What are magnetic field lines made of?

reply to post by mbkennel


From all my research into Mu Metal, I believe it's simply a very good conductor of magnetic fields which doesn't actually block a magnetic field so much as it. re-directs it.

This difference is very important if you were to try and use it to .. say .. create a perpetual motion device as redirecting means an attraction between the magnet and the Mu Metal would happen thus increasing resistance on it's motion.. you may as well use a solid iron bar or something.

This information could of cause have been produced by people wishing to discourage the construction of these types of devices.. but I seriously doubt it.

p.s. back to my most recent question, does anyone have more clues about what determines one substance being attracted to magnets over others? What properties does a substance require for it to be magnetised?

I just found this information that may answer my above question and give more clues to things : interested to hear thoughts regarding the legitimacy of this answer that I found :

Almost all magnetism is caused by electrons.

Individual electrons have an intrinsic magnetic moment.
In an atom, the electron's angular motion around the nucleus also causes a magnetic moment.

Since all solid materials are composed of atoms and include electrons, the question becomes: why aren't all materialsmagnetic?

Many atoms only have paired electrons, with the intrinsic magnetic moment of each electron cancelled out by the intrinsic magnetic moment of its paired electron.

Many atoms only have "filled sub-shells", which have zero net angular motion.

Atoms with either unpaired electrons, or unfilled sub-shells, or both, are inherently magnetic. However, in many materials, the magnetic moments of these atoms point in random directions, so they cancel out and the bulk material is nonmagnetic.
It is to do with the pairing of electrons and their dipoles. Basically metals with uneven electrons or half shells are magnetic. Three main metals that are Iron, Cobolt and Nickel. With Iron being the main one.

Hope this helps! =]

Read more: wiki.answers.com...

Originally posted by JaxCavalera
reply to post by mbkennel

 

From all my research into Mu Metal, I believe it's simply a very good conductor of magnetic fields which doesn't actually block a magnetic field so much as it. re-directs it.

This difference is very important if you were to try and use it to .. say .. create a perpetual motion device as redirecting means an attraction between the magnet and the Mu Metal would happen thus increasing resistance on it's motion.. you may as well use a solid iron bar or something.

The primary difference is that there are isolated carriers of electric charge (e.g. electrons and protons) which can move, but nobody has ever found any hypothetical magnetic monopoles. There are no elementary particles which are the equivalent for magnetism. Elementary particles have magnetic dipole moments, but not monopole moments, whereas elementary particles have electric monopole moments but not electric dipole moments. (here hadrons made of quarks aren't elementary).

At the level of the electromagnetic fields alone, electricity and magnetism are dual, there is no preference one to the other. But matter is not like that. We have peculiar sets of particles with certain masses and charges, and not other kinds of particles. Just the way the universe is.

p.s. back to my most recent question, does anyone have more clues about what determines one substance being attracted to magnets over others? What properties does a substance require for it to be magnetised?

edit on 18-7-2011 by JaxCavalera because: (no reason given)

It depends on what you mean by "magnetized"? Most materials are diamagnetic or paramagnetic and react to magnetic fields.

Most laymen think of ferromagnetic materials as the ones which can be "magnetised", because the effect here is much larger than in other materials.

Ferromagnetism is intrinsically quantum mechanical. Electrons have spin & magnetic moments which create magnetic fields. Just accept this as a fact, because it is. In most atoms, the various electrons come in spin up and down pairs so that their fields cancel far from the tiny atom.

In ferromagnetic materials, the interaction between electron clouds of neighboring atoms is such that the preferred, lowest energy state, does not prefer fully paired spin up & down electrons. There is an imbalance and this can add up over a jillion atoms to make a human-perceivable magnetic field. If they can still rotate, the material will respond strongly to external magnetic fields (a magnetically soft material which 'amplifies' magnetic field responses, because the electrons will line up with the magnetic field, adding their own to the field). If they are frozen then they respond most strongly to their neighbors and this is known as a 'permanent' magnet.

reply to post by mbkennel


Thanks for the interesting additional information relating to the question about ferrite materials. Very interesting and informative. Will have to read it over a few times to fully absorb it all but it seems that I have somehow come to this same conclusion if I understand the usage of terminology being used in your post correctly, but to be sure I will have to get out the good old thesaurus to assist in more easy comprehension.

Regarding the response to my reply about Mu Metal, that information is also interesting but I don't see what point you are making in reference to the statement that I made. I would be happy if you could explain the link better between what I said and your reply to my quoted statements so I can better follow your thoughts on this.

