ckaihatsu
7th March 2016, 21:10
From:
North Korea invents hangover free alcohol
http://www.revleft.com/vb/north-korea-invents-t195141/index.html?t=195141
Hmmmmm, the 19th century 'ether' seems to be as good as any at this point since we still don't have an adequate theory for how gravity works....
Empty space, curved space, and the ether
Newtonian gravity theory assumes that gravity propagates instantaneously across empty space, i.e. it is believed to be a form of action at a distance. However, in a private letter Newton himself dismissed this idea:
That gravity should be innate, inherent, and essential to matter, so that one body may act upon another at a distance through a vacuum, without the mediation of any thing else, by and through which their action and force may be conveyed from one to another, is to me so great an absurdity, that I believe no man, who has in philosophical matters a competent faculty of thinking, can ever fall into it.1
Newton periodically toyed with the idea of an all-pervading ether filling his ‘absolute space’, and thought that the cause of gravity must be a spiritual agency, which he understood to mean ‘God’.
The need to postulate an ether is underlined by G. de Purucker:
We either have to admit the existence of [the] ether or ethers, i.e., of this extremely tenuous and ethereal substance which fills all space, whether interstellar or interplanetary or inter-atomic and intra-atomic, or accept actio in distans – action at a distance, without intervening intermediary or medium of transmission; and such actio in distans is obviously by all known scientific standards an impossibility. Reason, common sense, logic . . . demand the existence of such universally pervading medium, by whatever name we may choose to call it . . .2
http://davidpratt.info/gravity.htm
The Science forum is totally being misused. RevLeft needs to become a hub for peer review of proletarian science.
---
http://discovermagazine.com/2008/may/02-three-words-that-could-overthrow-physics
Discover Magazine: The magazine of science, technology, and the future
Home»May»Three Words That Could Overthrow Physics: “What Is Magnetism?”
FROM THE MAY 2008 ISSUE
Three Words That Could Overthrow Physics: “What Is Magnetism?”
The standard model still doesn't describe magnets' spooky action at a distance.
By Bruno Maddox|Thursday, April 24, 2008
RELATED TAGS: SUBATOMIC PARTICLES, EINSTEIN
65
When Pliny the Elder first beheld a magnet, he was utterly blown away. “What phenomenon is more astonishing?” he wrote later. “Where has nature shown greater audacity?” In the fifth century, St. Augustine of Hippo agreed, declaring himself “thunder*struck” by the sight of a magnet lifting several metal rings. Magnets, he announced, were proof that miracles were real and that God, therefore, existed. “Who would not be amazed,” Augustine marveled, “at this virtue of the stone?” Certainly the 4-year-old Albert Einstein was amazed. When his father showed him a compass, it was young Albert’s first clue, he later wrote, that there was “something behind things, something deeply hidden,” and he spent his life trying to find it.
What was it that so impressed these men? These giants? It was that a magnet could move things without touching them. In science this feat is known as “action at a distance,” and it was something that used to impress people. People would see a magnet move a piece of metal, or a moon trapped in orbit around a planet, or a man in a restaurant levitate a saltshaker just by looking at it, and they would wonder how it was possible. After all, as Isaac Newton pointed out in his Principia, the notion “that one body may act upon another at a distance through a vacuum without the mediation of anything else, by and through which their action and force may be conveyed from one to another, is to me so great an absurdity that I believe no man who has in philosophic matters a competent faculty of thinking could ever fall into it.”
Me neither. But it would appear that guys like Einstein, Newton, and myself —guys who see Thing A controlling Thing B at a distance and wonder about it—are all of a sudden rather thin on the ground. You see, at the end of last year, while vacationing with my family at an undisclosed rural location, I found myself reclining by a fireplace with a book titled Electronics for Dummies by Gordon McComb and Earl Boysen.
On page 10 of that volume, I read that electrons repelled each other without touching, in the same way that two magnets will if you align them with their like poles facing. At this point, realizing that I must have either slept through or forgotten the high school physics class where it was explained how magnets manage that singular feat of interacting with each other at a distance, I set out on what I assumed would be a minutes-long odyssey to understand the phenomenon. Seventy-one days later, I am here with astonishing findings.
