Magned deffinicion - Electronic Circuits Projects Diagrams Free

bloody-orc · 16th October 2006, 04:12 PM

For some time i have been searching for a good definicion for a magnet. i know one can define it as an object that has magnet field around it but that's not a good definicion as word magnet is used to define this thing. it's not good to define an unknown with an unknown...

so i'm searching for a better deffinicion for a magnet without the use of word magnetic field of any form of word magnet( not even in foreign languag a

)

Papabravo · 16th October 2006, 05:01 PM

A magnet is any material where the preponderance of atoms have the same principal quantum numbers. These numbers imply moving electric charges. The electric charges move in such a way as to be accelerating and decelerating. Accelerating and decelerating charges absorb and release energy and they produce forces in free space on other moving charges.

Hero999 · 16th October 2006, 05:36 PM

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magnet

bloody-orc · 17th October 2006, 12:54 PM

i was hoping for an interesting and scientiffic discusion on that topic, but instead i get nothing... papabrovo gave a nice explenation that could be true, but heros link is well... how to put this... irrelevant and something i wasn't expecting. as there they also define it as an object having a magnetic field.
oh well it seems thet hede are not so scientiffically advanced "creatures" than i hoped for
(no ofence for those, who know the answer and just cant write this in english or just dont want to discuss over this...)

evandude · 17th October 2006, 02:44 PM

What makes you think that defining a magnet as "something with a magnetic field" is a recursive definition? that would be true if the definition of magnetic fields was "something a magnet has", but that's not the case. Quite simply, you CAN define magnetic field without defining a magnet, but not vice versa. Read the definition of magnetic field:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magnetic_field

Quote:

In physics, a magnetic field is that part of the electromagnetic field that exists when there is a changing electric field. A changing electric field can be caused by the movement of an electrically charged object, as in an electric current; or a combination of the orbit of an electron around an atom and the spin of electrons themselves, as in a permanent magnet.

if you are really concerned about having a single definition, it really shouldn't be too hard for you to combine those two definitions together.

It seems your concept of what a definition may and may not contain is skewed. By your logic, it would be improper to define a light bulb as a device that uses electricity to produce light, because it has the word 'light' in it, or that you have to know what a light bulb is to define light itself... and that makes no sense.

Guess what, it's pretty common to define things in terms of other, established definitions, otherwise every time you needed to define something, you'd have to explain half of physics to go with it. If someone does not feel that the definition is sufficient, then they have the freedom to look at the definitions of the concepts in terms of which the original thing was defined. For example, if you don't feel that "something with a magnetic field" is a sufficient definition of a magnet, you are free to look at the definition of magnetic fields. and if you don't find that definition sufficient, you can then look at the other things used to explain it; electromagnetic fields, electric charges, current, electrons, atoms, etc. and then you can keep digging down through an ever-expanding heirarchy of definitions and explanations until your head explodes, or you reach the end of the current knowledge of physics, whichever comes first.

bloody-orc · 17th October 2006, 05:25 PM

well the problem was and is that we couldnt define magnet with magnetic field as we didn't know what magnetic field was... so you cant efine an unknown with an unknowdn...
it was just a challange wanted to solve in physics class and nothing else. i know that one can and should define a magnet using magnetic field but we just wanted to try it without it just to make things difficult and make most of the class feel ill...

we came to dipoles what are tiny magnets inside a magnet, so couldnt use them either so got to quantum physics and solved it there using spins.'

PS nice example with the light and lightbulb, but it only works in englis... in estonian there is no light in lightbulb if you know what i mean

.

evandude · 17th October 2006, 06:16 PM

well I guess as a thought exercise it's a good challenge, but in reality you still did the same type of thing that I said; you go down through multiple levels of definitions, until you get to the very basic physics of it, even if you're throwing out the higher level definitions as you go. there's a big difference between 'defining an unknown with an unknown' and defining an unknown with something else that you then define as well. if you want to get nit-picky, talking about "knowns" and "unknowns", even taking it to the level of quantum physics and spins still relies on taking some things for granted; you could keep going and breaking it down forever, except that human knowledge of physics isn't infinite. And in the end, you don't end up with a "better" definition of a magnet, just a more complicated one.

but it definitely sounds like something a physics teacher would make their students do, to stretch their minds

bloody-orc · 17th October 2006, 06:43 PM

well it strenghend only my mind as i was the only one who understanded what the hell we were talking about. when we got to the dipoles 90% of the class faded out and started doing something else. when we got to spins i was the only wan talking and explaining... oh well... that's the problem with school. in physics, i'm a bit smarter, i have better english knlowlage than my english teacher, i'm smarter than my maths teacher... what the hell do i do in the school you ask? well i take out my laptop and read something more interesting on the internet...

Papabravo · 17th October 2006, 10:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bloody-orc

... papabrovo gave a nice explenation that could be true...

