation and timing required for resonant interactions, is why the cross-section is small. But cross section has a larger meaning of "probability or reaction" than just "probability of collision". It you want to bind two protons, they have narrow orientation (in 3d and time) constraints. If you take an electron and positron and bind them magnetically, they will have a spectrum that can be estimated by "magnetic dipole approximation" which is very close to the non-linear Schrodinger solutions (which can be thought of as solitons or particles). More like molecules than simple particles. The simplicity for screening reactions for economic value or "chemistry at atomic and nuclear energies" is that classical analytical models can be used for getting close enough for the more expensive exact models to converge. I learned that lesson when I was working with Steve Klosko on using measured satellite orbits to calibrate the earth gravitational potential field model. I would find a rough orbit, then he would run the full model and it would most often converge. But if he took the full model and guessed, it would be too expensive or simply not be a good staring point. I think the "full model for nuclear magnetic binding" will adjust for relativistic effects at high particle speeds and intense fields. So the "nonlinear" part of the nonlinear Schrodinger model is likely largely relativistic in nature, and very dependent on the experimental noise spectrum. I wrote to Emilio Segre (antiproton) back about the end of 1980 (his letter back to me is Jan 1981). I was seeking encouragement to spend more time on modeling the orbits and forces on electrons and positrons (positronium), using the precise measurements to test. He basically said, "go ahead and try to do a good job". My take was "you have not said anything stupid, it is possible, just keep at it." Here are some distances for different reactions when the magnetic contribution is 2 MeV. To give a sense of the scale. I am checking all the reaction energies at NUDAT 3 for all ~3500 isotopes. For a given distance PP is stronger then NP, is stronger than NN magnetic bonding energies. That has consequences for stable isotopic internal structure, and indirectly on electron and magnetic binding of partially and fully stripped (of electrons) reactions. I have been looking for "atomic fuels and materials" where the macroscopic bond energy density is KeV and MeV per pair rather than just eV 'chemical' bonds. A rocket fuel would be correspondingly smaller. A 10 KeV material would be about 1000 time smaller than chemical combustion fuels like StarShip. 100 meters of fuel down to 10 cm? Variable Radius Unit Note r_PP_2MeV 0.43585 fm PP Magnetic Binding Energy r_NN_2MeV 0.33868 fm NN Magnetic Binding Energy r_NP_2MeV 0.38420 fm NP Magnetic Binding Energy r_ee_2MeV 32.97970 fm ee Magnetic Binding Energy r_dd_2MeV 0.19835 fm dd Magnetic Binding Energy r_HeHe_2MeV 0.36355 fm HeHe Magnetic Binding Energy r_MuMu_2MeV 0.94318 fm MuMu Magnetic Binding Energy r_TT_2MeV 0.45500 fm TT Magnetic Binding Energy r_eP_2MeV 1.45500 fm eP Magnetic Binding Energy There is a lot of work to find the proper geometries. But the order of magnitudes and possible geometries are a good start. I am using single bonds, but many bonds and types are possible and likely contribute. First you get close, then use more and more precise models. Measure and calibrate to 32 digit accuracy or it won't converge. Boron 11 Neutron Separation Energy 11454221 eV r_B11->B10+N 0.185514604 fm Boron 12 Neutron Separation Energy 3369600 eV r_B12->B11+N 0.318816993 fm (There are end to end magnets, as well as side by side, and many dynamic interactions in 3D and time. End to end allows "strings of particles. And those seem to be operative at gluon energies too. But magnetic chains of a few particles (6 electrons binding?) or 6 neutrons binding in a ring. Those can be solved and likely tested. It is easy "chemistry with KeV and MeV bonds and energies". Then you do the details, measure and test and calibrate.) Richard Collins, The Internet Foundation
Thank you! One comment though: the reason electrons are magnets might not be a total mystery. I recently read _The Road to Reality_ and, while I didn't understand the details, Roger Penrose explained how electron spin does arise mathematically just from trying to describe the electron in a way that incorporates special relativity. So the mechanism might be similar to electromagnets after all.
Thx. I was wondering if electromagnetism can really be so different from normal magnetism. Gotta read up on that. Maybe we don't have to quantize gravity but relativize qm 😊
I would add one thing... Tell which atoms specifically are magnetic. Iron, cobalt, etc. Other than that, great explanation. We just studied this in my science class!
At 3:27, the answer is given. There is no good explanation for why electrons have magnetic properties, and we have to wait for future discoveries to learn how magnets actually work. The rest is just a very well-explained description of what we know for sure about the resulting phenomenon which is derived from the electron magnetism. The effort to make the video is much appreciated, but I still don't know how magnets actually work - and apparently no one does. Yet.
The movement of an electron is interesting. "Spin" despite the early experiments needs more thought regarding what possible movements might cause magnetism and how filling the shell prevents the unbalanced magnetic movement.
Very nice and straight forward explanation. I was hoping for THE answer to what the magnetic field really is, which like many others, I'm still trying to figure out, and won't quit until I do (or pass away). Most likely it is something so simple that we just can't think of it, and some 5 year old will just point it out as the most obvious thing ever 🙂
Thanks! I was hoping you would explain how magnetism itself works (like the fields themselves and how they do what they do over distance) rather than what magnets are but I learned something either way.
Conservation of Spatial Curvature: Both Matter and Energy described as "Quanta" of Spatial Curvature. (A string is revealed to be a twisted cord when viewed up close.) Is there an alternative interpretation of "Asymptotic Freedom"? What if Quarks are actually made up of twisted tubes which become physically entangled with two other twisted tubes to produce a proton? Instead of the Strong Force being mediated by the constant exchange of gluons, it would be mediated by the physical entanglement of these twisted tubes. When only two twisted tubules are entangled, a meson is produced which is unstable and rapidly unwinds (decays) into something else. A proton would be analogous to three twisted rubber bands becoming entangled and the "Quarks" would be the places where the tubes are tangled together. The behavior would be the same as rubber balls (representing the Quarks) connected with twisted rubber bands being separated from each other or placed closer together producing the exact same phenomenon as "Asymptotic Freedom" in protons and neutrons. The force would become greater as the balls are separated, but the force would become less if the balls were placed closer together. Therefore, the gluon is a synthetic particle (zero mass, zero charge) invented to explain the Strong Force. An artificial Christmas tree can hold the ornaments in place, but it is not a real tree. String Theory was not a waste of time, because Geometry is the key to Math and Physics. However, can we describe Standard Model interactions using only one extra spatial dimension? What did some of the old clockmakers use to store the energy to power the clock? Was it a string or was it a spring? What if we describe subatomic particles as spatial curvature, instead of trying to describe General Relativity as being mediated by particles? Fixing the Standard Model with more particles is like trying to mend a torn fishing net with small rubber balls, instead of a piece of twisted twine. Quantum Entangled Twisted Tubules: “We are all agreed that your theory is crazy. The question which divides us is whether it is crazy enough to have a chance of being correct.” Neils Bohr (lecture on a theory of elementary particles given by Wolfgang Pauli in New York, c. 1957-8, in Scientific American vol. 199, no. 3, 1958) The following is meant to be a generalized framework for an extension of Kaluza-Klein Theory. Does it agree with some aspects of the “Twistor Theory” of Roger Penrose, and the work of Eric Weinstein on “Geometric Unity”, and the work of Dr. Lisa Randall on the possibility of one extra spatial dimension? During the early history of mankind, the twisting of fibers was used to produce thread, and this thread was used to produce fabrics. The twist of the thread is locked up within these fabrics. Is matter made up of twisted 3D-4D structures which store spatial curvature that we describe as “particles"? Are the twist cycles the "quanta" of Quantum Mechanics? When we draw a sine wave on a blackboard, we are representing spatial curvature. Does a photon transfer spatial curvature from one location to another? Wrap a piece of wire around a pencil and it can produce a 3D coil of wire, much like a spring. When viewed from the side it can look like a two-dimensional sine wave. You could coil the wire with either a right-hand twist, or with a left-hand twist. Could Planck's Constant be proportional to the twist cycles. A photon with a higher frequency has more energy. ( E=hf, More spatial curvature as the frequency increases = more Energy ). What if Quark/Gluons are actually made up of these twisted tubes which become entangled with other tubes to produce quarks where the tubes are entangled? (In the same way twisted electrical extension cords can become entangled.) Therefore, the gluons are a part of the quarks. Quarks cannot exist without gluons, and vice-versa. Mesons are made up of two