For one thing, as far as I can tell, nobody knows how a magnet can move a piece of metal without touching it. And for another—more astonishing still, perhaps—nobody seems to care.
This information was not easy to come by. My copy of Electronics for Dummies now shares a shelf with Mathematics of Classical and Quantum Physics by Frederick Byron Jr. and Robert Fuller. Should a doctor at any point take a cross section of my brain, she will find patches of scarring and dead tissue, souvenirs of the time I pursued the mystery of magnetism across the 11-dimensional badlands of string theory. Students of human pathos may one day cherish the 16-minute recording of me, with my 100 percent positive-feedback rating as an eBay purchaser, failing to make renowned physicist Steven Weinberg, who won a Nobel for unifying electromagnetism with the so-called weak force, admit that he can’t explain how a magnet holds a dry-cleaning ticket to the door of a refrigerator.
But as far as I can tell—and isn’t the point of science that all its bigger propositions come accompanied by this noble caveat?—he really can’t. When you get right down to it, the mystery of magnets interacting with each other at a distance has been explained in terms of virtual photons, incredibly small and unapologetically imaginary particles interacting with each other at a distance. As far as I can tell, these virtual particles are composed entirely of math and exist solely to fill otherwise embarrassing gaps in physics, such as the attraction and repulsion between magnets. And as far as I can tell, because I’ve had it repeatedly and rather pityingly told to me, to want to pursue the matter any further is an impulse that marks its sufferer out as a man who doesn’t know an awful lot about physics, or science, or the pursuit of truth in general.
What I have learned, in other words, after 71 days of strenuous research, is that I and my fellow Dummies no longer have a seat, if we ever did, at the dinner table of science. If we’re going to find any satisfaction in this gloomy vale of misery and mystery, we’re going to have to take matters into our own hands and start again, from first principles.
On this day, this very hour, starting with the magnets holding my gym’s yoga schedule to the creaking door of my filthy refrigerator, it begins.
17 Comments
WebSite Articles
Login
1
Recommend 1
Share
Sort by Best
Avatar
Join the discussion…
Avatar
Shaun Maguire • 2 years ago
Is this satire? Some of the comments in here are astoundingly arrogant: "but it would appear that guys like Einstein, Newton, and myself" and "...failing to make renowned physicist Steven Weinberg, who won a Nobel for unifying electromagnetism with the so-called weak force, admit that he can't explain how a magnet holds a dry-cleaning ticket to the door of a refrigerator."
In case it's not satire, I'll bite. First, modern physics absolutely explains magnetism. You need fancy tools in order to get to the heart of it, but quantum electrodynamics (QED) has been astonishingly successful. How is magnetism mediated over long distances? Photons are the force mediating particles for the electromagnetic field. Magnetic material, such as ferromagnetic iron, is made up of a bunch of atoms whose spins are aligned in a special way. This leads to special behavior for the atoms' electrons. These electrons are constantly interacting with photons and these interactions keep the magnet stuck to the fridge. You can calculate exactly how this happens using QED. You can strip away the details and achieve the same answer using Maxwell's equations, but without having the same control over what is happening. This is called an "effective theory."
5 • Reply•Share ›
Avatar
truckfreak69 Shaun Maguire • 8 months ago
You just proved his point: sure, there are mathematical ways to predict it's behavior. There are unprovable models (at least currently unprovable) that can provide plausible explanations for how it works (generally I think these are worked out in reverse from high-level empirical data). But science cannot explain WHY it works.
2 • Reply•Share ›
Avatar
Jahan truckfreak69 • 7 months ago
The purpose of science it not to explain why things work but rather how they work. In other words, a scientific theory should predict behavior, but need not give reasons for that behavior. As you can see by this article, "Why?" is a vacuous question, since no matter the explanation, there are some people who are never satisfied.
• Reply•Share ›
Avatar
Mark Stevens Jahan • 4 months ago
Like Einstein himself?
