Feynman: Magnets FUN TO IMAGINE 4 But see NEW UPDATED file at  

+Christopher Sykes I loved this interview! To get the type of answer you got from Feynman shows you must have asked the question. I think you did a fantastic job with this and thank you for giving us a great (and very interesting) seven and a half minutes to enjoy sir.

beautiful clarity, Thank you

Feynman could have talked about electromagnetic fields and ferromagnetism a little at the end of it all; otherwise I have no complaints against anyone here

+Christopher Sykes great interview all around and this was a fantastic question that elicited a very useful answer. If anyone said you're an 'idiot' or 'dumb' that person is a stupid idiot.

+Christopher Sykes I do think he did a very poor job in explaining; the question was clear enough, and the framework in which he could have answered... he chose to be difficult, perhaps to explain the epistemology of causation, but you didn't ask about that; for me he just wanted to seem... aloof?

The math behind electrical and magnetic fields was perfectly clear far before Feynman. It's highly unlikely (impossible) that he didn't know how magnets work. Also, it was more "you can't understand that" than it was "I can't explain that". Which is in fact true.

You misunderstood what he was saying if you got "I can't really explain that". It's that for the scope laid out for these videos it was far too technical and couldn't be laid out in the analogous framework with which he explained other phenomena. He answered it as best you can which was that the electrons all moving in the same direction is what causes this attractive and repulsive force to be experienced over a longer distance than we're mostly used to seeing. I think what has confused you is that he's saying such an explanation doesn't begin to touch the depth of what is actually happening and for low level thought experiments like the ones he presents in this interview it's far better to just accept it as a fundamental thing which is true and not worry about it beyond that. Otherwise this would become a technical lecture about the electromagnetic force.

@@ka1e_chips Both

We dislike jobs

He can understand and explain it perfectly. The interviewer doesn’t have the knowledge and background to understand it. That was the point of this.

1qp

1qp

1qp

+Sphere723 Of course it's not intuitive, it's extremely advanced QM. But I believe that his formulation (using Feynman Diagrams) was far more intuitive than any of the other existing approaches. There was some bitter quote by Schwinger to the effect of Feynman diagrams "bringing computation to the masses". So it was probably the best there was. Also you should read his book QED, he explains the theory quite well all things considered.

Well, because we invent theories to explain observed phenomena, the observed phenomena at the microscopic level is different( acc to experimental evidence) than what we experience in our normal macroscopic world. So it must be non- intuitive or the 'intuitive' theory is incorrect.

@@adrianllanos8562 Quantum mechanics isn't intuitive to a human being. It takes considerable-no-a LOT of effort and brains to reach a point where you can confidently answer questions of such calibre. That's the thing with mechanics, it's not intuitive but provides such elegant solutions to everything as long as you're smart enough to ask the right question.

@@rudythecat7320 And Bob Dylan won the Nobel Prize for Literature. He won "for creating new poetic expressions within the great American song tradition". Would you like some wine with that Word Salad? WTF are his new poetic expressions"? Even better, what is a poetic expression, and how can we tell its a new one? Isn't all poetry self-expression and new? Give one example. Why say the "great" American song tradition? Who is to judge whether American songs are "great"? Are they better than, say, indian songs? Chinese songs And does the word "tradition" mean anything? Couldn't one say, "...in American songs"? If we untangle the word salad, isn't it more clear to say he won "for writing songs that are more poetic than are typically written by American songwriters" . But if that is the basis of his award, how do you explain rogers and Hammerstein songs that are very "poetic" such as Reprise from Carousel? It seems the Nobel Committee had to stretch the English language well past it's snapping point to obfuscate the reason for the award. To give him one for writing more "poetically" than most songwriters in this country is simply wrong. I think it demeans the Noble prize. It's just my opinion, but I think Phillip Roth was robbed of his prize that year that Dylan won. Roth is "literature". Dylan is "songwriting". They overlap, but it's a mistake to equate them. Let's give the Grammy for the Best Song to John Grisham, for "creating new vocal stylings within the Great American book writing tradition".

Colton McCoy why didn’t he just answer in terms of physics and let the man go look it up. Because he didn’t have an answer

A Person if he can’t explain it he doesn’t understand it. Go fuck your self

Nicholas Chan Thank you. Saved 7 minutes of my life and probably more trying to interpret it.