entangled tubes (Quarks/Gluons), while protons and neutrons would be made up of three entangled tubes. (Quarks/Gluons) The "Color Charge" would be related to the XYZ coordinates (orientation) of entanglement. "Asymptotic Freedom", and "flux tubes" are logically based on this concept. The Dirac “belt trick” also reveals the concept of twist in the ½ spin of subatomic particles. If each twist cycle is proportional to h, we have identified the source of Quantum Mechanics as a consequence twist cycle geometry. Modern physicists say the Strong Force is mediated by a constant exchange of Gluons. The diagrams produced by some modern physicists actually represent the Strong Force like a spring connecting the two quarks. Asymptotic Freedom acts like real springs. Their drawing is actually more correct than their theory and matches perfectly to what I am saying in this model. You cannot separate the Gluons from the Quarks because they are a part of the same thing. The Quarks are the places where the Gluons are entangled with each other. Neutrinos would be made up of a twisted torus (like a twisted donut) within this model. The twist in the torus can either be Right-Hand or Left-Hand. Some twisted donuts can be larger than others, which can produce three different types of neutrinos. If a twisted tube winds up on one end and unwinds on the other end as it moves through space, this would help explain the “spin” of normal particles, and perhaps also the “Higgs Field”. However, if the end of the twisted tube joins to the other end of the twisted tube forming a twisted torus (neutrino), would this help explain “Parity Symmetry” violation in Beta Decay? Could the conversion of twist cycles to writhe cycles through the process of supercoiling help explain “neutrino oscillations”? Spatial curvature (mass) would be conserved, but the structure could change. ===================== Gravity is a result of a very small curvature imbalance within atoms. (This is why the force of gravity is so small.) Instead of attempting to explain matter as "particles", this concept attempts to explain matter more in the manner of our current understanding of the space-time curvature of gravity. If an electron has qualities of both a particle and a wave, it cannot be either one. It must be something else. Therefore, a "particle" is actually a structure which stores spatial curvature. Can an electron-positron pair (which are made up of opposite directions of twist) annihilate each other by unwinding into each other producing Gamma Ray photons? Does an electron travel through space like a threaded nut traveling down a threaded rod, with each twist cycle proportional to Planck’s Constant? Does it wind up on one end, while unwinding on the other end? Is this related to the Higgs field? Does this help explain the strange ½ spin of many subatomic particles? Does the 720 degree rotation of a 1/2 spin particle require at least one extra dimension? Alpha decay occurs when the two protons and two neutrons (which are bound together by entangled tubes), become un-entangled from the rest of the nucleons . Beta decay occurs when the tube of a down quark/gluon in a neutron becomes overtwisted and breaks producing a twisted torus (neutrino) and an up quark, and the ejected electron. The production of the torus may help explain the “Symmetry Violation” in Beta Decay, because one end of the broken tube section is connected to the other end of the tube produced, like a snake eating its tail. The phenomenon of Supercoiling involving twist and writhe cycles may reveal how overtwisted quarks can produce these new particles. The conversion of twists into writhes, and vice-versa, is an interesting process, which is also found in DNA molecules. Could the production of multiple writhe cycles help explain the three generations of quarks and neutrinos? If the twist cycles increase, the writhe cycles would also have a tendency to increase. Gamma photons are produced when a tube unwinds producing electromagnetic waves. ( Mass=1/Length ) The “Electric Charge” of electrons or positrons would be the result of one twist cycle being displayed at the 3D-4D surface interface of the particle. The physical entanglement of twisted tubes in quarks within protons and neutrons and mesons displays an overall external surface charge of an integer number. Because the neutrinos do not have open tube ends, (They are a twisted torus.) they have no overall electric charge. Within this model a black hole could represent a quantum of gravity, because it is one cycle of spatial gravitational curvature. Therefore, instead of a graviton being a subatomic particle it could be considered to be a black hole. The overall gravitational attraction would be caused by a very tiny curvature imbalance within atoms. In this model Alpha equals the compactification ratio within the twistor cone, which is approximately 1/137. 1= Hypertubule diameter at 4D interface 137= Cone’s larger end diameter at 3D interface where the photons are absorbed or emitted. The 4D twisted Hypertubule gets longer or shorter as twisting or untwisting occurs. (720 degrees per twist cycle.) How many neutrinos are left over from the Big Bang? They have a small mass, but they could be very large in number. Could this help explain Dark Matter? Why did Paul Dirac use the twist in a belt to help explain particle spin? Is Dirac’s belt trick related to this model? Is the “Quantum” unit based on twist cycles? I started out imagining a subatomic Einstein-Rosen Bridge whose internal surface is twisted with either a Right-Hand twist, or a Left-Hand twist producing a twisted 3D/4D membrane. This topological Soliton model grew out of that simple idea. I was also trying to imagine a way to stuff the curvature of a 3 D sine wave into subatomic particles. .-----------
This video is great and I’m going to start to use it in my classroom. Thanks! If possible, you should do a video on the enigmatic statement “magnetic forces do no work” but explain then how magnets pick things up. Based on other videos published recently in the physics UA-cam space, this would also be very helpful for students studying E&M.
I still think there is way more to be learned about magnets. There is just so much to the physical and electro and quantum forces that it holds some deeper key we need to still learn about.
Superb and concise explanation of what makes a permanent magnet! Also besides artificially making a magnet there are actually natural occurring magnets found in nature as a mineral compound called magnetite (i.e. Lodestone). It is amazing that all these 4 conditions described in the video that must be fulfilled in order to have a permanent magnet are natural occurring in the magnetite mineral!... This material has not to be made a magnet but is a natural permanent magnet. By "permanent," it is meant that the material maintains a magnetic field with no external help.
For reasons unknown, there was very slightly more ketchup than mustard when the universe came into existence, so when all the mustard had been annihilated by the ketchup, a tiny amount of ketchup remained, making up all the ketchup that we love and cherish today!
For Stern-Gerlach experiment. I wish Dr Don could explain more details about that. I am in the state of wondering about motion of spin up electron that respect to the rotating magnetic field. For example, if a spin up or spin down electron is emited ,what direction it will bending to as it travels through the magnetic field while the magnetic detector is rotating along the axis of the electron's path.
I think permanent magnets are basically normal atoms with there electron to electron repulsive forces in regard to touching surfaces, except in the case of magnets these electron forces are highly concentrated when the domains align and then extend out into space noticably... While normal arrangements of atoms also have electron repulsive forces, but don't appear to extend way out into space merely because the range is so small. Magnets are just normal things on overdrive.
Magnetism is caused by 1. positive - collisions amongst virtual photons ( the smallest possible conglomeration of superluminal fundamental particles) and amongst profuse concentrations of sfp's and between virtual photons and sfp's and 2. negative - a relative vacuum caused by a relative absence of the collisions mentioned in 1. due to vectored flux of virtual photons and sfp's caused by the phenomena mentioned by Lincoln.
Excellent video, thank you! What I would like to know is how two magnets attract or repel each other, not in terms of magnetic field gradients but in terms of fundamental particles. Do they exchange virtual photons?
Nice video, but I would like to see an explanation of whats happening between the magnet, and the thing is sticking to. Are the exchanging electrons? What makes them stick together? Why do magnets not stick to some kinds of metal? What are the properties a metal think has to have for a magnet to stick to it? Basically, i would like to know what's happening between the magnet and the thing it's sticking to.
"The short answer is nobody knows, just a fact for which we have no good explanation" thank you so much for saying that. Magnets work because electrons are magnetic. Why are electrons magnetic? Nobody knows! I always feel like an idiot Everytime I try to understand how magnets "actually" work and everyone around me is like, "oh, I get it now!" Do you though? NO! Nobody knows yet! I feel so much sane now thank you, genuinely thank you from the bottom of my heart!
What is it in an atom that determines the direction it's field lines run? The shape of the orbitals? Also does that mean that when you put iron in a strong magnetic field it's actually wrenching those atoms around until they point in the right direction? I didn't even think of atoms as having an intrinsic direction. Really makes you think about how solid, solids are at the atomic level.
