Energy Question....

[libertypirate]

If you stack multiple magnets together they become more powerful then if you added their pull up individually.

If energy is neither created or destroyed, what source is providing this additional energy?

Thanks in advance,

LP

[tubbacheez]

1. It's been awhile... and my physics may be rusty, but...

I do recall learning that no additional energy is truly present in the situation you describe.

Locating magnets close to each other (and in the extreme, touching each other) simply puts their magnetic fields in closer and closer alignment. The strength of the "pull" you feel is proportional to the strength of this magnetic field.



From an energy standpoint, you add energy into the system when you use muscle power to separate the magnets. This energy is stored as potential energy. It is returned when the magnets are allowed to stick together again.

Allowing magnets to clump together, in this reference frame, doesn't add any energy into the system. Instead, energy is simply recovered.

Perhaps, this effect is what you were referring to. (?)

[BeFree]

2. How then...

...or maybe the question is why: how does a magnet move towards an object all on its own?

[libertypirate]

5. I have this question as well

[Kraklen]

7. The same reason things fall down.

Gravity and electromagnetism are two of the four fundamental forces.

[BeFree]

11. Yeah, we knew that....thanks

The question is: What energy is it that energizes the force to make the magnet move? And how do we harness that energy?

[tubbacheez]

9. Kraklen's answer covered it.

When the magnet moves all on it's own, you're observing conversion of potential energy into kinetic energy. Total energy of the system remains conserved.

[libertypirate]

4. That is what I expected but not what I am observing

The field exists regardless of the energy I use to move the magnets. When the magnets are set at rest stacked together their combined force is greater then what I expected.

Again if energy is neither created or destroyed where is it coming from? I am aware that magnets are not perpetually motivated, but I beginning to see them differently then self energized objects.

The traditional definition does not describe the nominal conditions of magnetic objects.

[Salviati]

3. a few things to mention...

1. In general, the magnetic field is linear, that is to say the effect of ten magnets together on a single object is the same as taking the individual effects from those ten magnets seperately and adding them together.

2. A lot of times, terms used in physics have acquired a lot of coloquial meanings (or in some cases, a term in common use is appropriated by physics), in physics however, these terms all have very precice meanings. It sounds as if you're asking that if this bigger magnet pulls harder than a smaller magnet, does it have more energy. But in this comparison, we're really talking about apples and oranges here, to some extent. The strenght of a magnets pull is measured by a force, and is quite a different animal than energy.

3. In another sence, we can talk about the energy "in" the magnets though, and that is in the sense of their arrangement. One contribution to the total energy of a system, is the arrangement of it's parts. we can talk about "putting energy into" a system, when we have to physically move bits of the system around, against the path they'd want to go in.

E.g. if I talk about a heavy boulder and a hill, I can put energy into the system by rolling the boulder up the hill. The ball would want to roll down the hill, and if I let it do so, I could "take energy out" of the system and do something useful with it.

In the case of our magnets, if I pointed them so they repeled, and pushed them together, I'd have to put energy into the arrangement of the magnets, which I could take out by having the magnets push against me as I let them repel.

If I arranged them so they would attract, then letting them click together will take energy out of the system, so two magnets sticking together actually have less energy then the same two magnets on opposite sides of the room.

This is pretty much a universal property, things will move into an arrangement that tries to minimize it's energy.

[libertypirate]

8. a few more questions

When you said linear you meant the total combined would be the same as individually combined? If so it is wrong it is not a linear relationship they seem to draft off each other, not only that but over time (> hours) they will all measure an increase in their individual charges.

Where does this energy come from?

I don't think the magnets hold any energy to tell you the truth I am beginning to see them as conductors. Everything has some sort of magnetic charge why would the source for everything come from within everything and not be attributed to some active universal force?

[Salviati]

15. Let me try to address your questions...

or at least some of the issues that your questions raise.

1) magnetic charges and the origin of magnetic fields. As pretty much everyone knows by now, electricity and magnetism are related. That a current in a wire is able to affect the orientation of a compass needle, and electromagnets are very physical examples of this. In the laws used to describe electromagnetism as written by Maxwell, the electric and magnetic fields play almost identical and complimentary roles, execpt for one important fact. There are no magnetic charges.

That is to say, unlike the electric force, which has isolated charges + and -, there are no magnetic monopoles, a single north pole or a single south pole. This isn't because no one has been looking, finding a single monopole would almost certainly guarintee a Nobel prize, and the immortalization of your name. This isn't because no one wants them to be found, finding a single monopole would explain a number of things in physics, such as why charge is quantized, as well as making the laws of E&M more symmetrical. It is simply because either they are not there to be found, or they are stupendiously rare beasts.