What are you filling your life with if these 7 minutes aren't worth your time?

I think when people die and face our Creator, they will find that He explains these things beautifully. I suspect that it is NOT complex, but elegantly simple.

He who thinks he knows it all, is stupid. He who knows he knows little, is smart. in short: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect

@miniclip1162 What is the relevance here? Feynman is simply one of the many physicists who have been burned by other physicists who gave people easy to understand but ultimately incorrect explanations. These physicists then have to waste class time getting students to unlearn things, and they eventually come to a point where even the people asking for simple but technically incorrect answers frustrate them.

funny considering it's not an explanation at all but rather an avoidance of one

You can write down what he says; means nothing.

+The Unknown Cat hi cat :D

mrajentman ARE YOU FOLLOWING ME?!!!

+RichardFeynmanRules Well the jury is still out as to whether mathematics is an abstraction from the real world or fundamental to the real world.

+Kim Bheazley I believe he means the Platonism vs Nominalism schools of thought for the philosophy of mathematics. According to the Platonist viewpoint, mathematical entities exist outside of human imagination and mathematical proofs are discovered rather than invented (because they were true all along). I don't know if this makes sense to you - I have not gone into much detail here anyway - but you should look it up if you are interested. It is a long standing and unresolved philosophical debate plato.stanford.edu/entries/nominalism-mathematics/.

+Prescott Fulton Yes, I think it's fair to say the jury is still out on this, and it's an area of huge *philosophic* debate. Someone like cosmologist Max Tegmark, as you probably know, argues for the possibility of a *literal* mathematical universe, and some of the "digital physics" -- a computational universe -- ideas get deep into these ideas. And Scott Lowe, below, makes a very good point about Platonism and Nominalism. Roger Penrose, a terrific theoretical theorist, very much leans toward, even embraces, a very Platonic philosophical view of ultimate reality. I think his latest papers on the idea of repetitive Big Bangs are very exciting and intriguing. Although our beloved Feynman was one of the least "philosophical" of the great quantum physicists (compared to a mystic like Schrödinger), Feynman always argued that we be open-minded and comfortable with not knowing. Some of the mathematical stuff is just damn mysterious, as he wrote in "QED" on the numerical value of the fine-structure constant: "It has been a mystery ever since it was discovered more than fifty years ago, and all good theoretical physicists put this number up on their wall and worry about it. Immediately you would like to know where this number for a coupling comes from: is it related to π or perhaps to the base of natural logarithms? Nobody knows. It's one of the greatest damn mysteries of physics: a magic number that comes to us with no understanding by man. You might say the "hand of God" wrote that number, and "we don't know how He pushed his pencil." We know what kind of a dance to do experimentally to measure this number very accurately, but we don't know what kind of dance to do on the computer to make this number come out, without putting it in secretly!" These kind of conundrums always led to Feynman saying our *models* were wrong, and when we got it right, these complexities wouldn't be there. Well, we'll see!

+Scott Lowe Great and important point! And there's no consensus on this *philosophical* debate/issue, and greatest minds in physics have fallen on both sides of the issue. As a noted to Mr. Fulton in this thread, a Roger Penrose is very much a Platonist on these issues! And then, there's cosmologist Max Tegmark and his mathematical universe. :)

+Theoria Apophasis he simply wanted him to define "why"

Why?

Well said chris

@@jacobshirley3457 Why did u say why?

@@solcoster8110 Why not?

That faucinni he like to fuss

Josh Fredman A fair point, but I've seen other places where he did give simplified examples. Actually, I think in another section of this same interview he had one about waves. In this case, he specifically saw the opportunity to address another issue in understanding.

"The analogy fails" is your assertion, and in no way correct. Suppose one doesn't know what a lathe is, or a mill? Suppose one doesn't understand the process of component fabrication? Eventually you would end up far enough removed from the original concepts that any imbued understanding on the listener's part would be minimal to the point that it would be misleading. Alternatively, you would have to teach the listener many fundamental concepts and first principles--a massive endeavor not well suited to a short, conversational reply. these are the things as what Feynman was addressing. But I have to agree that Feynmen's manner was tone-deaf and tactless, which I more or less already said.