I already understood all of this; what I did not understand was how magnetic force actually worked. We have been told that gravitational attraction is not actually a force as we know it, but a consequence of Spacetime being warped by the presence of mass. I was hoping for an explanation of magnetic force along similar lines.
It’s still magic because nobody still knows why magnets attract and repel. How far down can we go (Planck length) until the laws of magnetism itself breaks down?
How do magnets work? The magnet consists of concentric clockwise and counterclockwise dipole rings that extend from one pole to the other over the entire body of the magnet. Dipole rings in the same direction attract each other, and dipole rings in opposite directions repel each other. Likewise, currents in the same direction attract each other and currents in opposite directions repel each other. An electric current can induce dipoles in a magnetic material to form dipole rings. Moving magnets can induce electrons in a conductor to produce an electric current. Since a dipole ring has two magnetic poles, clockwise and counterclockwise, there cannot be a single magnetic pole.
You only explained the magnet itself not the force it has. When I was a kid I was fascinated on how the magnets knew the other was near by before touching, I could feel them trying to connect when opposite poles were aligned. This magnetic field was later explained in a college physics course but I still do not know how this force communicates with the atoms. As a kid I called it my spooking action at a distance. Perhaps the answer lies with gravity as it also has a similar force that has no particle. Maybe it’s a graviton? And maybe that something is involved in both electromagnetism and gravity? I feel like these are all related.
Fields are communicated by a messenger particles called gauge bosons. In the case of the electromagnetic field, the gauge boson is... (drum roll 🥁) _... the photon!_ So the magnets communicate each others' presence via exchange of photons - no spooky action required. 😁
Question - does the alignment of the electron's magnetic orientation differ in solid iron exposed to a magnetic field versus liquid iron solidifying in a magnetic field? In other words, can you make a stronger magnet by exposing liquid iron to a magnetic field as it cools and crystallizes than just exposing solid (crystallized) iron to the same strength magnetic field?
Thank you. All very clear, but I have one question - What is the magnetic field? How does it work? It is "Action at a distance" and that needs an explanation. If we understand the gravitational field as the changing frequency of the time wave, then a magnetic field must be the same effect, only localised. In other words, the alignment of electrons must slow down time in one direction only. Has anyone tested this with an atomic clock within a magnetic field? Switch it on and off and see how the time rate changes?
Dr. Lincoln, I have a question regarding magnetic fields.... I've been told that charged particles moving through magnetic fields have no 'work' done on them, ie a charged particle moving through a magnetic field has it's velocity changed according to the right hand rule but the magnetic field does no work, ie puts no energy into, the ion. This still doesn't make sense to me since energy is force * distance and the Lorentz force is a force and it is created when a charged particle moves through a magnetic field. Can you explain? I've seen several videos that try to explain this and none are clear. THANKS! And as ALWAYS, you ROCK! Thanks for all you do!
It is difficult to understand, but a magnetic field can only change the direction of a charged particle, its energy and speed are not affected therefore the magnetic field does no work. Electromagnetism is a vector field (each point in space has a strength and a direction), changing a vector's direction does not change its energy or speed (its magnitude). The electric force can change the magnitude and direction of a charged particle however (its direction and magnitude). How does a magnet attract a paper clip if it can do no work? The paper clip, as well as the magnet, is made up of a lot of electrons that feel a different force, and overall the magnet actually DOES DO WORK by moving the paper clip.
Besides the other answers, there is also maybe an issue with the word "work" because in physics it can work (...) different than you'd use it in real life. Example: You lift a water bottle from the floor on a table. Then you put it back on the floor. How much work did you do? Zero. Because you first did work in the positive direction and then did work in the negative direction resulting in a net zero work.
After 37 years, you've filled a major gap in my understanding of physics. Your explainations are truely gifts that benefit all of humanity. From the bottom of my heart, thank you.❤
What were you doing 38 years ago?
same
they lie mostly and produce false perseptions. satanists. it takes HUGEBALLS to admint, everything you know is false or somehow manipulated, so you would not understand important stuff. And you will be materialistdumbfk forever. You are cattle to "elite" (khmrptls). In reality it is just "Friends" for those who cant stand fake laughter. Useless entertainment and predictive programming so you would not whine when the steal money from every country.
IN THE INTEREST OF FINDING THE THEORY OF EVERYTHING:
SOME THINGS MODERN SCIENCE DOES NOT APPARENTLY KNOW:
Consider the following:
a. Numbers: Modern science does not even know how numbers and certain mathematical constants exist for math to do what math does. (And nobody as of yet has been able to show me how numbers and certain mathematical constants can come from the Standard Model Of Particle Physics).
b. Space: Modern science does not even know what 'space' actually is nor how it could actually warp and expand.
c. Time: Modern science does not even know what 'time' actually is nor how it could actually warp and vary.
d. Gravity: Modern science does not even know what 'gravity' actually is nor how gravity actually does what it appears to do. And for those who claim that 'gravity' is matter warping the fabric of spacetime, see 'b' and 'c' above.
e. Speed of Light: 'Speed', distance divided by time, distance being two points in space with space between those two points. But yet, here again, modern science does not even know what space and time actually are that makes up 'speed' and they also claim that space can warp and expand and time can warp and vary, so how could they truly know even what the speed of light actually is that they utilize in many of the formulas? Speed of light should also warp, expand and vary depending upon what space and time it was in. And if the speed of light can warp, expand and vary in space and time, how then do far away astronomical observations actually work that are based upon light and the speed of light that could warp, expand and vary in actual reality?
f. Photons: A photon swirls with the 'e' and 'm' energy fields 90 degrees to each other. A photon is also considered massless. What keeps the 'e' and 'm' energy fields together across the vast universe? And why doesn't the momentum of the 'e' and 'm' energy fields as they swirl about not fling them away from the central area of the photon?
And electricity is electricity and magnetism is magnetism varying possibly only in energy modality, energy density and energy frequency. Why doesn't the 'e' and 'm' of other photons and of matter basically tear apart a photon going across the vast universe?
Also, 'if' a photon actually red shifts, where does the red shifted energy go and why does the photon red shift? And for those who claim space expanding causes a photon to red shift, see 'b' above.
Why does radio 'em' (large 'em' waves) have low energy and gamma 'em' (small 'em' waves) have high energy? And for those who say E = hf; see also 'b' and 'c' above. (f = frequency, cycles per second. But modern science claims space can warp and expand and time can warp and vary. If 'space' warps and expands and/or 'time' warps and varies, what does that do to 'E'? And why doesn't 'E' keep space from expanding and time from varying?).
g. Energy: Modern science claims that energy cannot be created nor destroyed, it's one of the foundations of physics. Hence, energy is either truly a finite amount and eternally existent, or modern science is wrong. First Law Of Thermodynamics: "Energy can neither be created nor destroyed." How exactly is 'energy' eternally existent?
h. Existence and Non-Existence side by side throughout all of eternity. How?
@@charlesbrightman4237 i´m pretty sure they know everything. they just dont tell you :D
You seeme te be type wordy guy, I may explain some things.
PS there is only one "constant". it is one.
All othger "constants" come from one.
That are trancentental values. Aka these are processes that affect evy level of the "symmetyry structure" [sorry, I do not have a "officially percice math language vocabulary]. Math as is scam anyways in so many levels, I dont want to start. Demons control the narratives.
If you wanna chat live, please do that, i´m going show you smth... to become brighter man every day :D Occult scientist hide evrything or twist thing in that way, one cant get it, even if they are old math proffessors. :D
That was the clearest answer that I’ve heard to the question about why there are magnets. Thank you
The step-wise explanation from small to larger of what has to happen for something to be a magnet was so helpful! That really cleared up the concept for me. I really wish schooling and even universities could use such clear conceptual explanations
2:15 One correction to Dr. Dan's narrative. Electrons are not FOUND INSIDE CLOUDS, they are most likely to be found in volumes of space that have different cloud shapes. There are no empty clouds into which electrons are located, the electrons themselves form clouds.
4:51 Unfortunately the term "electron spin" misleads people into thinking electrons are tiny particles spinning like tops or gyroscopes. Electrons exhibit a property similar to that which they would have if they did spin, but electrons DO NOT SPIN! In atoms the electron spin is the fourth quantum number for the electron and has values of +1/2 and -1/2, which we simplify this by saying up and down spin. Each orbital cannot be made up of two electrons with the same spin which limits each orbital to two electrons, one with spin +1/2 (up) and one with spin -1/2 (down).