• Reply•Share ›
Avatar
Connors Mark Stevens • 4 months ago
Yes. It reminds me of that Futurama episode where they had Farnsworth discover a unified theory of everything only to realize that while he knew the rules that governed the universe, he didn't know why it was "those rules and not some other rules", so that was his new ultimate question.
• Reply•Share ›
Avatar
Stanley Shapiro Shaun Maguire • 2 months ago
I have to explain magnetism to a young kid. With a PhD in Electrical Engineering I thought this wouldn't be difficult, but soon found myself with the same befuddlement as Maddox.
Of course back then, over 50 years ago, engineers were trained to calculate, not speculate (maybe it's still true), so I was not bothered by the fictitiousness of 'fields' and 'forces'.
Now I am.
The explanation of electrons interacting with photons is
promising. Can you flesh this out a little ?
Are magnets constantly emitting photons to create the magnetic field ?
Does a north pole emit and a south pole absorb ?
What's the source of the photons - are they created by interactions within the magnet, or are they coming in from the outside ?
• Reply•Share ›
Avatar
katie15 • 2 years ago
Mmm... I have pondered this myself and, to Daniel, what precisely is a 'field'?
2 • Reply•Share ›
Avatar
Monk E. Mind katie15 • 2 years ago
Excellent question, Katie. A field is a region.A where, not a what. A CONCEPT, not an object! So Daniel didn't answer your question at all.
He is talking about repulsion, but I wonder which atomic model he is using. AND how does one explain magnetic attraction with PUSH? Huh?
• Reply•Share ›
Avatar
Eric W • a year ago
Weinberg, that sciencey award winner guy said even he couldn't explain it. So yous guys is smarter than him?
1 • Reply•Share ›
Avatar
Daniel • 3 years ago
The author of this article must understand that the electromagnetic repulsion he speaks of is exactly the same thing as the forces acting on him and his chair, or his fingers and the keys on his keyboard. There is no inherent mechanical "push" that makes things move. At the atomic level, everything from picking up a cell phone to the forced felt when you get slapped across the face boil down to repulsion of electrons.
The only difference with magnets is that the field generated is much stronger than the electrically neutral, non-magnetic properties of your hand, and so can exert a greater force on things at a greater distance.
3 • Reply•Share ›
Avatar
Monk E. Mind Daniel • 2 years ago
How is repulsion not PUSH?
• Reply•Share ›
Avatar
Mark Stevens • 4 months ago
I believe that the answer to what causes these types of phenomenon and why, are the same answers behind what we are and why we are here.
• Reply•Share ›
Avatar
Graeme Chegwidden • 7 months ago
I think the problem is in fact somewhat different. Our expectation and commonly held belief is that the universe is comprised of physical objects that somehow are linked by energetic forces. We attempt to break everything down into an empirical understanding of things based on physical building blocks that have "properties". It derives from what is called the "mechanical" universe, very much part of Newton's thinking.
But what if this model is entirely wrong? What if the appearance of "solidity" or "objects" is merely that, an appearance? What if all of it is in fact energy in various configurations, all operating within a universal matrix of "fields".
We know, for example, that if we "zoom in" close enough to an object's surface, we find that it is made of "atoms", and in between them there is empty space. Empty except for the forces which hold the "atoms" in their relative positions within the material, like a scaffold of invisible energy.
Zoom in further and we find the "atoms" are really just areas of space occupied by various subatomic "energetic particles", held in various relationships with each other by their energetic properties. Between them is relatively vast and empty nothingness. Except of course for that strange invisible stuff we call energy. The properties any specific "atom" possesses are simply energetic, nothing more, and they derive purely from the combined properties of the subatomic "particles" which make it up.
Zoom in yet further, to an electron, a proton, any of the "particles" making up our "atoms" and once again we find no evidence of "substance". There is no object. Only a set of properties existing in an approximate area of space. So we theorise that these "objects" are in fact the result of much smaller "objects" or "particles" which themselves have relationships with each other by virtue of their properties, and which contribute their properties to the next level up in the "heirarchy". Quarks, photons, gluons, magnetons, name them and magically they exist within the paradigm.