I agree with the points you make, just not sure how they tie in unless perhaps I am miss-reading something here...

I have been looking at electro magnets vs permanent magnets to determine what properties are the same and how we are able to simulate the magnetic field.. I believe that it isn't a simulation but it is in fact the same magnetic field... which means that essentially, a magnet consists of the same structural concepts as an electromagnet, it just doesn't need any external input to produce it's field.

I think the magnetic field always exists, it's not something that just appears when you move certain elements near to it.. the same as the magnetic field from an electro magnet always exists. thanks to all for your replies so far, this has been a really fascinating journey so far, hope it continues onwards

reply to post by mbkennel


Oops, one correction. Electrons of course have magnetic dipole moments due to their spin which is an intrinsic fundamental property (vs being one from separated individual charge).

So has anyone found out where the original energy originates?
Why it can be stored?
Why it can change from negative to positive but still not diminish?
Iam way low on the scale of technical intellect here , but it just seems the mystery of magnetism is still...that a mystery?

reply to post by JaxCavalera


In response to:: Even if it comes down to , what the cause of an exerted force is?

Charge that is not static, but moving, produces a magnetic field (alteration of space so to speak). As for substances that produce a magnetic field, it has something to do with the orbital motion of atomic electrons. What exactly? I don't know. But it's the same concept--a moving charge. Why some substances produce a magnetic field and others do not (at least a field we can detect with our physiological sense) is beyond my knowledge.

In any case, there's a causal relationship. Why a moving charge produces a magnetic field ... I believe that is still an open question. Well, my understanding is that there are mathematical models that explain why a moving charge produces a magnetic field, but to the best of my knowledge they're simply models that employ signficantly clever mathematics--that is, there's no experimental data which conclusively affirms such models or theories.

mbkennel : this is true I also didn't think of this either till you mentioned it - I spose if electrons are a dipole so are protons.

regarding why a magnet is able to support a never ending magnetic field whilst copper coils require a constant introduction of more power (electron movement) to maintain it's field..

this tells me that somehow in the structure of the magnet it has a naturally occurring unbalance in electrons that creates a constant unified rotational movement to produce the same effect as that of a coil with power running through it.

I guess this is about as conclusive as one can get without taking up enormous studies into physics.. and even if one did learn all the knowledge in physics that can be known, we are still left with the reference to the field as being photons.. or virtual photons.. which works in a sense as it's a force that has no mass.

AND recent science research has managed to concerntrate enormous quantities of light into a small confined location from the sun which created a pretty decent magnetic field.. so I guess it's not out of the question that light also contains some form of electrons and protons in it or maybe I'm just drawing a simple conclusion from some interesting experiment results..

Whatever the case, I dare say that a magnetic field is what we now call eddy currents but due to how a magnet is formed, they are more unified and bound together than eddycurrents in coils

I am new here, but interested in the topic of this thread. Does anyone have anything new to add to the information contained here?

For example, I would be interested to know a few other things about magnetism, such as;

(in reference to permanent magnets only, i.e. no electromotive force involved)

1. Why magnets must have paired poles (e.g. North/South, Positive/Negative)
2. How a semi-static object can produce force at a distance (semi-static because I understand that the electrons have spin and angular motion), albeit only interacting with specific substances in a measurable, or visible way.
3. It seems to me that the magnetic field,or lines of force must be made of something tangible, because tangible physical effects can be seen (attracting and repulsing). I do understand that certain types of light and rays are not visible, but generally they produce heat as an effect and not force (at least not noticeable force). So, is a magnetic field made of something tangible?

a reply to: repairguyt
1. Since there are searches for magnetic monopoles we're not 100% certain that they don't exist, only that we've not found any true magnetic monopoles so far (quasi-particles don't count). If all magnetic fields result from things like orbital magnetic moment of electrons, or movement of electrons through loops of wire, and these create dipole magnetic fields, and maybe there are no magnetic monopoles.
2. Seems like you answered your own question. If orbital magnetic moments of electrons are aligned in permanent magnets, that creates a magnetic field and we observe that it interacts with other magnetic fields.
3. Tangible has a meaning in everyday language, but when you dig into the physics of the very small, the word loses its meaning and you find out that the things you thought were tangible aren't really tangible. Take your finger and press it down on your desk, so you're touching your desk, so the desk is "tangible" right? Except on a microscopic level you're not really touching the desk. The force pressing back against your finger is also action at a distance involving electromagnetism and the Pauli exclusion principle which prevents the subatomic particles in your finger from actually contacting the subatomic particles of the desk, so there's a microscopically tiny "space" between your finger and the desk when you "touch" it. In fact many of the the classical ideas you have about how things work on everyday scales don't hold true at quantum scales. You don't think of bowling ball as simultaneously passing through both slits of a double slit, because it doesn't happen with bowling balls, but it happens with electrons. If you're clinging to the word "tangible" that suggests you need to study more about how the "quantum world" works, where the term seems to lose its relevance.