The ability to retain magnetism after the magnetic field has been removed is called spontaneous or remanent magnetization. There are four elements that exhibit this attribute, Iron (Fe), Cobalt (Co), Nickel (Ni), Atomic numbers 26, 27, 28 as well as Gadolinium (Gd) atomic number 64. Iron, Cobalt, and Nickel all get their magnetism from 3d orbitals having four (4), three (3) and two (2) unpaired 3d electrons respectively.
Looking at Iron (Fe) on the periodic table we see that it has partially filled d orbitals. Iron has six (6) electrons forming d orbitals in the third energy level (3d) There are five (5) d orbitals each composed of two electrons. The rule is that all five orbitals must be formed by one electron before pairing occurs. Since there are six (6) electrons, one orbital has a pair of electrons leaving four (4) unpaired electrons. Cobalt (Co) has one more pair (one less unpaired), and Nickel has two more pairs (2 less unpaired).
Gadolinium is different with the electron configuration, [Xe] 4f⁷ 5d¹ 6s², having seven (7) unpaired electrons in 4f orbitals as well as a single unpaired electron in the 5d orbital.
We have all heard that neodymium magnets are the strongest magnets available, but they are not made of the element Neodymium (Nd) alone but are actually made of Nd2Fe14B (Neodymium, Iron, Boron).
Your first two points are overly pedantic. Electrons are found inside clouds the same way that water vapor is found in clouds. If there are no electrons then I think most people would agree that there's no cloud, not a cloud that happens to be empty. Also, it's disingenuous to say that electrons don't spin (because they're point-like particles) but then just gloss over the reason that there's a quantum number labeled spin is because point-like particles still exhibit angular momentum that influences atomic particles. Rattling off facts about why a metaphor is not literally correct is not helpful in correcting misconceptions if people don't understand why the metaphor has limits.
Back in the day people were hatin' on ICP for asking the question, Magnets, how do they work? But its a fair question. Decade later and we still need fermilab to lay it down for us. Great video!
The problem with ICP is that they said "scientists are liars." That is, their explanations of magnets can be dismissed.
Err no, "people were hatin' on ICP" because they took _their own_ ignorance to mean _no one_ knew i.e. the answer to "...magnets, how do they work ?" was _very_ well understood, even "back in the day" (I get that it's a revelation to lots of people but it's been a standard part of the undergraduate - and even high school - physics syllabus for _many_ decades).
Kind of like how more recently Bill O'Reilly claimed no one knew how the tides work and most sensible people considered him an idiot for doing so (again, _he_ likely didn't but the mechanism of the tides has been understood since the time of Newton).
@@CosmoPhiloPharmaco Scientists are human, and therefore could be liars. I'm genuinely not pointing fingers, just trying to get into the mindset of the general population. As pointed out in the video, scientist's grasp of how these things work on a quantum level is not exactly bulletproof. Can't entirely blame people for skepticism. And I should now admit I never listened to the rest of the song, I'm only remembering some of the memes.
@@PhillStone Here's the lyrics:
_"F*cking magnets, how do they work?
And I don't wanna talk to a scientist
Y'all motherf*ckers lying, and getting me p*ssed"_
Sure, scientists *could* lie, but 'could' isn't the same as 'do' and that's his assertion. Moreover, while *some* scientists do indeed lie (e.g., those involved with 'gender studies'), it is not clear that all or most of them do. It would be a fallacy from hasty generalization to make this inference.
With regards to scientists' incomplete comprehension of things, that's not evidence of lying. All respected scientists admit that science hasn't figured out everything yet, and that their knowledge is incomplete and open to revision.
So, to conclude, this guy is just wrong. There is no way around that.
I for one feel they're even more magical now - my understanding has passed from caution out of a sense of separateness from mystery into a sense of connection from wonder. Figuring out the universe seems to make it come even more alive to me. Thank you for the explainer!
I can't say how many times I've wondered about this, thank you for the simple explanation 🎉
There's another video in which Richard Feynman is asked the same question, but his philosophical answer left me somewhat unsatisfied. I appreciate your ability to explain material like this elegantly and in terms that a casual person like me can understand. Thank you, Dr. Lincoln!
I agree. Feynman sort of seemed frustrated to be asked.
@@ehrenloudermilk1053 I think Feynman's general answer to "why" questions was "Shut up and calculate."
He didn't know the answer and got pissed.
@@Slowekistan Sure, Nobel laureate Richard Feynman didn't know undergraduate physics (a subject he's famous for teaching). Makes sense.
Meanwhile, back in reality... Feynman's response isn't even about magnets - instead he uses the question to talk about the nature of explanation itself (but agreed, it's absolutely fair to be left unsatisfied by that if you just wanted to know how magnets work).
Watch again the Feynman video, “Feynman on magnets”, minute 5:30 where Feynman says: “…The question would then be: Why in iron it (the force) goes over a bigger distance than in ordinary (material)? In iron all electrons are spinning in the same direction. They all get lined up and they magnify the effect of the force until it’s large enough at a distance that you can feel it.” So Feynman knew and gave a perfect concise answer. But admittedly he talked 5:30 around this answer, pointing also at general questions about deeper understanding of physics.
I actually feel like I have a pretty good grasp on how magnets work now, an excellent video as always Dr. Don! What was once utterly opaque has been rendered transparent (much like the universe ;D )
The magic is really in Part 1 - why/how electrons are magnets. Great explanation of the rest!
Every time I see a video like this--or an earnest answer from a physicist to a truly vexing question--I think about how everyone dissed ICP for asking (in a song), "Magnets. How do they work?!"
I mean, we dissed them because it's _not_ "a truly vexing question" - it was well known when ICP asked (in bad faith BTW - their point was that scientists are liars) because it's been a standard part of university - and even high school - physics lessons for decades.
😂 Please do not send this video to Violent J
I can't as a scientist that question because he'll lie and get me pissed.
Thanks so much Dr. Don for that explanation!! Like many others, I can now understand the basic concepts of how a magnet works at the atomic level. I do have another question though: now that we understand how magnets generate their fields, can you please make a short video on EXACTLY how the magnet performs the action of attraction to other Ferro-metals? Thanks again for all you do!!
Yes your last point has always worried me… if I hold a permanent magnet over a ferromagnetic object it accelerates towards the magnetic pole. What is doing that work, where does the energy to do that work come from, can I repeat that work an infinite number of times?
@@Richardincancale Oh come on man! THINK A BIT! If you squeeze a spring where does that energy come from? DUH! For a magnet to attract or repel it has to be squeezed or stretched from what it is attracted or repelled from. The FDQ ( think and you can figure what that stands for!) is what is the invisible field itself!
Very good question!
@@Richardincancale @willeykev That's one of the laws of nature yo
As I understand it, the magnetic field itself has energy. Check out the energy density of the magnetic field of a magnetar.
While I know I wasn't the only person who asked for this video it still feels like I'm getting a personal response and I'd like to thank you for that, and everything else you do to further all of our understanding of the world around us!
❤Doc Lincoln Rules.
Nicely done closed captions. Love he admits no one knows why electrons are magnetic. In 2023 we have so much to learn about physics.
3:02 i like that he has the courage to say that nobody knows why the electrone behaves like a magnet on its own
the electron has a spin which makes is magnetic, but no one actually knows a whats a spin physically, they can only represent what they measre, so if you want to read about electron you will find a lot a description how does it behave, but what is it - no one knows.
i think the biggest issue here is that we should measure what happens inside an electron, but as its an elementary particle it does not have any internal structure, and cannot be probed inside, if if that cannot be measured we might never know the answer.
Thankyou. I have an additional question: when one permanent magnet is placed in the magnetic field of a second permanent magnet, it aligns. Where does the kinetic energy for that alignment come from? It doesn't come from the permanent magnet I assume (or it wouldn't be permanent). Does it only come from the kinetic energy used to move it into the field, creating a field potential that then becomes kinetic energy?
It's kinda like gravity, the closer you get, the more you slide into the lower energy state going into the magnetic field.