Josh Fredman That's the problem, Feynman doesn't even ATTEMPT to explain the concepts behind magnetism. Any other "teacher" would've at least tried and allowed the audience to ask questions about what they didn't understand, instead he just jams his fist up his ass and screeches out "you don't understand the word 'why.'"

Solypsys He does explain it, towards the end of the video. You weren't paying attention. Watch again.

Andrew M What are you talking about? Magnetism being coupled with electricity does not explain HOW magnets work. Electricity doesn't 'cause' magnetism.

Why?

It's interesting you ask. What why are you asking why about?

a Life is what you have :'

you might be interested in his role in the Rogers commission report especially his essay Personal Observations on Reliability of Shuttle, which was part of the report. watch?v=4kpDg7MjHps

_Why_?

+LeeboProductions The why question is as important for the philosopher as it is for the scientist. If those who built the theories we have now didn't ask to themselves why planets move the way they do, why ice is slippery or why two magnets repele(or attract), we would have any understanding of the fundamental reasons.

I think you guys are missing my reference here. I'm responding to Nietzsche.

legendary idiot, yes. You demented M-Fer

You must be extremely lonely

maybe I dont like being around STOOPID people.

Theoria Apophasis Well you don't look smart :)

what should he RIP in peace?

+zagyex The power of "love" and "hate" ;)

+zagyex Your going to have to read multiple books just to understand it. That or take classes...

+zagyex you can search and download the book (legally free) Uncovering the Missing Secrets of Magnetism

JunK Don’t waste your time reading this nonsense.

Welcome to the real world. Don't forget - you drive on the same street with them, vote in the same lines and get your medical care from them.

@tommy cane115 He got free food in Vegas, did you know that?

@tommy cane115 How many "arm chair theorists" go to Las Vegas to get free food and learn more about life? You know he got a Nobel Prize in Physics, right?

@tommy cane115 According to one site, in the 1960's a Nobel Prize came with around $26k in cash, equivalent to $219k today. Sadly, people don't care as much about prizes that don't give money, or don't seem to be worth money even if (as with the Olympics) it's just a thin gold coating over a cheaper metal.

@tommy cane115 Your reply didn't show up in my notifications. By the way, why using bad words is stupid: pastebin.com/6zhzPdyn You have a strange definition of "idiot". I don't see any use for it.

Big brother is watching you.

+Adam A. Afif Big Brother would have to read my mind, because I didn't tell anyone about this or done anything about it.

+Militaru Tudor proof of the matrix.

That would be the thought police.

How does deja vu work would be the next video on your list?

Everyone understands far less than we think we do.

If you can grasp all of that, you will have understood electromagnetism. These rules also apply to permanent magnets, albeit for those you also need to understand quantum mechanics, specifically quantum chemistry. Atoms are composed of 3 kinds of particles: Neutrons and protons (with neutrons being Neutral in charge, and protons being Positively charged) which form the nucleus, and electrons (negatively charged) which "orbit" the nucleus. However, you CANNOT treat the electrons like planets orbiting a sun, because of a specific weirdness in quantum mechanics called the Pauli Exclusion Principle, which states that identical fermions (which includes Electrons) cannot have identical "states". Suffice to say, this means that the orbitals of electrons get... weirder, the more you have. You have spherical ones, tear-drop ones, donuts, and composite orbitals that are basically a combination of teardrops and donuts. You also have spaces where two electrons with the same Spin CANNOT be, and if electrons of the same Spin must be put in those spaces then the whole orbital becomes kaput and cannot actually be exist (this is of much greater importance when discussing molecular orbitals, and is beyond our scope), and so you end up trying to figure out how to distribute electrons around to avoid having some where they shouldn't be, a very common challenge for quantum chemists trying to model molecules. Anyways, for an electron "orbitting" an atom, it has two quantum properties that make up its state: The electron's "Spin", and the spatial region it occupies around the nucleus, called the orbital when only thinking of space, and more appropriately called the "magnetic" quantum number when thinking in space-time. Both of these quantum properties are intrinsic: They are there, and we can observe them, but trying to reduce them to questions like "Why are they there?" is ultimately futile, just like trying to explain why energy exists or why atoms exist. It's just part of nature, and to explain their existence requires an explanation of the existence of our universe. Let's start with the easy property: Spin. We call it Spin because it leads to properties that bear some physical resemblances to a "spinning object". You will remember from your understanding of electromagnetism that a current "spinning" around in a coil creates a magnetic field. The Spin property also ties electrons back to their ability to generate a magnetic field (if the conditions are right), which is why it's called Spin. BUT, it does not mean that the electron is actually "spinning". Electrons and other similar irreducible particles are infinitely small and uniform points; now try to imagine having an infinitely thin coil of wire and running a current through it, you basically end up with a single wire that is no longer generating a magnetic field Up or Down. But an electron IS generating that field Up or Down (for spin Down or Up, respectively). The take-away message is that even electrons at rest carry an intrinsic magnetic field, called its "magnetic moment", due to its Spin. And, it can spin pointing Up (+1/2) or Down (-1/2). Note that Spin is a property that both free and atomic electrons can have, so it is fairly easy to explain in that regard. Protons and neutrons also have spin, and for reasons that will become clearer later, lend their spin in a special additive/subtractive way to the nuclei they compose.

