Magnets, how they work

[Sisyphus]

Explaining how magnets work to someone who is not already scientifically literate is like explaining why your aunt is in the hospital to an alien from another planet.

 

[michel123456]

With all my respect:

 

1. he didn't answer the question (intentionally).

2. when you ask a vague question you get a vague answer.

3. as a journalist never ask a scientist "why": he will go into philosophying.

4. as a scientist, never use a paradigm taken from the behaviour of a living organism in order to explain a physical phenomena. (the journalist was unaware of that, or too respectuous).

5. the "I cannot explain in terms that you will understand" is to be understood as "I am the smart guy who knows and you are the dumb guy who don't" but we knew that in the first place. Nobody doubts that Mr Feynman is very smart.

 

In the end, the whole interview has reached its goal: show how intelligent he is & how dumb we are. The OP had the same purpose.

Edited February 17, 2011 by michel123456

[swansont]

 

5. the "I cannot explain in terms that you will understand" is to be understood as "I am the smart guy who knows and you are the dumb guy who don't" but we knew that in the first place. Nobody doubts that Mr Feynman is very smart.

 

In the end, the whole interview has reached its goal: show how intelligent he is & how dumb we are. The OP had the same purpose.

 

 

It's not about smart vs. not smart, it is about knowledge vs ignorance. That's the whole point about having something that both parties agree is understood. Feynman is basically saying that his best explanation would require a series of followup "whys" until you get back to freshman physics (or beyond). He isn't able to answer it in a way that wouldn't require those followups, which was the point of his example of the aunt going to the hospital.

 

An ignorant person doesn't understand something. A dumb person is incapable of understanding it. Feynman is not telling the interviewer that he is incapable of ever understanding magnetism.

[Sisyphus]

Indeed, he says it's an excellent question, just one that's not as straightforward as it seems, because it's difficult to answer in a way that people find satisfying. "Because she slipped on the ice" is, objectively speaking, a much vaguer explanation than "because magnets repel," but people find one more satisfying than the other on the basis of familiarity alone. Not on the strength of the explanation and not because it's fundamentally better understood - as he shows, if you keep asking "why" in the hospital scenario you quickly leave common knowledge again ("why is ice slippery," etc.).

 

And so, in order to reach that goal of "satisfying" to the reasonably intelligent layman, you have to explain many, many other things first, which causes frustration and suspicion that the explainer doesn't actually know what he's talking about. "Just tell me!" "Tell you what, exactly?"

 

Oh, and for those who missed the reference, "f***ing magnets, how do they work" was recently an internet meme tied to this phenomenon, and it comes from an Insane Clown Posse song expressing rage towards "lying" scientists:

 

http://knowyourmeme.com/memes/fcking-magnets-how-do-they-work

[lemur]

Even though Feynman's tone was tinted with frustration or irritation with the series of endless why's at the beginning, he seemed to settle into the circuitry of pursuing one why after another and slowly building up comprehension that way. I think it worked out pretty well. There was some coverage of why the husband called the hospital when his wife fell or why he might not have if he was drunk and/or didn't care about his wife's welfare. We got to hear about why ice is slippery as related to its tendency to expand when frozen and melt when compressed. We got to hear that the repulsive force between magnets is related to the same electrical force that makes the chair solid. We got to hear that the electrons of the iron atoms all spin together and that this somehow causes the electric/magnetic repulsion to occur at a larger distance. Then we got to hear that he couldn't explain the attraction between magnets except by maybe using an analogy with rubber bands, but that he would have to use electromagnetic force to explain why the rubber-bands are elastic in the first place, which would defeat the purpose of grounding the explanation of magnets in anything other than electric/magnetic force itself. Then he blazed through the different forces and the fact that the relationship between gravity and EM force is as yet unexplained. I found it pretty informative, interesting, and accessible for <8minutes of armchair talking. I've also never seen video of Feynman so thanks for posting.

[ydoaPs]

It's not about smart vs. not smart, it is about knowledge vs ignorance. That's the whole point about having something that both parties agree is understood. Feynman is basically saying that his best explanation would require a series of followup "whys" until you get back to freshman physics (or beyond). He isn't able to answer it in a way that wouldn't require those followups, which was the point of his example of the aunt going to the hospital.

 

An ignorant person doesn't understand something. A dumb person is incapable of understanding it. Feynman is not telling the interviewer that he is incapable of ever understanding magnetism.

And he DID answer the question.

[swansont]

And he DID answer the question.

 

Yes, he did. But if he had just given an answer that satisfied someone with a physics background, he would have opened himself up to accusations of physics being inaccessible. Instead, he short-circuitd that with his approach, because succinctly answering the question and making it easy to understand to someone without a background in the material often represents mutually exclusive demands. Even if the one asking the question does not recognize it.