Quantum mechanics and string theory, the two main recent attempts to quantify this mechanistic "physical" idea of the "particle"-driven universe, do not really explain. They try to describe so we can calculate stuff.
But what if there is ONLY energy? Eddy currents and disturbances in the energetic "meta-field" of the space time continuum? Points of concentration and activity, of repulsion and attraction, which give the illusion of matter? What if the only thing one can say is that magnetism simply is? That the strong and weak forces, that gravity itself, simply are? That these things are the fundamental "building blocks" of our universe? And that everything in its entirety is made purely and exclusively of them?
The question then becomes rather, "How do these "energies" work and interact to give rise to the universe as we know it?" The mystery then is no longer magnetism and distance, but solid matter appearing to touch and impact upon other solid matter. And we know huge amounts about that already!
• Reply•Share ›
Avatar
zyan • 3 years ago
Shorter Discover Magazine: "f***ken magnets, how do they work?"
• Reply•Share ›
Avatar
Monk E. Mind zyan • 2 years ago
Come by our Facebook group Rational Scientific Method, and someone will tell you. It is amazingly simple.
• Reply•Share ›
Avatar
Keith Jones • 3 years ago
Hi Bruno.
Thank you for the highly entertaining article regarding sciences
inability to explain how a magnet works. I was researching this subject
for my daughters homework - ‘magnets and their properties’.
The article made me ponder, is magnetism the same force as Dark
Energy, which causes the expansion of the universe to accelerate?
As your IQ is 10 to the power of three greater than mine, please keep the answer simple, but a little more detailed than ‘yes’ or ‘no’.
Thanks,
Keith
• Reply•Share ›
Avatar
Monk E. Mind Keith Jones • 2 years ago
Keith, there are no mainstream physicists that understand magnetism (or any other 'forces') as the author discovered after 71 days of investigation. Without describing a physical mechanism, the magic words field and force are what they will use along with other mathematical descriptions of behavior. You will never get explanations for the phenomena without physical objects.
1 • Reply•Share ›
Powered by Disqus
Subscribe
Add Disqus to your site Privacy
North Korea invents hangover free alcohol
http://www.revleft.com/vb/north-korea-invents-t195141/index.html?t=195141
Hmmmmm, the 19th century 'ether' seems to be as good as any at this point since we still don't have an adequate theory for how gravity works....
Empty space, curved space, and the ether
Newtonian gravity theory assumes that gravity propagates instantaneously across empty space, i.e. it is believed to be a form of action at a distance. However, in a private letter Newton himself dismissed this idea:
That gravity should be innate, inherent, and essential to matter, so that one body may act upon another at a distance through a vacuum, without the mediation of any thing else, by and through which their action and force may be conveyed from one to another, is to me so great an absurdity, that I believe no man, who has in philosophical matters a competent faculty of thinking, can ever fall into it.1
Newton periodically toyed with the idea of an all-pervading ether filling his ‘absolute space’, and thought that the cause of gravity must be a spiritual agency, which he understood to mean ‘God’.
The need to postulate an ether is underlined by G. de Purucker:
We either have to admit the existence of [the] ether or ethers, i.e., of this extremely tenuous and ethereal substance which fills all space, whether interstellar or interplanetary or inter-atomic and intra-atomic, or accept actio in distans – action at a distance, without intervening intermediary or medium of transmission; and such actio in distans is obviously by all known scientific standards an impossibility. Reason, common sense, logic . . . demand the existence of such universally pervading medium, by whatever name we may choose to call it . . .2
http://davidpratt.info/gravity.htm
The Science forum is totally being misused. RevLeft needs to become a hub for peer review of proletarian science.
---
http://discovermagazine.com/2008/may/02-three-words-that-could-overthrow-physics
Discover Magazine: The magazine of science, technology, and the future
Home»May»Three Words That Could Overthrow Physics: “What Is Magnetism?”
FROM THE MAY 2008 ISSUE
Three Words That Could Overthrow Physics: “What Is Magnetism?”
The standard model still doesn't describe magnets' spooky action at a distance.