As a Juggalo, I appreciate the thorough explanation.
how magnets work is an interesting question, because no one knows what magnetic force really is including Fermilab
The one huge piece I never understood until now was the crystalline fragment enforcing a single orientation. Now things make a whole lot more sense.
The best part that I love most is where you say 'No one knows'.
If this video doesn't prove that "physics is everything," nothing would. The periodic table, the chart of every chemistry classroom, is shown to have its underlying structure dictated by Dr Don's favorite topic! Thank you for explaining magnets (and for admitting that there's a lot we don't know about them).
ah, when you see that from a historic perspective, you are perfectly right. The first guys to really understand stuff were the chemists 200 to 150 years ago, but what are the underlying structures that make up the periodic table? It’s physics again. You can learn a lot about physics without understanding anything of chemistry. But you cannot understand any of chemistry without understanding physics.
Chemistry is """only""" the physics of the electrons of the atoms - so they say.
Brilliant, Don. I love your videos, you explain really complicated things in terms I can understand!
I’ve have 1 biopolymer coated neodymium implant in each hand, for quite a few years.
They vibrate in response to EM fields allowing me to physically feel them.
It’s pretty interesting to have another sensory input specifically for that.
Read about these some years ago? Any issue in airports? And what about being unconscious after an accident and given an MRI?
What's the goal for that in the first place anyway?
I enjoyed this. In my workshop I have cause screwdrivers to become magnetic by stroking them with a magnet before I use them. This causes the screws do stick to the screwdriver even if I fumble them. Great to know!
Wait, then why *do* we use Neodymium in magnets? That wasn't one of the elements with roughly half-full outer shells!
The explanation that I saw on another channel somewhere was the exchange of virtual photons between force-carrying particles (electrons) was causing a transference of momentum from those virtual photons to the emitting electron and the receiving electron, thus either bringing them closer together or pushing them farther apart, and that the summation of all of these exchanges created electromagnetic attraction. This also explains the mechanism behind why magnetically attracted items accelerate towards each other when they get closer. The transfer of virtual photons is something that happens at some distance, and the smaller that distance, the faster the exchange and finally, the more exchanges can occur, increasing the momentum transfer that is accelerating the attracted items together. Same in reverse for repulsive forces acting on two magnetic items that push them away.
The example was visualized with two people who are each standing on a boat, throwing items between each other. If they throw a ball from one to the other, the thrower gets pushed away from the catcher by the equal-but-opposite force to the force required to accelerate the ball towards the catcher, and the catcher is pushed away upon catching the ball and absorbing the momentum it had. In the inverse, they are throwing boomerangs away from each other, and it circles around to the backside of the catcher. In that case, the thrower is pushed towards the catcher by the force used to throw the boomerang, and the catcher is similarly pushed towards the thrower by the boomerang when caught. The former example is of magnetic repulsion and the latter of attraction.
For me, magnetic attraction at a distance is the 'magic' part. It's as if invisible arms are reaching out and pulling.
That's the point of the field. The action is always local in the field. Any force is defined by the value of the field at that point.
Do you ask the same question about gravity and electrostatic attraction?
If you think about it, gravity is exactly the same. The sun doesn't physically "touch" the earth and pull it around in a circle, but the earth goes around in a circle, regardless. The strong force is similar inside of individual nucleons, no quark actually "touches" another quark, but they are all constantly interacting via the strong force (via neutral pions) keeping them tightly packed. Once you fully couple the action (force) to the field (the math) in your head, it just kind of makes sense suddenly. Photons are pushing and pulling electrons. Pions are grabbing all the quarks together inside a nucleon. All the particles and the forces interact directly, via Feynman diagrams, and trying to to imagine the sum of all diagrams for the total force on a particle is quite a bit of effort.
This is by far the best video I've seen on the topic. Excellent job.
i learned a lot. this answers the criteria for how atoms make magnets but does not satisfy the human scale perspective for how do they magically force each other before touching
How does the magnetic force propagate over distance? Does it work similar to gravity? I have studied some physics at university but never understood how that really worked.
Sort of; magnetic force is a long-distance force, except for that it's a dipole field whose force decreases with a cube of the distance. (As opposed to a point field, like gravity of a point mass or electric force of a point electric charge, which decreases with a square of the distance. If there exist magnetic charges, or magnetic monopoles [which haven't been observed], they would also follow the inverse square rule.)
Now that's what I would call a very magnetic discussion about magnetism Dr. Don! 👍👍
On behalf of all the fans of the musical group Insane Clown Posse, I just want to say, this video is miraculous.
Huh. This explains why metal fillings are magnetic. I'd always thought something about the grinding process somehow made them magnetic (heat + high magnitude force with a distinct vector = teeny tiny magnets?), but it's actually just that grinding metal breaks off bits tiny enough that they were already magnets! Cool.
Thank you!
One thing I have never received an answer to (yet?) is about energy. Put something like paper clips on a table. Take a magnet, hold it above the table, approach it slowly bringing it towards the paper clips. At a certain distance the paper clips will jump to the magnet, UPWARDS. Where does the energy come from? I assume potential energy plays a role somewhere. But in any case I don't understand the energy balance.
Very good video.
He is one of those people who make UA-cam still worth viewing
There is one question I think is important (people have wondered for ages ...)which remains largely unanswered in this video. If we have to make iron magnets by putting them under a very strong magnetic field, in order to align the domains, then how was magnetic iron formed naturally? Already the ancient Greeks knew how to find natural magnets, so, how was this formed? By what kind of natural magnetism?
lightning, perhaps.
the Earth has a magnetic field
Molten iron, like in a lava flow or primordial conditions, is easily magnetized by the Earth's own magnetic field. Which comes from a spinning iron core surrounded by molten material.
yep, I was going to go into lava flows, and how you can track the pole flips in them.
Cheers for doing the typing 👍😊
It all begins with galactic seed fields................how they f´get created is yet another fantastic stories, with still some gaps though.
the best description ever. Very grateful, thank you
Thank god I’ve been waiting for this video. The question stuck in my head for months was “do magnets bend space time”
'Yes, but it's more complicated than that...' is what physicists will be saying til the end of time.
Don, your videos are some of the most precious intellectual delights I can still have in this World...
This was really good. But I'd like to find a video explaining how a magnet and a magnetic substance know that they are in close proximity.
A great video with explanations easy to follow. Thank you 😊
Great explanation Don!!
Linear, logic and above all convincing 👍
OK, this is the best explanation I've heard about permanent magnets. But I have a question no other website/chat room/blog has ever answered. If that bunch of atoms are holding up that paper clip they are doing work. I'd they are doing work they are expending energy. So does the permanent magnet lose its atomic alignment over time? Will my fridge magnets eventually fall off the fridge? Where does that energy come from? Thanks.
I don't know if this is right, but I think of it the same way I think of stable atoms. The electrons spinning around are doing "work" but the atom can last billions of years or more.
A magnet holding up a paperclip is doing no more work than a table holding up a plate. Work is force x distance. Since there is no distance, there is no work.
@@drdon5205 True. I should not have used 'work'. But there is a force, correct? And the force requires energy? Just trying to wrap my head around something that sounds pretty close to perpetual motion.
@@tomhauer6528 Do you think a table holding up a plate is an example of potential energy? Because it's the same thing, energetically speaking.
Yep, permanent magnets do indeed lose their magnetism over time (basically, the domains become unaligned) but left alone it's pretty slow - if you keep it away from other fields, heat/cold, collisions etc. a high quality magnet may only lose a few % of its strength per century. Your (probably fairly low quality) fridge magnets will degrade more quickly but it'll still likely take many years, maybe even decades, for them to lose all sticking power.
And the energy of a permanent magnet's field comes from the original magnetic field that aligned its domains in the first place (so for natural permanent magnets that's the Earth's magnetic field). Just like Earth's field aligns a compass needle (itself a small permanent magnet), it can align the domains in ferrous rocks (most easily when molten).
Fun fact: We know our planet's magnetic pole flips regularly from observing "zebra stripe" patterns in the polarity of the metals in the seabed parallel to the lines where the crust is being renewed. The polarity of the domains in volcanic material align to the earth's field and are locked in once cooled.
Nice, a video on Sheldon Cooper's kindergarten work
Feynman has a lot of interviews and such online. One of them explains how magnets work. It's a rather awesome video.