[A Tripolation]

Feynman is the most gangsta physicist I've ever seen.

[Moontanman]

As usual i couldn't watch the video but I do know enough about magnets to know that why they do certain things like stick to your fridge isn't easy to explain in terms most people really can really get a grip on. But I will tell about an incident that happened where I used to work. (just for fun)

 

Long boring nights working the 12-8 shift when we weren't working like dogs we were bored, spit shine an polish only go so far and eventually you wear out the metal (literally) so some times we would invent games and such. We had an engineer who seemed to really enjoy giving the workers puzzles or tasks that were "interesting" One night he came in with a magnet, it was about a half inch thick and maybe an inch in diameter, he stuck it on an i-beam and bet anyone $10 they couldn't pull it off the metal, no to be fair he did stick it in a location that made it difficult to grip and it's small size also made gripping it difficult. After about 10 people had failed to get the magnet i stepped up and got it off with almost no problem. I didn't pull on it, I slid it off the edge of the I-beam. Again to be fair i was already familiar with the really strong magnets but I love magnets!

[michel123456]

Even though Feynman's tone was tinted with frustration or irritation with the series of endless why's at the beginning, he seemed to settle into the circuitry of pursuing one why after another and slowly building up comprehension that way. I think it worked out pretty well. There was some coverage of why the husband called the hospital when his wife fell or why he might not have if he was drunk and/or didn't care about his wife's welfare. We got to hear about why ice is slippery as related to its tendency to expand when frozen and melt when compressed. We got to hear that the repulsive force between magnets is related to the same electrical force that makes the chair solid. We got to hear that the electrons of the iron atoms all spin together and that this somehow causes the electric/magnetic repulsion to occur at a larger distance. Then we got to hear that he couldn't explain the attraction between magnets except by maybe using an analogy with rubber bands, but that he would have to use electromagnetic force to explain why the rubber-bands are elastic in the first place, which would defeat the purpose of grounding the explanation of magnets in anything other than electric/magnetic force itself. Then he blazed through the different forces and the fact that the relationship between gravity and EM force is as yet unexplained. I found it pretty informative, interesting, and accessible for <8minutes of armchair talking. I've also never seen video of Feynman so thanks for posting.

 

Emphasis mine. Well done Lemur.

 

That is the point.

[rigney]

A Tripolation' timestamp='1297957260' post='590230']

Feynman is the most gangsta physicist I've ever seen.

 

"Touche" Man! Your answer is the best explanation I've read so far.

Edited February 17, 2011 by rigney

[lemur]

Yes, he did. But if he had just given an answer that satisfied someone with a physics background, he would have opened himself up to accusations of physics being inaccessible. Instead, he short-circuitd that with his approach, because succinctly answering the question and making it easy to understand to someone without a background in the material often represents mutually exclusive demands. Even if the one asking the question does not recognize it.

That's a very good observation of any kind of explanation derived from intensive knowledge, regardless of what field it is. It's like lay people figure out the tactic of criticizing you for making explanations tediously long OR they complain that the language is too technical so that they consistently place the burden and blame for education on the educated. Then, of course, the administrators cater to students and/or the public because they're the paying customer. Then, the only time you get to hold them accountable for their educational attitude is during testing, and then they complain that they do poorly because the test is too hard or that low grades discourage them from progressing. I think it comes down to people wanting science/academia to cater to whatever instant gratification they are looking for at a given moment, and they want the educated to make everything instant gratification. I'd say this video of Feynman worked pretty well if 8 minutes is instant enough for people not to complain that they had to listen to an 8-minute monologue by some boring physics professor.

 

Emphasis mine. Well done Lemur.

 

That is the point.

Thanks. I liked the way he actually mentioned the rubber band to show it was a circular reference and therefore insufficient. Who says physicists can't do philosophy?

 

 

[michel123456]

The rubber band could work for attraction, but not for repulsion.

 

Anyway, my comment was intended to say that the interview was a bit the same kind of those of some celebrities: the journalist don't care about the answers, the main purpose is to make the celebrity talk. You may note the agony of the journalist when his first question made a flop: the "what are they feeling?" was not well received. The "why" engaged a wonderful development that made everybody happy.

[lemur]

the "what are they feeling?" was not well received. The "why" engaged a wonderful development that made everybody happy.

I forgot about the "what are they feeling" question. That one actually seemed to be a really good one for Feynman, I thought, since isn't he the leading physicist in force-fields? Basically the interviewer was asking about the ontology of a magnetic field. I think the question got addressed well in the "'why' development' but it would have been interesting if he would have ventured some explanation about what a force-field really is, i.e. something like matter or something different than matter-with-mass. I guess he did mention that physical matter, like that of his chair, appears solid due to the same electrical force as the magnet. It would have been interesting, though, if he had said something radical like claiming that a magnetic field is just as much a material object as the chair.