Can you provide any evidence to refute what I said, or are you just engaging in contrarian behavior by questioning what you don't understand.

Go have a nice life reading articles on the internet.

bloody-orc · 18th October 2006, 07:48 AM

i dont know if it's true so i couldnt say for certain. if you confirme it's true it's good.

n.house · 20th October 2006, 02:52 PM

How about, a magnet is a ferous metal with it's electrons commonly aligned or a magnet is not a bit of wood.
Kindest Regards

bloody-orc · 20th October 2006, 08:23 PM

magnet is not ferous

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

16th October 2006, 04:12 PM	(permalink)
bloody-orc	Magned deffinicion For some time i have been searching for a good definicion for a magnet. i know one can define it as an object that has magnet field around it but that's not a good definicion as word magnet is used to define this thing. it's not good to define an unknown with an unknown... so i'm searching for a better deffinicion for a magnet without the use of word magnetic field of any form of word magnet( not even in foreign languag a ) __________________ Need Help? Press F1 If that doesn\'t help you, ask me... I might know better.

16th October 2006, 05:01 PM	(permalink)
Papabravo	A magnet is any material where the preponderance of atoms have the same principal quantum numbers. These numbers imply moving electric charges. The electric charges move in such a way as to be accelerating and decelerating. Accelerating and decelerating charges absorb and release energy and they produce forces in free space on other moving charges.

16th October 2006, 05:36 PM	(permalink)
Hero999	http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magnet __________________ I also post at the following sites: http://www.stop-microsoft.org http://www.heated-debates.com Screen name: Aloone_Jonez

17th October 2006, 12:54 PM	(permalink)
bloody-orc	i was hoping for an interesting and scientiffic discusion on that topic, but instead i get nothing... papabrovo gave a nice explenation that could be true, but heros link is well... how to put this... irrelevant and something i wasn't expecting. as there they also define it as an object having a magnetic field. oh well it seems thet hede are not so scientiffically advanced "creatures" than i hoped for (no ofence for those, who know the answer and just cant write this in english or just dont want to discuss over this...) __________________ Need Help? Press F1 If that doesn\'t help you, ask me... I might know better.

17th October 2006, 05:25 PM	(permalink)
bloody-orc	well the problem was and is that we couldnt define magnet with magnetic field as we didn't know what magnetic field was... so you cant efine an unknown with an unknowdn... it was just a challange wanted to solve in physics class and nothing else. i know that one can and should define a magnet using magnetic field but we just wanted to try it without it just to make things difficult and make most of the class feel ill... we came to dipoles what are tiny magnets inside a magnet, so couldnt use them either so got to quantum physics and solved it there using spins.' PS nice example with the light and lightbulb, but it only works in englis... in estonian there is no light in lightbulb if you know what i mean . __________________ Need Help? Press F1 If that doesn\'t help you, ask me... I might know better.

17th October 2006, 06:16 PM	(permalink)
evandude	well I guess as a thought exercise it's a good challenge, but in reality you still did the same type of thing that I said; you go down through multiple levels of definitions, until you get to the very basic physics of it, even if you're throwing out the higher level definitions as you go. there's a big difference between 'defining an unknown with an unknown' and defining an unknown with something else that you then define as well. if you want to get nit-picky, talking about "knowns" and "unknowns", even taking it to the level of quantum physics and spins still relies on taking some things for granted; you could keep going and breaking it down forever, except that human knowledge of physics isn't infinite. And in the end, you don't end up with a "better" definition of a magnet, just a more complicated one. but it definitely sounds like something a physics teacher would make their students do, to stretch their minds __________________ EEgeek.net Last edited by evandude; 17th October 2006 at 06:20 PM.

17th October 2006, 06:43 PM	(permalink)
bloody-orc	well it strenghend only my mind as i was the only one who understanded what the hell we were talking about. when we got to the dipoles 90% of the class faded out and started doing something else. when we got to spins i was the only wan talking and explaining... oh well... that's the problem with school. in physics, i'm a bit smarter, i have better english knlowlage than my english teacher, i'm smarter than my maths teacher... what the hell do i do in the school you ask? well i take out my laptop and read something more interesting on the internet... __________________ Need Help? Press F1 If that doesn\'t help you, ask me... I might know better.

18th October 2006, 07:48 AM	(permalink)
bloody-orc	i dont know if it's true so i couldnt say for certain. if you confirme it's true it's good. __________________ Need Help? Press F1 If that doesn\'t help you, ask me... I might know better.

20th October 2006, 02:52 PM	(permalink)
n.house	How about, a magnet is a ferous metal with it's electrons commonly aligned or a magnet is not a bit of wood. Kindest Regards

20th October 2006, 08:23 PM	(permalink)
bloody-orc	magnet is not ferous __________________ Need Help? Press F1 If that doesn\'t help you, ask me... I might know better.