7 minutes lol. To explain magnetic repulsion. Totally tangential.
I hate smart people. (JK)
1 Like
Makes a good point. Asking why inherently has a limit to how deep you want to/can understand.
Ah i’m nerdgasming all over this video.
Photons create semi instantaneous fields which affect the force of motion behind the electrons they interact with and thereby the nucleus they orbit. This is all a reflection of concentrations of electrical charge which seemingly exponentiate the effect of the field creating a strong resistance between similar charge states (positive or negative).
Although I heard some ■■■■ in there that I have no idea how to research.
Apparently quantum spin creates EM fields?
its not charge distribution. ■■■■
That goes beyond me. but it makes more sense than having electrically unbalanced stable atomic structures. Damn.
bookmarked I’ll try to get to it later
Skimmed through it; definitely disagreed with a lot of points, especially the “no gods” theory.
I liked that too, I always admire charisma in people who do not compromise on precision. The vid also touches upon something I have always found difficult to grasp. Which is about the nature of a force.
As far as I know, some forces are explicable in terms of particles bumping into other particles. That model is something we are all experientially familiar with, the billiard balls being the canonical example I believe. It intuitively makes sense to explain some perceived motion at a (seeming) distance in terms of particles bumping into eachother, particles that weren;t observed initially such that there isn’t really motion at a distance but a nice chain of billiard balls bumping into eachother.
But it is my understanding that some forces like gravity are not quite understood in this sense - although I think I have read something about hypothesized gravity particles or something of the like. Here things become interesting and difficult to me. For if such forces are not to be broken down into particles bumping into each other, which we are familiar with, but rather taken as a primary explanatory factor, it becomes interesting how the perceived phenomenon of objects moving towards each other, relates to its explanation that figures a notion of force that doesn’t go beyond the notion of attraction - which was already there in the explanandum. I do not know enough about contemporary physics to be sure, but it seems that here a re-description serves as an explanation. I think Newton had similar worries when employing such a notion of gravity, but settled with ‘whatever works’ or a more eloquent variation of that.
Hmmm.
I’m not qualified.
Force is a state of energy. The photon transfers this electromagnetically. Sometimes anyways.
I don’t know man.
Ah dude. Yeah mind blown every time. What is it that hides in matter that keeps it moving?
Relativity does show that accelerated masses are heavier.
God physics was great.
I actually got lost in my head for a second there.
I saw the chair I’m sitting on moving at high speeds in empty space with no frame of reference … What is motion again?
1 Like