 

I, personally, still wonder how the magnetic force of the electrons can get so far displaced from the atoms yet still retain the same amount of electrostatic repulsion among the atoms of the magnet internally. Likewise, I wonder what the difference is between the mass/gravity-portion of the electron and its charge-portion. I.e. the magnetic field of a bar magnet appear to "balloon" out from the iron atoms but does a certain amount of the electrons' mass "balloon" out of the atoms as well? Is the mass of the electrons even significant enough to be measurable?

Edited February 18, 2011 by lemur

[rigney]

I forgot about the "what are they feeling" question. That one actually seemed to be a really good one for Feynman, I thought, since isn't he the leading physicist in force-fields? Basically the interviewer was asking about the ontology of a magnetic field. I think the question got addressed well in the "'why' development' but it would have been interesting if he would have ventured some explanation about what a force-field really is, i.e. something like matter or something different than matter-with-mass. I guess he did mention that physical matter, like that of his chair, appears solid due to the same electrical force as the magnet. It would have been interesting, though, if he had said something radical like claiming that a magnetic field is just as much a material object as the chair.

 

I, personally, still wonder how the magnetic force of the electrons can get so far displaced from the atoms yet still retain the same amount of electrostatic repulsion among the atoms of the magnet internally. Likewise, I wonder what the difference is between the mass/gravity-portion of the electron and its charge-portion. I.e. the magnetic field of a bar magnet appear to "balloon" out from the iron atoms but does a certain amount of the electrons' mass "balloon" out of the atoms as well? Is the mass of the electrons even significant enough to be measurable?

 

Google!

"Anyone who becomes seriously involved in the persuit of science, becomes convinced that there is a spirit manifest in laws of the universe. A spirit vastly superior to that of man" - Albert Einstien

 

With all my respect:

 

1. he didn't answer the question (intentionally).

2. when you ask a vague question you get a vague answer.

3. as a journalist never ask a scientist "why": he will go into philosophying.

4. as a scientist, never use a paradigm taken from the behaviour of a living organism in order to explain a physical phenomena. (the journalist was unaware of that, or too respectuous).

5. the "I cannot explain in terms that you will understand" is to be understood as "I am the smart guy who knows and you are the dumb guy who don't" but we knew that in the first place. Nobody doubts that Mr Feynman is very smart.

 

In the end, the whole interview has reached its goal: show how intelligent he is & how dumb we are. The OP had the same purpose.

 

Oh yes! Feynman is intelligent, even smart perhaps. But those eight minutes only proved how dumb we, the masses are. And if B.S. was dynamite, I'd never get near that guy with a lighted cigarette. Edited February 18, 2011 by rigney

[michel123456]

Explaining how magnets work to someone who is not already scientifically literate is like explaining why your aunt is in the hospital to an alien from another planet.

 

Besides:

Aren't the aliens all from another planet?

 

And:

Explaining how (...)is like explaining why(...)

 

No.

[ydoaPs]

Aren't the aliens all from another planet?

I thought most of the aliens here were from Mexico.

[Sisyphus]

 

No.

 

What do you mean by that?

[sound]

when a question is asked i would like to here answers based on facts i am not one who takes any type of vague responses seriously

[michel123456]

What do you mean by that?

 

The opposite of yes.

-------------------------

How is different from why.

 

If you take into account that the original question was what, it may become clear that the question has no importance at all, and that at the end Mr Feynman choosed to answer anything he liked.

 

1st question: what is it the feeling?

2nd Q.: what is going on?

3rd Q. what does that mean?

4thQ. why are they doing that?

5th Q how are they doing that?

 

Answer: excellent question, when you ask why etceatera...

Edited February 19, 2011 by michel123456

[ydoaPs]

The opposite of yes.

-------------------------

How is different from why.

Indeed. 'Why?' is a silly question.

[FX]

Why is never a silly question.

[swansont]

Why is never a silly question.

 

It's not so much [imath]why[/imath] as [imath]why^n[/imath] as n gets large

[ydoaPs]

Why is never a silly question.

Yes, it is. Why is a question about the intent of a causal being. If there is no causal being involved, then why is an invalid question. Asking why in such cases is thus silly.

 

How, on the other hand, is a very good question to ask.

Edited February 24, 2011 by ydoaPs

[FX]

Maybe you are confused. Asking why, when you observe something in physics, is a very good question. One that is still being asked about magnetism. It's never silly to ask why. In regards to physics.

 

What is silly, is thinking you don't need to answer the question.

Edited February 24, 2011 by FX