Now for the much harder property: the Magnetic quantum number, which is related to electrons orbiting atomic nuclei. This property also helps explain the properties of nuclei themselves, when treating the protons and neutrons that compose them as space-time-related particles locked in specific space-times by one another. Keep all of this in mind because the nuclear properties are what Magnetic Resonance Imaging actually makes use of, and is incredibly important in understanding the magnetic properties of ALL matter (even the common non-magnetic stuff). To simplify the Magnetic quantum number explanation, quantum chemists will usually forgo the whole "time" stuff and simply focus on the "spatial" stuff. This ultimately leaves you perplexed about the definition "Magnetic", since it is ultimately related to space AND time, but trust me, it is going to be a lot easier for your understanding if we just ignore time for now. Devoid of time, the Magnetic quantum number devolves into a simplistic spatial approximation. Basically, we become concerned only with finding out Where the electrons are, around the nucleus. We cannot determine exactly where an electron will be (due to the EPR paradox), but we can create fuzzy maps that describe where an electron probably is. Those fuzzy maps are called "orbitals", which are simply Magnetic quantum numbers without the pesky Time property. Again, it's not accurate, but it works for us. Now we can add the Time back into our example, which leads to a much more recognizable problem: Why don't electrons just fly towards the nucleus? A good analogy to make is with planets orbiting a sun. The planets are constantly moving, while being pulled by gravity towards the sun, but because the planets move perpendicular to that pull, they never get pulled into the sun. Electrons are a tiny bit stranger, but essentially the same applies: They must be moving in order to continue "orbiting" the nucleus. That means they have velocity, and therefore momentum. And depending on how close they are to the nucleus, they must possess a specific momentum to stay there. That angular momentum is an important part of the Magnetic quantum number, because if you recall from electromagnetism, a moving charge creates a magnetic field.

OK, so now we understand our two basic properties for magnetism: Spin and Magnetic. Now the question is, if ALL electrons have magnetic fields, both from Spin and from Magnetic quantum numbers, then why are only a select few materials magnetized? And why are even fewer capable of being permanent magnets? To answer that, we need to recall the Pauli Exclusion Rule, and that in the quantum realm we are dealing with particles that are "points" for all intents and purposes. Particles can be formed from smaller particles, and in the simplest image possible, the quantum properties of these conglomerate particles end up being the summation of the quantum properties of the composition particles. For electrons, we have two properties that can vary from one electron to another, but that can never be the same: Spin and Magnetic. Electrons can share the same Magnetic number (or orbital), but if one has a spin of +1/2 then the other therefore must have a spin of -1/2. Those spins end up canceling each other out, with the conglomerate "electron pair" particle having no net spin, and therefore no net magnetic effect. For each Magnetic quantum number, you can have up to two electrons, and if all of your magnetic quantum numbers contain electron pairs, then you have no net magnetic effect from electrons in that atom. The way orbitals end up working, in terms of space-time geometry, is that you will end up with multiple shells of orbitals depending on the number of protons in the nucleus. You start with singular spherical orbitals (called "s" orbitals) which are at the lowest possible energy and the first to be occupied by electrons, then with triplicate tear-drop orbitals (called "p" orbitals) which are the second orbitals to be occupied, followed by quintuplet dual-node orbitals (called "d" orbitals), then septuplet triple-node orbitals (called "f" orbitals), and so on and so forth. Basically, more possible orbital geometries become available as the atom gains electron density, due to the fact that electrons always have the same velocity (but differ in momentum) and so things work out that you get more space to play with as you get farther away from the nucleus. By the 4th shell, you have 4 possible sets of orbital geometries (s, p, d, and f), although the f orbitals are of such high energy that they are never occupied unless the electrons are particularly energetic for some reason.