So, in the absence of magnetic charges, how does one create magnetic fields? The answer lies in the tie between electricity and magnatism. While stationary electric charges will only make electric fields, if we get those charges moving (reletive to us), creating an electric current, this current will create a magnetic field. If we set up a loop of current, it will create a magentic field like a little bar magnet, with the magnet being the axis of the loop.

In magnetic materials, like iron, the electrons orbiting the iron atoms form the little loops of current. Each atom is like a little bar magnet. In unmagnetized iron, all these atomic magnets point in random directions, and the effects of all the individual magnets tend to cancel out. When placed in a strong magnetic field from some other source, some of these little atomic magnets will flip to align themselves with the field, this adding to the strenght of the existing field. Some of these will remain flipped when the field is removed, making the previously unmagentized iron behave like a magnet when it is removed from the external field, this is called hysteresis.

In a normal bar magnet, not all of the atomic magnets are lined up in the same direction, there are pretty much always some that point in random directions, so when a bar magnet is lined up next to another bar magnet, the combined field can overpower some of these houldouts, and cause them to line up with the majority, thus making the total field of the two bar magnets stronger than the sum of the two bar magnets individually, even though on the microscopic atomic level, there is nothing non-linear going on, likewise, when the two magnets are seperated, some of the stragglers will remain in the aligned position, so the magnet will remain stronger. There is of course a limit to this, when all of the atomic magnets are aligned, if this is the case, then the magnet is said to be saturated.

[libertypirate]

18. Some other questions

Electricity and Magnetism are related but so is Radiant energy and to both of them. They all share common behaviors.

We base all our observations on looking for charges and change, what would we use to measure something without a +/- charge; a neutral state change?

If for example such a neutrally charged energy exists and it is everywhere wouldn't it register as background noise?

If we can't measure something in science then do we assume it doesn't exist?

If every atom holds a magnetic charge what derives such a complimentary attribute to all matter other than energy?

[Salviati]

19. ...

There are a ton of electrically neutral things out there, e.g. just about every object that you see is electrically neutral, otherwise electric attraction or repulsion would swamp out gravity.

But on a smaller level, there are plenty of electrically neutral smaller particles as well, neutrons and neutrinos for example. We can detect these because although they have no electric charge, they do have other kinds of charge. Neutrons and neutrinos do not interact with other matter via the electromagnetic force, since they are electrically neutral, but they can interact with matter via the other fundimental forces. By watching their interactions with other matter via these other forces, we can make useful measurements on these objects.

If we can't measure something, if it has no interactions at all with any type of matter, then how can we claim it can exist? One may as well contemplate how many angels can dance on the head of a pin. Now, it is certainly sensable to theorize about something that is in theory measureable, but not currently in practice, e.g. string theory. But, for example, to postulate the existance of a particle that has no "handles", i.e. no way to measure anything about it, is not scientificly useful, as how can it affect anything in the universe...

>If every atom holds a magnetic charge what derives such a
>complimentary attribute to all matter other than energy?

I'm not quite sure what you mean here, so I can't really say anything about this...

[libertypirate]

20. Thank you...

I hadn't looked to observe objects that hold a neutral state electric charge, but I will.

I want to clarify electromagnetic force it is two distinct concepts rolled up into one set of terms. An electromagnetic force is a magnetic force generated by the interaction of electricity with its self and matter. Magnetic force is as much of a property of electricity as is heat energy; although one can cause the other it doesn't mean that they are one in the same.

I realized this last night.

Heat --> can be accumulated to move matter --> accumulated matter such as steam can be used to generate a magnetic force --> the force is accumulated to push electricity out over a wire.

Electricity --> can be accumulated to generate a magnetic force --> magnetic force can be accumulated to move matter

Electricity --> can also be accumulated to generate heat --> which again can be accumulated to move matter

Magnetism/Gravity --> is used by the earth to condense matter which accumulates heat

A magnet within proximity to other matter can act to polarize it by aligning their fields. It then can move that matter without any additional force.

All force regardless of the object/machine doing the work can be attributed to these three core concepts, heat (radiant energy), electricity, and magnetism. Each directly affect each other and matter, each can be accumulated and translated into each other, and each are shared properties of all matter. None are actually considered matter!

All measurement is based on perspective and understanding. If we neither have the appropriate understanding of what we are measuring and/or the perspective we use is incorrect then we can't be sure what we have measured. In essence we see, we hear, we touch, we smell, and we taste; but they are all limited to our experiences (perspectives) and how we measured things we find similar before something new is measured. This presents the problem of proper classification and is at the heart of what I am saying, if the new measurement is something that doesn't fit our previous measurements then how should we go about identifying. We generally don't give things their own category then limit that category to contain only one thing. Magnetism is a category in and of it’s self that acts similar to things we have categorized together, but it has been distinctly separated from other similarities.

The quote you included at the end was intended to prompt the question, why do we view magnetism as linked only to objects when all matter can be affected by it?