Eagerly anticipating a comprehensive video about the NISST ANDT Entrance Exam for career-focused programs featured in the 2-8 December edition of the English Employment News Paper on Page 57. Your perspectives are consistently enlightening!
As a boy, Richard Feynman played endlessly with a pair of magnets, fascinated by their behavior and stimulated by a desire to know why they did what they did. I think it is safe to say that those experiences helped to launch his historic career in physics. Even today, noodling with a pair of magnets, especially the strong ones, reveals the wonder of invisible forces and the vital concept of energetic fields.
Playing with strong magnets reveals bruised fingernails.
@@narfwhals7843 -- good point -- but so does playing with hammers!
@@gregvondare Therefore hammers are magic!
When two electrons or two protons are compressed together, the 1/r^3 magnetic energy (positive when magnetic dipoles attract) and the 1/r Coulomb energy (negative when the electric charges repel) can reach a minimum when they are at nuclear distances. Two electrons (Cooper pairs) or two protons (occurs inside neutron stars and perhaps near black holes) can also bind magnetically. The proton and neutron can bind stably by positive magnetic dipole energy (attractive) , positive electric energy (attractive) and negative rotation and vibrations (repulsive or tending to separate them) . It is simple to look up the neutron binding energy and solve for valid configurations and spectrum. Likewise it is simple to solve for proton pairing energy in the context of real nuclear isotopes and reactions. Deuteron, Triton, and many isotopes with magnetic moments. The alpha particle (helium) excited states have multiple configurations and those can be given precise dynamic magnetic interaction energies, orientations and field shapes. The experiments can check it and solved for configurations.
It is also possible to bind particles and antiparticle with magnetic dipole (and higher magnetic moments) energy contributions. A proton and antiproton: positive magnetic dipole binding energy, positive Coulomb binding energy, negative rotational binding energy. I am fairly certain there is no singularity if there is not enough rotational energy to reach a bound state. The proton - antiproton (I think) can be massless because the binding energy is gravitationally invisible. Check. The binding energy in mass terms does not contribute to inertia or gravitational mass. A bound particle antiparticle pair can have zero mass with the right rotational and vibrational states. I think that is likely what the neutrinos might be. And the very very very specific orientation and timing required for resonant interactions, is why the cross-section is small. But cross section has a larger meaning of "probability or reaction" than just "probability of collision". It you want to bind two protons, they have narrow orientation (in 3d and time) constraints.
If you take an electron and positron and bind them magnetically, they will have a spectrum that can be estimated by "magnetic dipole approximation" which is very close to the non-linear Schrodinger solutions (which can be thought of as solitons or particles). More like molecules than simple particles. The simplicity for screening reactions for economic value or "chemistry at atomic and nuclear energies" is that classical analytical models can be used for getting close enough for the more expensive exact models to converge. I learned that lesson when I was working with Steve Klosko on using measured satellite orbits to calibrate the earth gravitational potential field model. I would find a rough orbit, then he would run the full model and it would most often converge. But if he took the full model and guessed, it would be too expensive or simply not be a good staring point. I think the "full model for nuclear magnetic binding" will adjust for relativistic effects at high particle speeds and intense fields. So the "nonlinear" part of the nonlinear Schrodinger model is likely largely relativistic in nature, and very dependent on the experimental noise spectrum.
I wrote to Emilio Segre (antiproton) back about the end of 1980 (his letter back to me is Jan 1981). I was seeking encouragement to spend more time on modeling the orbits and forces on electrons and positrons (positronium), using the precise measurements to test. He basically said, "go ahead and try to do a good job". My take was "you have not said anything stupid, it is possible, just keep at it."
Here are some distances for different reactions when the magnetic contribution is 2 MeV. To give a sense of the scale. I am checking all the reaction energies at NUDAT 3 for all ~3500 isotopes. For a given distance PP is stronger then NP, is stronger than NN magnetic bonding energies. That has consequences for stable isotopic internal structure, and indirectly on electron and magnetic binding of partially and fully stripped (of electrons) reactions. I have been looking for "atomic fuels and materials" where the macroscopic bond energy density is KeV and MeV per pair rather than just eV 'chemical' bonds. A rocket fuel would be correspondingly smaller. A 10 KeV material would be about 1000 time smaller than chemical combustion fuels like StarShip. 100 meters of fuel down to 10 cm?
Variable Radius Unit Note
r_PP_2MeV 0.43585 fm PP Magnetic Binding Energy
r_NN_2MeV 0.33868 fm NN Magnetic Binding Energy
r_NP_2MeV 0.38420 fm NP Magnetic Binding Energy
r_ee_2MeV 32.97970 fm ee Magnetic Binding Energy
r_dd_2MeV 0.19835 fm dd Magnetic Binding Energy
r_HeHe_2MeV 0.36355 fm HeHe Magnetic Binding Energy
r_MuMu_2MeV 0.94318 fm MuMu Magnetic Binding Energy
r_TT_2MeV 0.45500 fm TT Magnetic Binding Energy
r_eP_2MeV 1.45500 fm eP Magnetic Binding Energy
There is a lot of work to find the proper geometries. But the order of magnitudes and possible geometries are a good start. I am using single bonds, but many bonds and types are possible and likely contribute. First you get close, then use more and more precise models. Measure and calibrate to 32 digit accuracy or it won't converge.
Boron 11 Neutron Separation Energy 11454221 eV r_B11->B10+N 0.185514604 fm
Boron 12 Neutron Separation Energy 3369600 eV r_B12->B11+N 0.318816993 fm
(There are end to end magnets, as well as side by side, and many dynamic interactions in 3D and time. End to end allows "strings of particles. And those seem to be operative at gluon energies too. But magnetic chains of a few particles (6 electrons binding?) or 6 neutrons binding in a ring. Those can be solved and likely tested. It is easy "chemistry with KeV and MeV bonds and energies". Then you do the details, measure and test and calibrate.)
Richard Collins, The Internet Foundation
What I draw from all Dr Don’s videos is that a big bloke can also have a big brain, both literally and figuratively! 😊
Thank you! One comment though: the reason electrons are magnets might not be a total mystery. I recently read _The Road to Reality_ and, while I didn't understand the details, Roger Penrose explained how electron spin does arise mathematically just from trying to describe the electron in a way that incorporates special relativity. So the mechanism might be similar to electromagnets after all.
Thx. I was wondering if electromagnetism can really be so different from normal magnetism. Gotta read up on that. Maybe we don't have to quantize gravity but relativize qm 😊
Well, saying that "this follows mathematically if you solve the equation" isn't really a satisfactory physical explanation.
I would add one thing... Tell which atoms specifically are magnetic. Iron, cobalt, etc. Other than that, great explanation. We just studied this in my science class!
Where does the energy come from to lift something and not be dissipated by age or use? Or do they dissipate?
ICP: How the f- do magnets work?
Fermilab: How does ketchup on hot dogs work?
It’s nice to know that even the ‘simple’ magnet has mysteries surrounding it at the atomic level.
At 3:27, the answer is given. There is no good explanation for why electrons have magnetic properties, and we have to wait for future discoveries to learn how magnets actually work. The rest is just a very well-explained description of what we know for sure about the resulting phenomenon which is derived from the electron magnetism. The effort to make the video is much appreciated, but I still don't know how magnets actually work - and apparently no one does. Yet.
The movement of an electron is interesting. "Spin" despite the early experiments needs more thought regarding what possible movements might cause magnetism and how filling the shell prevents the unbalanced magnetic movement.
A good video to explain how magnet works....I'm structural engineer but very interested in physics
Very nice and straight forward explanation. I was hoping for THE answer to what the magnetic field really is, which like many others, I'm still trying to figure out, and won't quit until I do (or pass away). Most likely it is something so simple that we just can't think of it, and some 5 year old will just point it out as the most obvious thing ever 🙂
Thanks! I was hoping you would explain how magnetism itself works (like the fields themselves and how they do what they do over distance) rather than what magnets are but I learned something either way.
I was wondering forever, how it works! Thanks you so much for all those great videos!
"Water, fire, air and dirt, f****** magnets, how do they work?"
Excellent. Never quite understood ferromagnetism. Now I do
Conservation of Spatial Curvature:
Both Matter and Energy described as "Quanta" of Spatial Curvature. (A string is revealed to be a twisted cord when viewed up close.)
