| Index | Recent Threads | Unanswered Threads | Who's Active | Guidelines | Search |
 |
World Community Grid Forums
Category: Community
Forum: Chat Room
Thread: Totally Off Subject but Conjecture of the Quizical Kind |
| No member browsing this thread |
|
Thread Status: Active Total posts in this thread: 10
|
|
| Author |
|
|
Former Member
Cruncher Joined: May 22, 2018 Post Count: 0 Status: Offline |
 Can anyone explain to me why or how a magnet can sustain a magnetic field in seeming volation of the conservation of energy, yet loose no mass? Even though it is constantly resisting the motion of a rotating field coil and producing electricity in the coil on top of its resistance? If one where to slide a magnet into a snug tube and slide another magnet down the same tube in reverse polarity of the first and stand the tube upright both magnets would resist meeting, they may even levitate depending on their strengths, for eternity, with out loosing mass. It would seem in either case the mass/energy requirement to maintain the suspension would at some point exceed the mass of either or both magnets given sufficent time as they resist the constant pull of gravity.Gravity, can anyone explain to me how a body has gravity that is in constant interaction yet for the force it appears to weld the excerting continium doesn't seem appreciably impacted - the mass body does not seem to loose mass in the same relationship as the engergy expended during its influence on another body. I understand blackholes "leak" due to thier gravity but it seems disproportionately small to thier energy expendature of the gravity well or the surrounding space. Do we agree gravity is energy? Is it possible to have an interactive FORCE with no energy? IF gravity is a mutual by-product of mass producing a curved space then is it correct to say that curvature is paid for by mass's conversion to gravity, if so what is space's payment plan? Do both contribute to the gravity well so any tug or interaction with the gravity well subtracts equally from both, again how does space "pay" for this interaction. Is this a case of a Force with no energy content? What about blackholes leaking? There could be no leakage without an energy component. One last qualifier - no math - unfortunately math is lost on me, but it does not keep me from wondering about seeming inconsistancies in the way we view or see things. I'm looking for a simple straight forward rationale, if there is one. |
|||
|
||||
|
Former Member
Cruncher Joined: May 22, 2018 Post Count: 0 Status: Offline |
Sigh . . . I'm getting sleepy and you're hitting me with questions I remember from my Senior undergrad year. I was a fly on the wall when a very smart science professor who for decades had only used math to convert the weight of his manuscripts into postage when sending them off to journals asked the Physics chairman very similar questions. Only he sharpened them and made them sound more paradoxical. I was sharper myself back then (or felt so) so when the chairman hesitated, I answered. As I recall, the key is conservation of energy throughout the entire system. Energy shuffles around from point to point, so if you concentrate on just one point (a verbal trick) you can make it sound horrible. But the energy can only be withdrawn from the field by another interacting point, which in the meantime is generating its own field. So in the end everything balances out. The confusion arises by only considering one field and energy withdrawn from it and ignoring the requirement that another point and field exist to do the withdrawing.
|
|||
|
||||
|
Former Member
Cruncher Joined: May 22, 2018 Post Count: 0 Status: Offline |
Ah! so. You are saying the starting point of question is wrong. I need to back up a few klicks to get the whole picture. This sounds reasonable I will ruminate on that for a bit - no pun intended.
 And Thanks it gives me another avenue to bounce around on without being stuck in the current one. |
||
|
|
Former Member
Cruncher Joined: May 22, 2018 Post Count: 0 Status: Offline |
Oh, there are a lot of changes that can be run into this. Static equilibrium can mean that energy being transferred from one field is matched by energy being pulled out of the other. More likely is a dynamic equilibrium in which potential energy is converted into actual energy at one point and then back into potential at another. And then if you are really tricky you can define effects that depend on the quantum nature of an electron 'orbiting' a nucleus. Believing the analogy with the Solar System and planets orbiting the Sun can mislead you.
|
|||
|
||||
|
Former Member
Cruncher Joined: May 22, 2018 Post Count: 0 Status: Offline |
Just hit the magnet with a hammer. This will realign the particals and solve the problem
|
|||
|
||||
|
Former Member
Cruncher Joined: May 22, 2018 Post Count: 0 Status: Offline |
 Love it. But it still leaves me stuck, as it where. How small can the magnetic material of magnet be? Can it be less that one molecule, down to one atom? At what point is it no longer magnetizm but electrostatic mutual attraction? Why does hitting it with a hammer scramble the field? |
|||
|
||||
|
Former Member
Cruncher Joined: May 22, 2018 Post Count: 0 Status: Offline |
Whoops! Magnetism is Coulomb's Law of Electrostatic Force combined with accelerated motion (the quantum 'orbiting' of an electron around a nucleus). At these speeds you have to use Special Relativity rather than Newton's Laws of Motion. And if you do, you derive Maxwell's Laws of Electromagnetism. Just remember: Coulomb + Einstein -> Maxwell. The derivation is normally taught in Junior / Senior Physics in an Electromagnetism semester. Although when I took it they said that Caltech normally taught it to Sophomores. They would. It is much easier to derive using calculus with vectors than without, the way it was originally done.
----------------------------------------A magnet simply has the magnetic axes of a number of atoms lined up and reinforcing each other rather than randomly oriented or actually cancelling each other. Shake up the structure with a hammer blow or thermal energy or a degaussing field and you lose the macro magnetic field. You still have the magnetic field from each electron 'orbiting' a nucleus. Let me add that historically we had Coulomb, then Faraday who found many strange connections between magnetism and electrical currents and static electric charges in motion (rotating charged plates, for example). Then Maxwell developed the equations that described everything that Faraday found. The equations also described a strange neutral current that we now realize is electromagnetic radiation. Then Einstein refomed Newton's Laws of Motion and developed Special Relativity, which allowed the direct derivation of Maxwell's equations from Coulomb's Law. Of course, you have to have a picture of electrically charged particles in mind to see how to apply Special Relativity. And as has been emphasized to me, it is that picture that is the real physics, not the math!! Of course, I had better mention that I was a Math major with a Physics minor. Physics professors are always afraid that we Math types will miss the point and wander off into the clouds! [Grin] [Edit 1 times, last edit by Former Member at Dec 31, 2004 4:15:23 AM] |
|||
|
||||
|
Former Member
Cruncher Joined: May 22, 2018 Post Count: 0 Status: Offline |
you aii had me laughing so hard it woke my wife up now im in trouble ihad a cousin Robert Brooks that was teaching math at Yale when he was 16 that could answer that question
|
||
|
|
Former Member
Cruncher Joined: May 22, 2018 Post Count: 0 Status: Offline |
Lawrencehardin
Thats exactly what I said. Just quicker to the point. (hammer) FOLGERSPOWERED 24/7ComputingTeam |
||
|
|
Former Member
Cruncher Joined: May 22, 2018 Post Count: 0 Status: Offline |
You've got it right, FOLGERSPOWERED. I just want to avoid people picturing a circling electron giving off synchrotron radiation and spiraling slowly into the nucleus. After all, this description of magnetism seems flawed in classical terms. It took the 20th century quantum theory to explain how it could work.
|
|||
|
||||
|
|