Anyway we never found any little gremlins coming out of magnets that push against other little gremlins coming out of other magnets, if you think something like that is needed to explain action at a distance. We call it a magnetic field and it's only "tangible" in the sense it can be measured with things like other magnetic fields, which is really a stretch of the word "tangible" and I'd suggest abandoning that word if you want to dig deep into physics:

van.physics.illinois.edu...

You're getting at one of the ways that the world most mystifies people- the apparent existence of forces at a distance. It turns out that there really is something carrying the force between the magnets- a magnetic field. The field isn't visible and can't be felt by non-magnetic objects, so it seems like there's nothing there, but it really is there. It can be measured with all sorts of instruments, including a little compass.

So the question becomes whether saying there's a magnetic field is just renaming the fact of action at a distance or whether the field really should be seen as an ingredient of the physical world. The main symptom of the field being real is that it takes a while to propagate from one place to another.

a reply to: Arbitrageur

Thanks for using the "kid gloves" on me.

I think I was trying to express the idea of tangible, in that, it has not only visible results, you can feel the force when trying to put similar poles together. There is definitely a tangible feel to it.

With particularly strong magnets, it is quite difficult to push the ends together. To me, this implies that there are "tangible" forces opposing one another. This also implies there is a field generated, strong enough, to be practically solid (in the sense that the closer you try to force them, the stronger the opposition). I understand the concept that, at the quantum level, nothing touches and that the field at that level is sufficient to separate all parts. What I am struggling with is that the field is so large as to extend well beyond the material itself, and at such strength. Strong enough to allow levitation.

I come from a background in computers. My latest job is a Network Admin. Many other computer related jobs prior to that. I agree that I need to study more deeply into the physics side to gain a greater understanding of particle behavior, but I'm not convinced that the field is actually made of particles. Photons or otherwise. It seems to me that photons can be be made to change direction, but I've not heard of any type that will travel in a circle. It seems more likely that they would radiate outward from a central point inside the magnet, rather than travel around the perimeter in a circular fashion. I'm also having difficulty with the fact that an inanimate object is radiating a form of energy that requires electricity to reproduce.

Anyway, thanks for the reply (I thought that this thread might be completely dead).

a reply to: repairguyt

Try pushing two electrically charged objects together, or try lifting a heavy object (pull away from earth surface). You will notice a "tangible" force too.

magnetic force is just a part or small segment of the electro-magnetic spectrum...

just like visible light exposes the visual world around us... visible light is also a segment of the very wide electro-magnetic spectrum...
some birds, animals, even humans are sensitive to magnetic force fields & feel or sense magnetic north

light is known to be made up of photons
magnetic force fields are more like a frequency/energy/vibration, it takes up no 'space' but occupies the time-space fabric of the physical universe along side other energies i.e.: light, radio waves, infra-red & ultra-violet, x-rays, gamma-rays, etc.


an magnetic force field needs a generator to create itself, the Earth has a spinning liquid core that generates this example of a magnetic field
stars & exotic types of Stars also create all sorts of magnetism fields, quasars/pulsars might be some of those freaky conditions of magnetic force fields
~do not confuse my post with anything credentialed, I merely muse with ad lib, paraphrasing~

If you read Maxwell's early paper "On physical lines of force" 1861,

link

it is quite clear that he believed the field lines to be real entities.
In fact he goes so far to describe them as vortex cores.

Now we know about quantized vortices in superfluids it suggests that the aether is a superfluid and that a magnetic field line is a quantized vortex. This is yet to be proved but it seems logical.

originally posted by: repairguyt
a reply to: Arbitrageur

Thanks for using the "kid gloves" on me.

I think I was trying to express the idea of tangible, in that, it has not only visible results, you can feel the force when trying to put similar poles together. There is definitely a tangible feel to it.

Maybe tangible doesn't mean what you think it means. You seem to be using "it seems tangibe" for a synonym of "it seems real", and of course the magnetic fields and forces are real, but that's not what tangible means, it refers to touch and no touch is involved.