Is there an alternative interpretation of "Asymptotic Freedom"? What if Quarks are actually made up of twisted tubes which become physically entangled with two other twisted tubes to produce a proton? Instead of the Strong Force being mediated by the constant exchange of gluons, it would be mediated by the physical entanglement of these twisted tubes. When only two twisted tubules are entangled, a meson is produced which is unstable and rapidly unwinds (decays) into something else. A proton would be analogous to three twisted rubber bands becoming entangled and the "Quarks" would be the places where the tubes are tangled together. The behavior would be the same as rubber balls (representing the Quarks) connected with twisted rubber bands being separated from each other or placed closer together producing the exact same phenomenon as "Asymptotic Freedom" in protons and neutrons. The force would become greater as the balls are separated, but the force would become less if the balls were placed closer together. Therefore, the gluon is a synthetic particle (zero mass, zero charge) invented to explain the Strong Force. An artificial Christmas tree can hold the ornaments in place, but it is not a real tree.
String Theory was not a waste of time, because Geometry is the key to Math and Physics. However, can we describe Standard Model interactions using only one extra spatial dimension? What did some of the old clockmakers use to store the energy to power the clock? Was it a string or was it a spring?
What if we describe subatomic particles as spatial curvature, instead of trying to describe General Relativity as being mediated by particles? Fixing the Standard Model with more particles is like trying to mend a torn fishing net with small rubber balls, instead of a piece of twisted twine.
Quantum Entangled Twisted Tubules:
“We are all agreed that your theory is crazy. The question which divides us is whether it is crazy enough to have a chance of being correct.” Neils Bohr
(lecture on a theory of elementary particles given by Wolfgang Pauli in New York, c. 1957-8, in Scientific American vol. 199, no. 3, 1958)
The following is meant to be a generalized framework for an extension of Kaluza-Klein Theory. Does it agree with some aspects of the “Twistor Theory” of Roger Penrose, and the work of Eric Weinstein on “Geometric Unity”, and the work of Dr. Lisa Randall on the possibility of one extra spatial dimension? During the early history of mankind, the twisting of fibers was used to produce thread, and this thread was used to produce fabrics. The twist of the thread is locked up within these fabrics. Is matter made up of twisted 3D-4D structures which store spatial curvature that we describe as “particles"? Are the twist cycles the "quanta" of Quantum Mechanics?
When we draw a sine wave on a blackboard, we are representing spatial curvature. Does a photon transfer spatial curvature from one location to another? Wrap a piece of wire around a pencil and it can produce a 3D coil of wire, much like a spring. When viewed from the side it can look like a two-dimensional sine wave. You could coil the wire with either a right-hand twist, or with a left-hand twist. Could Planck's Constant be proportional to the twist cycles. A photon with a higher frequency has more energy. ( E=hf, More spatial curvature as the frequency increases = more Energy ). What if Quark/Gluons are actually made up of these twisted tubes which become entangled with other tubes to produce quarks where the tubes are entangled? (In the same way twisted electrical extension cords can become entangled.) Therefore, the gluons are a part of the quarks. Quarks cannot exist without gluons, and vice-versa. Mesons are made up of two entangled tubes (Quarks/Gluons), while protons and neutrons would be made up of three entangled tubes. (Quarks/Gluons) The "Color Charge" would be related to the XYZ coordinates (orientation) of entanglement. "Asymptotic Freedom", and "flux tubes" are logically based on this concept. The Dirac “belt trick” also reveals the concept of twist in the ½ spin of subatomic particles. If each twist cycle is proportional to h, we have identified the source of Quantum Mechanics as a consequence twist cycle geometry.
Modern physicists say the Strong Force is mediated by a constant exchange of Gluons. The diagrams produced by some modern physicists actually represent the Strong Force like a spring connecting the two quarks. Asymptotic Freedom acts like real springs. Their drawing is actually more correct than their theory and matches perfectly to what I am saying in this model. You cannot separate the Gluons from the Quarks because they are a part of the same thing. The Quarks are the places where the Gluons are entangled with each other.
Neutrinos would be made up of a twisted torus (like a twisted donut) within this model. The twist in the torus can either be Right-Hand or Left-Hand. Some twisted donuts can be larger than others, which can produce three different types of neutrinos. If a twisted tube winds up on one end and unwinds on the other end as it moves through space, this would help explain the “spin” of normal particles, and perhaps also the “Higgs Field”. However, if the end of the twisted tube joins to the other end of the twisted tube forming a twisted torus (neutrino), would this help explain “Parity Symmetry” violation in Beta Decay? Could the conversion of twist cycles to writhe cycles through the process of supercoiling help explain “neutrino oscillations”? Spatial curvature (mass) would be conserved, but the structure could change.
=====================
Gravity is a result of a very small curvature imbalance within atoms. (This is why the force of gravity is so small.) Instead of attempting to explain matter as "particles", this concept attempts to explain matter more in the manner of our current understanding of the space-time curvature of gravity. If an electron has qualities of both a particle and a wave, it cannot be either one. It must be something else. Therefore, a "particle" is actually a structure which stores spatial curvature. Can an electron-positron pair (which are made up of opposite directions of twist) annihilate each other by unwinding into each other producing Gamma Ray photons?
Does an electron travel through space like a threaded nut traveling down a threaded rod, with each twist cycle proportional to Planck’s Constant? Does it wind up on one end, while unwinding on the other end? Is this related to the Higgs field? Does this help explain the strange ½ spin of many subatomic particles? Does the 720 degree rotation of a 1/2 spin particle require at least one extra dimension?
Alpha decay occurs when the two protons and two neutrons (which are bound together by entangled tubes), become un-entangled from the rest of the nucleons
. Beta decay occurs when the tube of a down quark/gluon in a neutron becomes overtwisted and breaks producing a twisted torus (neutrino) and an up quark, and the ejected electron. The production of the torus may help explain the “Symmetry Violation” in Beta Decay, because one end of the broken tube section is connected to the other end of the tube produced, like a snake eating its tail. The phenomenon of Supercoiling involving twist and writhe cycles may reveal how overtwisted quarks can produce these new particles. The conversion of twists into writhes, and vice-versa, is an interesting process, which is also found in DNA molecules. Could the production of multiple writhe cycles help explain the three generations of quarks and neutrinos? If the twist cycles increase, the writhe cycles would also have a tendency to increase.
Gamma photons are produced when a tube unwinds producing electromagnetic waves. ( Mass=1/Length )
The “Electric Charge” of electrons or positrons would be the result of one twist cycle being displayed at the 3D-4D surface interface of the particle. The physical entanglement of twisted tubes in quarks within protons and neutrons and mesons displays an overall external surface charge of an integer number. Because the neutrinos do not have open tube ends, (They are a twisted torus.) they have no overall electric charge.
Within this model a black hole could represent a quantum of gravity, because it is one cycle of spatial gravitational curvature. Therefore, instead of a graviton being a subatomic particle it could be considered to be a black hole. The overall gravitational attraction would be caused by a very tiny curvature imbalance within atoms.
In this model Alpha equals the compactification ratio within the twistor cone, which is approximately 1/137.
1= Hypertubule diameter at 4D interface
137= Cone’s larger end diameter at 3D interface where the photons are absorbed or emitted.
The 4D twisted Hypertubule gets longer or shorter as twisting or untwisting occurs. (720 degrees per twist cycle.)
How many neutrinos are left over from the Big Bang? They have a small mass, but they could be very large in number. Could this help explain Dark Matter?
Why did Paul Dirac use the twist in a belt to help explain particle spin? Is Dirac’s belt trick related to this model? Is the “Quantum” unit based on twist cycles?
I started out imagining a subatomic Einstein-Rosen Bridge whose internal surface is twisted with either a Right-Hand twist, or a Left-Hand twist producing a twisted 3D/4D membrane. This topological Soliton model grew out of that simple idea. I was also trying to imagine a way to stuff the curvature of a 3 D sine wave into subatomic particles.
.-----------
Title is how do magnets work, and we still don't know how do they work from this video.
This video is great and I’m going to start to use it in my classroom. Thanks! If possible, you should do a video on the enigmatic statement “magnetic forces do no work” but explain then how magnets pick things up. Based on other videos published recently in the physics UA-cam space, this would also be very helpful for students studying E&M.