By Bruno Maddox|Thursday, April 24, 2008
RELATED TAGS: SUBATOMIC PARTICLES, EINSTEIN
65
When Pliny the Elder first beheld a magnet, he was utterly blown away. “What phenomenon is more astonishing?” he wrote later. “Where has nature shown greater audacity?” In the fifth century, St. Augustine of Hippo agreed, declaring himself “thunder*struck” by the sight of a magnet lifting several metal rings. Magnets, he announced, were proof that miracles were real and that God, therefore, existed. “Who would not be amazed,” Augustine marveled, “at this virtue of the stone?” Certainly the 4-year-old Albert Einstein was amazed. When his father showed him a compass, it was young Albert’s first clue, he later wrote, that there was “something behind things, something deeply hidden,” and he spent his life trying to find it.
What was it that so impressed these men? These giants? It was that a magnet could move things without touching them. In science this feat is known as “action at a distance,” and it was something that used to impress people. People would see a magnet move a piece of metal, or a moon trapped in orbit around a planet, or a man in a restaurant levitate a saltshaker just by looking at it, and they would wonder how it was possible. After all, as Isaac Newton pointed out in his Principia, the notion “that one body may act upon another at a distance through a vacuum without the mediation of anything else, by and through which their action and force may be conveyed from one to another, is to me so great an absurdity that I believe no man who has in philosophic matters a competent faculty of thinking could ever fall into it.”
Me neither. But it would appear that guys like Einstein, Newton, and myself —guys who see Thing A controlling Thing B at a distance and wonder about it—are all of a sudden rather thin on the ground. You see, at the end of last year, while vacationing with my family at an undisclosed rural location, I found myself reclining by a fireplace with a book titled Electronics for Dummies by Gordon McComb and Earl Boysen.
On page 10 of that volume, I read that electrons repelled each other without touching, in the same way that two magnets will if you align them with their like poles facing. At this point, realizing that I must have either slept through or forgotten the high school physics class where it was explained how magnets manage that singular feat of interacting with each other at a distance, I set out on what I assumed would be a minutes-long odyssey to understand the phenomenon. Seventy-one days later, I am here with astonishing findings.
For one thing, as far as I can tell, nobody knows how a magnet can move a piece of metal without touching it. And for another—more astonishing still, perhaps—nobody seems to care.
This information was not easy to come by. My copy of Electronics for Dummies now shares a shelf with Mathematics of Classical and Quantum Physics by Frederick Byron Jr. and Robert Fuller. Should a doctor at any point take a cross section of my brain, she will find patches of scarring and dead tissue, souvenirs of the time I pursued the mystery of magnetism across the 11-dimensional badlands of string theory. Students of human pathos may one day cherish the 16-minute recording of me, with my 100 percent positive-feedback rating as an eBay purchaser, failing to make renowned physicist Steven Weinberg, who won a Nobel for unifying electromagnetism with the so-called weak force, admit that he can’t explain how a magnet holds a dry-cleaning ticket to the door of a refrigerator.
But as far as I can tell—and isn’t the point of science that all its bigger propositions come accompanied by this noble caveat?—he really can’t. When you get right down to it, the mystery of magnets interacting with each other at a distance has been explained in terms of virtual photons, incredibly small and unapologetically imaginary particles interacting with each other at a distance. As far as I can tell, these virtual particles are composed entirely of math and exist solely to fill otherwise embarrassing gaps in physics, such as the attraction and repulsion between magnets. And as far as I can tell, because I’ve had it repeatedly and rather pityingly told to me, to want to pursue the matter any further is an impulse that marks its sufferer out as a man who doesn’t know an awful lot about physics, or science, or the pursuit of truth in general.
What I have learned, in other words, after 71 days of strenuous research, is that I and my fellow Dummies no longer have a seat, if we ever did, at the dinner table of science. If we’re going to find any satisfaction in this gloomy vale of misery and mystery, we’re going to have to take matters into our own hands and start again, from first principles.
On this day, this very hour, starting with the magnets holding my gym’s yoga schedule to the creaking door of my filthy refrigerator, it begins.