What I am struggling with is that the field is so large as to extend well beyond the material itself, and at such strength. Strong enough to allow levitation.

I don't know why that would be a struggle. The field strength does drop off rapidly with distance from the source, but if the source is "strong" enough you'll still have something measurable at a distance. This concept shouldn't create any struggle, it's straightforward.

I come from a background in computers. My latest job is a Network Admin. Many other computer related jobs prior to that. I agree that I need to study more deeply into the physics side to gain a greater understanding of particle behavior, but I'm not convinced that the field is actually made of particles. Photons or otherwise.

I never said the field was made of particles, and I suspect you're confusing virtual particles with particles. If you're a network admin you might have heard of virtual computers and if so you know they are completely different from hardware computers because they don't have separate hardware. Well virtual particles are also completely different from particles, because for example you can measure particles but not virtual particles and it's been suggested we might want to call them something else since some people get confused by thinking virtual particles are a type of particle. The word "virtual" means it's NOT a real particle not totally unlike a virtual computer being NOT a real computer made of hardware.

I'm also having difficulty with the fact that an inanimate object is radiating a form of energy that requires electricity to reproduce.

Your difficulty there is that you don't know what "energy" is because the magnetic field emanating from a permanent magnet is not "energy" by itself. Of course permanent magnets can be used in generators and motors to produce or consume energy but in a coal fired power plant the energy turning the generators is coming ultimately from chemical bonds in the coal, not from the magnetic fields of the generators.

Anyway, thanks for the reply (I thought that this thread might be completely dead).

Bumping a dead thread is fine, sometimes you'll get a response and sometimes you won't.

a reply to: Bedlam

Like time reverse virtual photons changing the lepton modes via observation?😮

Heres a post that wont get answered. But if the probe beam and the signal beam happen at the same time cause universe's accountants say so.

What happens when you freeze the NLM and retard the probe beam? I mean the universes accountants must be appeased.

Target: WTF just happened!?! And whats with this fog!?!

Guy operating the PCB: **twiddles thumbs. ** "i Know nothing!!"

a reply to: Dr X

Thanks Dr X. This is closer to my conception of what is taking place. Interesting reading. While I'm not good with the math, I can follow the written explanation and visualize the concepts he is putting forth. He is at this point also trying to visualize what the field is doing and what it may consist of by relating it to wheels, gears, particles and pressures associated with fluid dynamics.

It just seems to me that it wouldn't be photons or "virtual photons". It seems more likely that it would be made of some unknown type of "invisible" plasma forming a toroidal field around the material. Maybe it's just me, but that seems to make more sense.

a reply to: Arbitrageur

Thanks for the response.

You may be right that I'm using the word "tangible" incorrectly. I completely understand that nothing ever really touches anything else, and I accept that concept. I also understand what virtual computers are and that they are not real in the sense that there is no hardware.

Okay. So, the magnetic field is not energy on its own, but it is a field of some type, made of something. I find it interesting that it has both attractive force and repulsive force, and odd that the attractive side works on certain types of metal and opposite poles of magnets, while the repulsive force works only on other magnets similar poles. Odd characteristics. I'm guessing quantum theory will eventually explain it.

originally posted by: repairguyt
a reply to: Arbitrageur

Thanks for the response.

You may be right that I'm using the word "tangible" incorrectly. I completely understand that nothing ever really touches anything else, and I accept that concept. I also understand what virtual computers are and that they are not real in the sense that there is no hardware.

Okay. So, the magnetic field is not energy on its own, but it is a field of some type, made of something.

It is made of magnetic field, and magnetic and electric fields contain an energy density on their own, proportional to the square of the magnitude of the field.

I find it interesting that it has both attractive force and repulsive force, and odd that the attractive side works on certain types of metal and opposite poles of magnets, while the repulsive force works only on other magnets similar poles.

The attraction and repulsion concerns the interaction with matter, and matter can be complicated.

And yes, the repulsion is more unusual because you need a permanent ferromagnet.

Odd characteristics. I'm guessing quantum theory will eventually explain it.

Fortunately, quantum theory already explains all of that quite well now.

There's a property of certain kinds of atoms and the wavefunctions of some of their electrons and how they interact with neighbors such that you can get a strong 'ferromagnetic' effect, which is not the usual condition of magnetism in most materials.

Pro tip.

Listen to mbkennel and bedlam.

If ever there were two members to listen to on ats regarding these subjects its them. Both reputable and legit physicists.