I still think there is way more to be learned about magnets. There is just so much to the physical and electro and quantum forces that it holds some deeper key we need to still learn about.
Superb and concise explanation of what makes a permanent magnet! Also besides artificially making a magnet there are actually natural occurring magnets found in nature as a mineral compound called magnetite (i.e. Lodestone). It is amazing that all these 4 conditions described in the video that must be fulfilled in order to have a permanent magnet are natural occurring in the magnetite mineral!... This material has not to be made a magnet but is a natural permanent magnet. By "permanent," it is meant that the material maintains a magnetic field with no external help.
Give this man a medal!
Or did you mean “a metal”? Preferably a ferromagnetic metal. 😂
@@jimomertz LLOOOLL
For reasons unknown, there was very slightly more ketchup than mustard when the universe came into existence, so when all the mustard had been annihilated by the ketchup, a tiny amount of ketchup remained, making up all the ketchup that we love and cherish today!
This video is worth to archive the title the Don of science communication.
For Stern-Gerlach experiment. I wish Dr Don could explain more details about that. I am in the state of wondering about motion of spin up electron that respect to the rotating magnetic field.
For example, if a spin up or spin down electron is emited ,what direction it will bending to as it travels through the magnetic field while the magnetic detector is rotating along the axis of the electron's path.
Dr. Don, so good to see another great video.
I love your videos so much. So happy to see new ones coming out :)
I think permanent magnets are basically normal atoms with there electron to electron repulsive forces in regard to touching surfaces, except in the case of magnets these electron forces are highly concentrated when the domains align and then extend out into space noticably... While normal arrangements of atoms also have electron repulsive forces, but don't appear to extend way out into space merely because the range is so small.
Magnets are just normal things on overdrive.
Wow out of all the youtube videos I've ever watched about this topic, i FINALLY understand it!
Magnetism is caused by 1. positive - collisions amongst virtual photons ( the smallest possible conglomeration of superluminal fundamental particles) and amongst profuse concentrations of sfp's
and between virtual photons and sfp's and 2. negative - a relative vacuum caused by a relative absence of the collisions mentioned in 1. due to vectored flux of virtual photons and sfp's caused by the phenomena mentioned by Lincoln.
Great explanation. Finally able to follow the whole thing.
Excellent video, thank you! What I would like to know is how two magnets attract or repel each other, not in terms of magnetic field gradients but in terms of fundamental particles. Do they exchange virtual photons?
Yes, they exchange virtual photons. That's how _all_ electric, magnetic and electromagnetic forces work.
Nice video, but I would like to see an explanation of whats happening between the magnet, and the thing is sticking to. Are the exchanging electrons? What makes them stick together? Why do magnets not stick to some kinds of metal? What are the properties a metal think has to have for a magnet to stick to it? Basically, i would like to know what's happening between the magnet and the thing it's sticking to.
"The short answer is nobody knows, just a fact for which we have no good explanation" thank you so much for saying that. Magnets work because electrons are magnetic. Why are electrons magnetic? Nobody knows! I always feel like an idiot Everytime I try to understand how magnets "actually" work and everyone around me is like, "oh, I get it now!" Do you though? NO! Nobody knows yet! I feel so much sane now thank you, genuinely thank you from the bottom of my heart!
Very interesting. Now please have video on how magnets are made (if that is the right word) in a practical sense for consumer use.
Maybe a follow up showing the mechanics which draws magnets together.
What is it in an atom that determines the direction it's field lines run? The shape of the orbitals?
Also does that mean that when you put iron in a strong magnetic field it's actually wrenching those atoms around until they point in the right direction? I didn't even think of atoms as having an intrinsic direction.
Really makes you think about how solid, solids are at the atomic level.
Wow this was a great explanation that tied together so many other principles!
I already understood all of this; what I did not understand was how magnetic force actually worked. We have been told that gravitational attraction is not actually a force as we know it, but a consequence of Spacetime being warped by the presence of mass. I was hoping for an explanation of magnetic force along similar lines.
It’s still magic because nobody still knows why magnets attract and repel. How far down can we go (Planck length) until the laws of magnetism itself breaks down?
when i first heard about the Pauli principle in my Atomphysics class it really blew my mind. The universe is magnificent.
How do magnets work?
The magnet consists of concentric clockwise and counterclockwise dipole rings that extend from one pole to the other over the entire body of the magnet.
Dipole rings in the same direction attract each other, and dipole rings in opposite directions repel each other. Likewise, currents in the same direction attract each other and currents in opposite directions repel each other.
An electric current can induce dipoles in a magnetic material to form dipole rings. Moving magnets can induce electrons in a conductor to produce an electric current.
Since a dipole ring has two magnetic poles, clockwise and counterclockwise, there cannot be a single magnetic pole.
A few infographics for the crystalline stage would have been a wonderful addition
You only explained the magnet itself not the force it has. When I was a kid I was fascinated on how the magnets knew the other was near by before touching, I could feel them trying to connect when opposite poles were aligned. This magnetic field was later explained in a college physics course but I still do not know how this force communicates with the atoms. As a kid I called it my spooking action at a distance. Perhaps the answer lies with gravity as it also has a similar force that has no particle. Maybe it’s a graviton? And maybe that something is involved in both electromagnetism and gravity? I feel like these are all related.
Fields are communicated by a messenger particles called gauge bosons. In the case of the electromagnetic field, the gauge boson is... (drum roll 🥁) _... the photon!_ So the magnets communicate each others' presence via exchange of photons - no spooky action required. 😁
It's a good video. But again, there is no explanation - how exactly do the particles attract or repel? What are the mechanics of this process?
Hey, this is one of the next lessons we are going to take next semester in my Astronomy course.
Question - does the alignment of the electron's magnetic orientation differ in solid iron exposed to a magnetic field versus liquid iron solidifying in a magnetic field? In other words, can you make a stronger magnet by exposing liquid iron to a magnetic field as it cools and crystallizes than just exposing solid (crystallized) iron to the same strength magnetic field?
"How do magnets work?"
"I dunno. But I do know that you need all this other stuff in order for magnetism to happen."
But why do opposite poles attract and like poles repel?
Thank you. All very clear, but I have one question - What is the magnetic field? How does it work? It is "Action at a distance" and that needs an explanation.
If we understand the gravitational field as the changing frequency of the time wave, then a magnetic field must be the same effect, only localised.
In other words, the alignment of electrons must slow down time in one direction only.
Has anyone tested this with an atomic clock within a magnetic field? Switch it on and off and see how the time rate changes?
Is there a relationship between the attraction between positive and negative electrical charges (or repulsion of like charges) and the magnetic force?
Dr. Lincoln, I have a question regarding magnetic fields.... I've been told that charged particles moving through magnetic fields have no 'work' done on them, ie a charged particle moving through a magnetic field has it's velocity changed according to the right hand rule but the magnetic field does no work, ie puts no energy into, the ion. This still doesn't make sense to me since energy is force * distance and the Lorentz force is a force and it is created when a charged particle moves through a magnetic field. Can you explain? I've seen several videos that try to explain this and none are clear. THANKS! And as ALWAYS, you ROCK! Thanks for all you do!
Force x distance x cos(angle between them). Since the angle is 90 degrees, cos(90) is zero.
It is difficult to understand, but a magnetic field can only change the direction of a charged particle, its energy and speed are not affected therefore the magnetic field does no work. Electromagnetism is a vector field (each point in space has a strength and a direction), changing a vector's direction does not change its energy or speed (its magnitude). The electric force can change the magnitude and direction of a charged particle however (its direction and magnitude).
How does a magnet attract a paper clip if it can do no work? The paper clip, as well as the magnet, is made up of a lot of electrons that feel a different force, and overall the magnet actually DOES DO WORK by moving the paper clip.
Besides the other answers, there is also maybe an issue with the word "work" because in physics it can work (...) different than you'd use it in real life.
Example: You lift a water bottle from the floor on a table. Then you put it back on the floor. How much work did you do? Zero. Because you first did work in the positive direction and then did work in the negative direction resulting in a net zero work.
@@drdon5205 oh yeah duh!!! thanks for this clarification!
@@whuzzzup got it! great point! thanks!