17 Comments
WebSite Articles
Login
1
Recommend 1
Share
Sort by Best
Avatar
Join the discussion…
Avatar
Shaun Maguire • 2 years ago
Is this satire? Some of the comments in here are astoundingly arrogant: "but it would appear that guys like Einstein, Newton, and myself" and "...failing to make renowned physicist Steven Weinberg, who won a Nobel for unifying electromagnetism with the so-called weak force, admit that he can't explain how a magnet holds a dry-cleaning ticket to the door of a refrigerator."
In case it's not satire, I'll bite. First, modern physics absolutely explains magnetism. You need fancy tools in order to get to the heart of it, but quantum electrodynamics (QED) has been astonishingly successful. How is magnetism mediated over long distances? Photons are the force mediating particles for the electromagnetic field. Magnetic material, such as ferromagnetic iron, is made up of a bunch of atoms whose spins are aligned in a special way. This leads to special behavior for the atoms' electrons. These electrons are constantly interacting with photons and these interactions keep the magnet stuck to the fridge. You can calculate exactly how this happens using QED. You can strip away the details and achieve the same answer using Maxwell's equations, but without having the same control over what is happening. This is called an "effective theory."
5 • Reply•Share ›
Avatar
truckfreak69 Shaun Maguire • 8 months ago
You just proved his point: sure, there are mathematical ways to predict it's behavior. There are unprovable models (at least currently unprovable) that can provide plausible explanations for how it works (generally I think these are worked out in reverse from high-level empirical data). But science cannot explain WHY it works.
2 • Reply•Share ›
Avatar
Jahan truckfreak69 • 7 months ago
The purpose of science it not to explain why things work but rather how they work. In other words, a scientific theory should predict behavior, but need not give reasons for that behavior. As you can see by this article, "Why?" is a vacuous question, since no matter the explanation, there are some people who are never satisfied.
• Reply•Share ›
Avatar
Mark Stevens Jahan • 4 months ago
Like Einstein himself?
• Reply•Share ›
Avatar
Connors Mark Stevens • 4 months ago
Yes. It reminds me of that Futurama episode where they had Farnsworth discover a unified theory of everything only to realize that while he knew the rules that governed the universe, he didn't know why it was "those rules and not some other rules", so that was his new ultimate question.
• Reply•Share ›
Avatar
Stanley Shapiro Shaun Maguire • 2 months ago
I have to explain magnetism to a young kid. With a PhD in Electrical Engineering I thought this wouldn't be difficult, but soon found myself with the same befuddlement as Maddox.
Of course back then, over 50 years ago, engineers were trained to calculate, not speculate (maybe it's still true), so I was not bothered by the fictitiousness of 'fields' and 'forces'.
Now I am.
The explanation of electrons interacting with photons is
promising. Can you flesh this out a little ?
Are magnets constantly emitting photons to create the magnetic field ?
Does a north pole emit and a south pole absorb ?
What's the source of the photons - are they created by interactions within the magnet, or are they coming in from the outside ?
• Reply•Share ›
Avatar
katie15 • 2 years ago
Mmm... I have pondered this myself and, to Daniel, what precisely is a 'field'?
2 • Reply•Share ›
Avatar
Monk E. Mind katie15 • 2 years ago
Excellent question, Katie. A field is a region.A where, not a what. A CONCEPT, not an object! So Daniel didn't answer your question at all.
He is talking about repulsion, but I wonder which atomic model he is using. AND how does one explain magnetic attraction with PUSH? Huh?
• Reply•Share ›
Avatar
Eric W • a year ago
Weinberg, that sciencey award winner guy said even he couldn't explain it. So yous guys is smarter than him?
1 • Reply•Share ›
Avatar
Daniel • 3 years ago
The author of this article must understand that the electromagnetic repulsion he speaks of is exactly the same thing as the forces acting on him and his chair, or his fingers and the keys on his keyboard. There is no inherent mechanical "push" that makes things move. At the atomic level, everything from picking up a cell phone to the forced felt when you get slapped across the face boil down to repulsion of electrons.