[Kraklen]

6. Magnetic field strength is not the same as energy.

Energy is "created" when something that is attracted to a magnet is pulled towards a magnet. Increased energy takes the form of the increased kinetic energy of the moving object.

This energy isn't created out of thin air, the first law of thermodynamics still applies. It's simply being converted from potential energy into kinetic energy.

To create potential energy, you've got to use energy from your muscles in order to move that object back to its original position.

[libertypirate]

10. Here is where part of the problem lies

"This energy isn't created out of thin air, the first law of thermodynamics still applies."

Absolutely but I see a slight problem in the logic things that sound inclusive must also be considered at times exclusive. In the known universe very few things are neither created nor destroyed so we then turn to other descriptions.

If you match behavior, and other definitions of energy with magnetism it presents as something completely different then we have acknowledged it to be. One realization in all this is that energy does not transfer types; electricity must be accumulated to generate heat (radiant energy) or a magnetic charge (in a coil or electric motor). Subsequently heat can be accumulated which is used to turn a shaft that turns a generator (to create a magnetic charge), when all is said and done heat is accumulated to generate the magnetic charge, which is then accumulated to push out electricity.

It is important to note, it doesn't prove that magnetism is energy it does however categorically fit if you attempt to classify energy in the true sense of a definition, which is like I said both inclusive and exclusive.

I think in reality it's like this sometimes when we define the world we categorize things that don't belong together, it happens in the biosciences all the time. They find that their perspective excluded a possibility because those who set the definitions before them could not understand what they did not or could not see. These definitions of energy, force, and relationships were developed before we understood some other fundamental behaviors in the universe. The laws still have to apply because they are based on observed phenomena that is unquestionable, but the definitions are based a perception of the laws which should always be questioned.

[Kraklen]

12. Maybe your definitions of energy, force, etc.

But scientists are quite comfortable with their definitions of the terms and have been for some time.

Not sure where you're going with biosciences, but the same applies.

[libertypirate]

13. Comfort breads ignorance

And you have to assume the guy before you was right within his own myopic view. As a matter of fact I don't give much credit to comfort and is why I search for understanding more then I search for knowledge. Comfort is the same as assumption. As for scientist they should know why there are very few laws, it is because there is very little understanding of the nature of things by percentage of the possible number of things to be understood. I don't know about you but that makes me nervous to assume the perspective of another’s assumptions and then build a theory upon such logic especially when I understand the possible room for error. Not only that but understanding is far deeper knowledge then just knowing how something works. If I was just interested in that I might as well stick to the text of my books.

Although I will be the first to admit I am likely to be wrong myself it does me little good not to understand why that is. If I assume; then I am nothing but a hack. Hacks are worthless because they only want to get by and can never get to the true nature of things.

With bioscience they often have to reclassify the things that make little sense after a new observation. They reclaim the definition of what something is and means a direct example would be how they re-categorize life as they find new things. I think if I am not mistaken there are now four kingdoms. We added two after realizing they don't fit under any others definition.

Sorry a bit wordy

[Salviati]

16. If you believe that science is comfortably sitting on its laurels...

... not questioning the basic foundations on which it is based, then the problem is that you don't know enough about science. When something new is observed, scientists can, and do, question the most deeply held ideas as to how the world works.

Before the discovery of the neutrino, observations of nuclear reactions in which energy and momentum seemed to dissapear, conclusively carried out in 1914, caused reputable scientists, including Niels Bohr, to question whether energy and momentum were in fact conserved in every case. The suggestion by Pauli in 1930 that the missing energy and momentum could be carried off by a as yet unseen particle, the neutrino, provided an alternative explaination which preserved the idea of energy and momentum conservation. But for 16 years, people didn't know what was going on, and it wasn't until 3 years later, that Pauli's suggestion was proven, with the observation of neutrinos...

That's not to say that there isn't intertia in the scientific community, but I'd argue that there should be. The theories we have today work exceedingly well at modeling the physical world over vast orders of magnitude in energy and extent. There are still some gaping holes, such as the lack of a nice theory of quantum gravity, chief among the open problems, but the fixes for these problems must tread very lightly and precicely so as not to break the precision with which current theories fit our observations.

[libertypirate]

17. Your right but also wrong

I believe science is full of its self and shit when it stops basing its focus on observable phenomena.

The wrong order of a complex puzzle even when almost correct does little good in the long run because it is still wrong and always derives an incorrect perspective. Getting someplace after a wrong turn will take longer, the earlier such a wrong turn is made and the longer off coarse derives how out of the way one must travel. I am not talking about unnatural phenomena I am talking about something that can be observed. Those observations may be simplistic but they seem to be defy the definition of magnetism.

[kwolf68]

14. Damn science geeks

You heathens. Science is the religion of the agnostics. Don't you know that magnets move because its the will of God?


/sarcasm off