Real, totally heavily simplified answer. All atoms could be magnets, but most don’t have a force because the electron orbitals aren’t out enough. In fact just about everything can be explained by what the electron orbitals are doing. Even why the chair you’re sitting in feels solid. It’s the orbitals. See and the deeper lesson on knowing the right questions to ask.
No, atoms with a symmetrical subatomic structure could never be magnets! And what would be the point of somehow enlarging the electrons orbit? You surely know a magnet needs a positive pole!
You are also definitely wrong about your third statement!You could never explain anything based on just the electron cloud, much less physics; a whole scientific field that generally works with the atomic core
What did you oversimplify to get there? And so you understand thats nonsense but have had commented it regardless? Hope everyone is at an situation where they can watch that vid of urs, everyone else because I am not
I am pretty sure the other guy is talking nonsense and he kinda didn’t explain anything, its basically an atom with such a subatomic structure where there are more electrons on one side than the other, making that side more negative! The whole deposit is made up of atoms facing the same way!
Oh boy, this is very incorrect, because it sounds like you are attempting to explain magnetism with electrostatic forces. Here is a basic model which separates the difference between the two:
Electrostatic forces are caused by the electric field. Something produces an electric field simply by having an unbalanced charge. Positive attracts negative, negative repels negative, positive repels positive.
Magnetic forces are caused by the magnetic field. Something produces a magnetic field by having an unbalanced charge AND is moving.
This is why when trying to explain how solid magnets work, we focus on the electrons because electrons are charged particles that are always moving. So they produce both an electric field (being charged) and a magnetic field (being a moving charged system).
Rhaedas is sorta correct. Any solid system has the capability of being a magnet, but this takes an incredible amount of physics work where iron is special. Iron’s electrons are able to easily maintain a synchronous orbit with each other which results in magnetic forces being observable at a macroscopic scale (seeing iron magnets pull on each other). In most other materials, the electrons orbits are chaotic, so even though magnetic fields are still being produced by their electrons, the lack of order results in no magnetic force being observable on the macroscopic scale; but if you place this non-iron material within a very strong magnetic field, you may be able to align their electrons orbits so that it becomes magnetic on the macroscopic scale (like iron).
Did you use ai to form that? No human has ever, ever written that magnetic force causes magnetic field; nor electrostatics force causes an electric field…
No, electrostatic fields is caused by stationary charges
I don’t dare imagine what you think an unbalanced charge is, but a moving electric charge is enough to cause a magnetic field.
‘It takes incredible amounts of physics work to get something’… You know, ai used to worry me quite a bit but comments like yours calm my soul! We are thankfully not there yet where it’s actually would be capable of replacing hack squat!
I specify “physics work” to mean physic’s definition of work (dot product between Force and Displacement).
And to not connect the importance between the electric and magnetic field as it pertains to the the electrostatic force and magnetic force reveals your basic understanding of the physics. Hence, why your prior comment was so problematic…
Oh academia! Of course you are! Kinda weird you didn’t specify your field and experience… Welp, must have had no space left for that in that reply of yours…
Kinda odd that an academic would continously write nonsense… Work in the contest of physics (what fucking other context would we use it when we are discussing physics…) is defined as: the energy transferred to or from an object by a force acting on it as it moves through a distance!Aka ‘W = F • s’, its not a dot product its multiplication dear doctor? Also makes absolutely no sense in the prev context you used it… If you just wanted to pick a word to insinuate a sort of insight, you should have used midi-chlorians! Sounds a lot cooler and makes just as much sense!
So far every single one of your statements had been wrong… I will have to ask you to stop sharing your brilliant insights to beget the spread of misinformation!
Could you check out from every physics&whatever else you pretend to be discussion? Again, you didn’t even know the formula of work despite totally being an academic…
It genuinely upsets me that people like yours vote equal mine… Hope you know you looked really dumb and desperate the whole time!
I used the higher level 3-dimensional definition of work, and you told my I was wrong and provided my the high school level 1-dimensional definition of work. Then you hang it over my head and try to correct me as if my definition is incorrect.
The fact is your knowledge of physics is so low that you didn’t even know this nuance; and you are not arguing in good faith because this is something you easily could have looked up and realized if all you cared about wasn’t “being right”.
Need a bigger magnet.
Also, how do they work?
Real, totally heavily simplified answer. All atoms could be magnets, but most don’t have a force because the electron orbitals aren’t out enough. In fact just about everything can be explained by what the electron orbitals are doing. Even why the chair you’re sitting in feels solid. It’s the orbitals. See
and the deeper lesson on knowing the right questions to ask.