The only difference with magnets is that the field generated is much stronger than the electrically neutral, non-magnetic properties of your hand, and so can exert a greater force on things at a greater distance.
3 • Reply•Share ›
Avatar
Monk E. Mind Daniel • 2 years ago
How is repulsion not PUSH?
• Reply•Share ›
Avatar
Mark Stevens • 4 months ago
I believe that the answer to what causes these types of phenomenon and why, are the same answers behind what we are and why we are here.
• Reply•Share ›
Avatar
Graeme Chegwidden • 7 months ago
I think the problem is in fact somewhat different. Our expectation and commonly held belief is that the universe is comprised of physical objects that somehow are linked by energetic forces. We attempt to break everything down into an empirical understanding of things based on physical building blocks that have "properties". It derives from what is called the "mechanical" universe, very much part of Newton's thinking.
But what if this model is entirely wrong? What if the appearance of "solidity" or "objects" is merely that, an appearance? What if all of it is in fact energy in various configurations, all operating within a universal matrix of "fields".
We know, for example, that if we "zoom in" close enough to an object's surface, we find that it is made of "atoms", and in between them there is empty space. Empty except for the forces which hold the "atoms" in their relative positions within the material, like a scaffold of invisible energy.
Zoom in further and we find the "atoms" are really just areas of space occupied by various subatomic "energetic particles", held in various relationships with each other by their energetic properties. Between them is relatively vast and empty nothingness. Except of course for that strange invisible stuff we call energy. The properties any specific "atom" possesses are simply energetic, nothing more, and they derive purely from the combined properties of the subatomic "particles" which make it up.
Zoom in yet further, to an electron, a proton, any of the "particles" making up our "atoms" and once again we find no evidence of "substance". There is no object. Only a set of properties existing in an approximate area of space. So we theorise that these "objects" are in fact the result of much smaller "objects" or "particles" which themselves have relationships with each other by virtue of their properties, and which contribute their properties to the next level up in the "heirarchy". Quarks, photons, gluons, magnetons, name them and magically they exist within the paradigm.
Quantum mechanics and string theory, the two main recent attempts to quantify this mechanistic "physical" idea of the "particle"-driven universe, do not really explain. They try to describe so we can calculate stuff.
But what if there is ONLY energy? Eddy currents and disturbances in the energetic "meta-field" of the space time continuum? Points of concentration and activity, of repulsion and attraction, which give the illusion of matter? What if the only thing one can say is that magnetism simply is? That the strong and weak forces, that gravity itself, simply are? That these things are the fundamental "building blocks" of our universe? And that everything in its entirety is made purely and exclusively of them?
The question then becomes rather, "How do these "energies" work and interact to give rise to the universe as we know it?" The mystery then is no longer magnetism and distance, but solid matter appearing to touch and impact upon other solid matter. And we know huge amounts about that already!
• Reply•Share ›
Avatar
zyan • 3 years ago
Shorter Discover Magazine: "f***ken magnets, how do they work?"
• Reply•Share ›
Avatar
Monk E. Mind zyan • 2 years ago
Come by our Facebook group Rational Scientific Method, and someone will tell you. It is amazingly simple.
• Reply•Share ›
Avatar
Keith Jones • 3 years ago
Hi Bruno.
Thank you for the highly entertaining article regarding sciences
inability to explain how a magnet works. I was researching this subject
for my daughters homework - ‘magnets and their properties’.
The article made me ponder, is magnetism the same force as Dark
Energy, which causes the expansion of the universe to accelerate?
As your IQ is 10 to the power of three greater than mine, please keep the answer simple, but a little more detailed than ‘yes’ or ‘no’.
Thanks,
Keith
• Reply•Share ›
Avatar
Monk E. Mind Keith Jones • 2 years ago
Keith, there are no mainstream physicists that understand magnetism (or any other 'forces') as the author discovered after 71 days of investigation. Without describing a physical mechanism, the magic words field and force are what they will use along with other mathematical descriptions of behavior. You will never get explanations for the phenomena without physical objects.
1 • Reply•Share ›
Powered by Disqus
Subscribe
Add Disqus to your site Privacy