In any case, unpaired electrons are more energetically favorable than paired (because they can have either spin up or down, which makes the system more entropically favorable; a consequence of thermodynamics on the quantum level), so as you go across a row in the periodic table of elements, your electrons will always begin by occupying every empty orbital they can, so long as it is energetically favorable. This means you get unpaired electrons, albeit only on the outermost orbital shells, but this is enough to make magnetism surface in some pure elements like Iron (which has 4 unpaired electrons in its d orbitals). In molecules, atoms will form molecular orbitals, with the electrons effectively being shared between nuclei in these special orbitals. You get the same general idea, though, with electrons occupying the lowest energy states possible, whether that means being unpaired to lower energy while occupying slightly higher energy orbitals, or pairing up to slightly heighten energy while occupying much lower energy orbitals. For some atoms, like Nitrogen (which by itself has 3 unpaired electrons in its 3 p orbitals), this means you end up with all paired electrons in the molecular orbitals, consequently leading to a molecule with no electron-derived magnetic effect. But, for other atoms, again like Iron, you still retain and sometimes even get a stronger magnetic effect in the resulting molecule. This is the case for Magnetite, which contains both Iron (II) and Iron (III) oxides, with the Iron (II) being magnetic specifically. This can work backwards, though, with things like rust which is purely Iron (III), and not appreciably affected by magnets. The attractive force experienced by magnetizable matter in a magnetic field is a result of the re-alignment of the unpaired electrons so that their Spins align with the magnetic field. Regardless of the direction of the magnetic field, the electrons will flip so that their fields align (because that is the lowest energy state), and because the electrons are negatively charged, this will cause the electrons to experience a pulling force towards the source of the magnetic field, pulling the rest of the matter with them. Hence, ferromagnetism. In the case of positively-charged particles, the opposite occurs, where the alignment of the positive particle's magnetic field causes a repulsion force (diamagnetism).

Note that so far, all discussion of magnetism in ordinary matter has been in terms of matter that can be affected by a magnetic field, and NOT actually matter that emits a permanent magnetic field. For that, you need another condition: the magnetic fields in the matter need to be permanently aligned in a specific direction. Atoms and molecules have individually weak magnetic fields that can cancel each other out if they are countering each other. If atoms/molecules are aligned with each other (all the orbitals face the same directions) then we get the sum of individual magnetic fields. This alignment process usually goes through multiple steps of size: Individual atoms/molecules align to form Crystal Domains, which align to form a whole crystal. But growing a single crystal of Iron (III) oxide is not exactly simple. Instead, we will align the orbitals of the individual atoms/molecules using heat-treatment in a strong magnetic field: breaking and forming molecular bonds with emphasis on unpaired electrons that can align their magnetic fields with that of the outside magnetic field, because it is the only way they can achieve the lowest possible energy in this situation. After this treatment, the molecular bonds remain the same, and so too do the alignments of the individual orbitals, with all the unpaired electrons having a Spin that points in the same direction. You now have a permanent magnet! And if your mind is still intact, you might be interested in the fact that even the nuclei of atoms have Spin, and therefore magnetic fields. The net magnetic field is incredibly weak, but it does lead to even atoms/molecules with all paired electrons having magnetic properties. Such atoms are are called Diamagnetic, because unlike ferromagnetic material, they are repelled by magnetic fields (albeit very weakly so) because their magnetic properties arises from the Positively charged nucleus. If you don't believe me, go look up the video on youtube with a carbon stick on a styrofoam boat being pushed around a water bath using a neodynium magnet. Where is the magnetic property of a nuclei useful, you may wonder? MRI. Yes, MRI is a process that studies your atoms nuclear magnetic fields, and can even build a pseudo-elemental map of your body's hydrogen (and sometimes even carbon and phosphorous!). Any atom with Spin is a possible subject of study in MRI and its grandfather technology, nuclear magnetic resonance. What MRI does is it forces all of the nuclear magnetic fields to align with the immense magnetic field of the instrument. Then, it irradiates those nuclei with radio-waves of just the right energy to cause their magnetic fields to "flip". The instrument then "listens" to your body's nuclei, which re-emit the radio waves. With some savvy placement of antenna arrays in the MRI, we can then figure out where specific radio signals come from within your body, and build a map. Again, I've simplified everything greatly here. The mathematics gives you a much better picture and explanation of what's going on. For that I would recommend looking at MIT's free lectures for a better understanding.