I love listening to Richard Feynman talk in those interviews
No, atoms with a symmetrical subatomic structure could never be magnets! And what would be the point of somehow enlarging the electrons orbit? You surely know a magnet needs a positive pole!
You are also definitely wrong about your third statement!You could never explain anything based on just the electron cloud, much less physics; a whole scientific field that generally works with the atomic core
Missed the first sentence I guess. It’s why I included the video for a much better, although also simplified and incomplete answer, and he says why.
What did you oversimplify to get there? And so you understand thats nonsense but have had commented it regardless? Hope everyone is at an situation where they can watch that vid of urs, everyone else because I am not
they come from the ground so they have gravity in them
Miracles
I am pretty sure the other guy is talking nonsense and he kinda didn’t explain anything, its basically an atom with such a subatomic structure where there are more electrons on one side than the other, making that side more negative! The whole deposit is made up of atoms facing the same way!
https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn%3AANd9GcQ7plIgcsKhof-nwcD7OcmJvJcNqtpjmpJjTA&usqp=CAU
https://www.coolmagnetman.com/images/maghow23.jpg
Oh boy, this is very incorrect, because it sounds like you are attempting to explain magnetism with electrostatic forces. Here is a basic model which separates the difference between the two:
Electrostatic forces are caused by the electric field. Something produces an electric field simply by having an unbalanced charge. Positive attracts negative, negative repels negative, positive repels positive.
Magnetic forces are caused by the magnetic field. Something produces a magnetic field by having an unbalanced charge AND is moving.
This is why when trying to explain how solid magnets work, we focus on the electrons because electrons are charged particles that are always moving. So they produce both an electric field (being charged) and a magnetic field (being a moving charged system).
Rhaedas is sorta correct. Any solid system has the capability of being a magnet, but this takes an incredible amount of physics work where iron is special. Iron’s electrons are able to easily maintain a synchronous orbit with each other which results in magnetic forces being observable at a macroscopic scale (seeing iron magnets pull on each other). In most other materials, the electrons orbits are chaotic, so even though magnetic fields are still being produced by their electrons, the lack of order results in no magnetic force being observable on the macroscopic scale; but if you place this non-iron material within a very strong magnetic field, you may be able to align their electrons orbits so that it becomes magnetic on the macroscopic scale (like iron).
Did you use ai to form that? No human has ever, ever written that magnetic force causes magnetic field; nor electrostatics force causes an electric field…
No, electrostatic fields is caused by stationary charges
I don’t dare imagine what you think an unbalanced charge is, but a moving electric charge is enough to cause a magnetic field.
‘It takes incredible amounts of physics work to get something’… You know, ai used to worry me quite a bit but comments like yours calm my soul! We are thankfully not there yet where it’s actually would be capable of replacing hack squat!
Lol you weren’t kidding… The full sentence is even weirder:
I kind of hope a human didn’t write that…
Not AI. I’m in academia, so I write academically.
I specify “physics work” to mean physic’s definition of work (dot product between Force and Displacement).
And to not connect the importance between the electric and magnetic field as it pertains to the the electrostatic force and magnetic force reveals your basic understanding of the physics. Hence, why your prior comment was so problematic…
Oh academia! Of course you are! Kinda weird you didn’t specify your field and experience… Welp, must have had no space left for that in that reply of yours…
Kinda odd that an academic would continously write nonsense… Work in the contest of physics (what fucking other context would we use it when we are discussing physics…) is defined as: the energy transferred to or from an object by a force acting on it as it moves through a distance!Aka ‘W = F • s’, its not a dot product its multiplication dear doctor? Also makes absolutely no sense in the prev context you used it… If you just wanted to pick a word to insinuate a sort of insight, you should have used midi-chlorians! Sounds a lot cooler and makes just as much sense!
So far every single one of your statements had been wrong… I will have to ask you to stop sharing your brilliant insights to beget the spread of misinformation!
It’s very apparent that you are not a good faith discusser and your knowledge of physics is very low.
I’m checking out of this discussion
Could you check out from every physics&whatever else you pretend to be discussion? Again, you didn’t even know the formula of work despite totally being an academic…
It genuinely upsets me that people like yours vote equal mine… Hope you know you looked really dumb and desperate the whole time!
I used the higher level 3-dimensional definition of work, and you told my I was wrong and provided my the high school level 1-dimensional definition of work. Then you hang it over my head and try to correct me as if my definition is incorrect.
The fact is your knowledge of physics is so low that you didn’t even know this nuance; and you are not arguing in good faith because this is something you easily could have looked up and realized if all you cared about wasn’t “being right”.