ComandanteJ Nah, I read a biography of him and trust me (if you are italian you can read that biography by your own), he was a "Casanova" in terms of girls.

Continuum ST So... he had an evil behind? LOL.

ComandanteJ After one of his wives dead he just tried to had some fun with younger girls... indeed, students of the university... So, yes,he had an evil behind.

You are quite right about the title so I've changed it! Thanks...

Hey, thats the same way the posi trac rear end on a plymouth works!

+gedgar2000 +Langdon Harris He was a good physicist/lecturer, but not a good orator I've heard--which is nothing wrong and I'd admire in his personality. But, hey I'd bet if Carl Sagan was asked the same question he would taught and schooled the interviewer much more eloquently--rather than just add insult to injury.

It's incredible difficult

the electromagnetic force is known to be simple because we can control it, but in fact, to fully understand HOW it works, we have to understand the whole standard model, with the Higg's mechanism, strong/weak nuclear forces and gravitation/dark energy. it's a part of a whole thing that defines reality as a whole thing. the truth. whoever claims "I know how to explain X" will only explain until the actual advancement of scientific knowledge, which is right, 90-99% of the truth, but claiming as it to be the definite truth is foolish. atheists who brags about the wonders of science, GMO supporters, all these people who claims that science and technology delivers something definite and that they "know" are themselves fools who don't understand science. most of them could not barely understand the true meaning of E=mc2 but will brag about it for the sake of sounding clever. (anecdotal because one of them explained me it was the theory of relativity. which is false.) the most wise thing to say then is "i know that I don't know" and aspire to future discoveries.

Check Out The Videos by theoria apophasis on RU-vid. he Made Tons of Videos about magnetism and wrote a book about it. he may be the one and only Guy who finally understood and explained magnetism

***** i'm electronician, i perfectly understand magnetism, and it's surprising. now we have to understand that the three other forces have as much properties. especially gravity. it will explain dark energy as well. strong and weak forces eventually might have much more than nuclear reactions, who knows, maybe the weak force could carry a signal one day.

Electromagnetic forces are fundamental. We don't have a theory about more fundamental properties of matter than give rise to electromagnetism. So it's as Feymann said: _they just do_ because that's how the universe works.

I think this is actually a problem with "news as entertainment". In what context would people be watching an explanation of a complex scientific phenomenon like magnetism?

When my young son walks in on me programming and asks "What are you working on?" Sometimes I just tell him "I'm trying to figure out how to make this thing tell this other thing to do a thing, but you can't do this thing that way with these kinds of things apparently, so I made this other thing do a thing that I think might make the first thing do the thing that will tell the thing to do the thing like I want it to. Make sense?"

+Zynoa Piano Hahahahaha

Because he wanted Lebensraum for the German people. That "why"-question is nothing like why magnets repel/attract each other

really? let me show that you are wrong. Why did he want lebensraum for the german people?

Because he wanted Lebensraum for the German people.

By the way I know and believe the guy is brilliant, this just wasn't one of his brilliant responses.

+TheSocratesofAthens He actually explains easy enough :) But if you want a detailed explanation it can't be easy. Sorry

+StarNet420 , I said simple not easy: they are two distinctly different words. Also, smart ass, would you explain what he said to me SIMPLY. I assure you it won't be easy.

+jfyvneld I would say that Feynman is essentially saying "I don't know the underlying mechanism behind magnetic attraction". Feynman was good at manipulating equations but, apparently, not at explaining the physical phenomena represented in those equations: he didn't really understand the physical meaning of his mathematical work. In fact, he wasn't really interested in understanding quantum mechanics (which is necessary to explain how magnets work) as much as applying its mathematics to engineering. Consequently, Feynman's answer is confusing and negativistic.

+TheSocratesofAthens You mean he should have talked about the "exchange of virtual photons" (carrier of electromagnetic force)? But then again these "virtual photons" don't exist as real particles but are only some product of the equations. He explained very simply that the magnets repel due to the same force that prohibits your hand to pass through the table but it get magnified because in iron the electrons are all spinning in the same 'direction' ( 5:29 ). But what he did before was even better. He explained that everytime you stop asking why because you are satisfied with the (simple) answer, you could always go deeper.

+TakeoFR I mean, very simply, Feynman doesn't really understand the underlying mechanism behind magnetic attraction. Also, the reason we may "go deeper" into explaining this underlying mechanism is because it is, evidently, poorly understood: there is still much which we don't know so there is still much which we don't understand. Einstein recognized this and consequently was dissatisfied with quantum mechanics overall.

fuckin magnets.

how do they work?

+dieselscience I have a slightly different take, the original verb "feeling" question was triply ambiguous, I think perhaps Feynman understood it as a multi layered deeper question, what, in the case of macroscopic magnetism, is responsible for such an action at distance? How does a particle separated by "empty" space "feel" or sense the presence of another particle, let alone the "why?" ( note the questioner actually asks Feynman both questions simultaneously). As noted he could on and on about the "how?", but in the end you would have the story that fundamental particles have intrinsic properties that are mediated by other fundamental particles, in the is case photons, which "talk" across "empty" space and allow collections of fundamental particles to have a "direction or orientation to their response to "feeling" or sensing the presence of the other collection of particles and finally their induced collective response to the other collection of other fundamental particles separated by some, now slightly changed distance. So in the end as you peel back the onion by asking why ? why ? why? ( which Feynman strongly encouraged, calling it an excellent question) you end with axiomatic conclusions, "it is just the way nature is". Because his intended audience did not likely have the background to understand the underlying "beauty " of the intellectual journey, he found it a long, winding story about nothing. His true caring and genius then shows, he asks his audience something that, for at least some portion of those listening independent of their grounding in the physical sciences,, would be a lesson with value: to question what they were seeking to understand in the first place, and more deeply how the why? and the how? could eventually lead to a collection of ideological constructs which can form the intellectual framework upon which deeper understanding of the world around us could be pursued

+Steve Bergman Your inability to understand what he is saying is not proof that he is saying nothing.

+Steve Bergman the fundamental point is that there comes a point where you just have to accept some facts as 'axioms' that have been demonstrated to be true emperically and from witch you can derive other stuff, but don't have an explanation of their own based on more fundamental principles. This was in fact what he was saying to the guy by using an analogy. In fact this is inescapable, even in the future. A theory can't contain an infinite amount of information, you can always ask why. Why does gravity exist? Because spacetime curves under the influence of mass, why does space time curve under the influence of mass? You can just keep going on and eventually you will always reach some point where you just have to accept something without being able to explain it. This applies to every theory, even a so called theory of everything will have axioms. Even mathematics has axioms, although they seem so obvious you probably won't question them. Another interesting point he made is, why do we ask why magnets attract each other but don't ask ourselves why we can sit in our chair without passing through it. I think Feynman did a very good job there, the things we assume as being self evident are not that self evident when you think about them. And the fact that both questions are intimately related, and there is only a difference in the distance involved is very interesting.

Because they do is the simplest answer. If you wish to understand his more detailed answer you will need to study physics for a couple of years.

savedfaves It's not cause they do that's ridiculous. It's because the magnents are generated and attract things to them and pull them like rubberbands

Look up Ken Wheeler. Read his book and/or follow his 100+ videos explaining it completely. He's selling nothing, just showing truth.

+Matthew W It has to do with their arrangement of electrons. They are magnetic based on their electrons.

the magnetic force on a magnet is in one direction when two magnets attract it is because both want to align their magnetic field in the same direction, when the magnets come together the result is a net sum of a bigger magnet.