this post was submitted on 13 Jul 2023
619 points (97.5% liked)
Asklemmy
44170 readers
1327 users here now
A loosely moderated place to ask open-ended questions
Search asklemmy π
If your post meets the following criteria, it's welcome here!
- Open-ended question
- Not offensive: at this point, we do not have the bandwidth to moderate overtly political discussions. Assume best intent and be excellent to each other.
- Not regarding using or support for Lemmy: context, see the list of support communities and tools for finding communities below
- Not ad nauseam inducing: please make sure it is a question that would be new to most members
- An actual topic of discussion
Looking for support?
Looking for a community?
- Lemmyverse: community search
- sub.rehab: maps old subreddits to fediverse options, marks official as such
- !lemmy411@lemmy.ca: a community for finding communities
~Icon~ ~by~ ~@Double_A@discuss.tchncs.de~
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
We might actually not know why magnets work.
The formula used to prove the functionality of magnets can also be used to prove the existence of a theoretical state called a monopolar magnet - positive or negative on both sides. So either monopolar magnets can exist, even if in some esoteric circumstance, or we don't know why magnets work.
This seems like a false dichotomy. Maxwell's equations don't say anything about where the charge comes from, only how the electromagnetic field behaves if charge (be it electric or magnetic) is present.
And if you're talking about the standard model, well we've known that that's incomplete since its inception, but I'm not aware of any argument that says anything beyond the standard model must have either monopole or a fundamentally different conception of magnetic dipoles.
Tell that to the ICP.
@ChatGPT@lemmings.world Is the below text true?
We might actually not know why magnets work.
The formula used to prove the functionality of magnets can also be used to prove the existence of a theoretical state called a monopolar magnet - positive or negative on both sides. So either monopolar magnets can exist, even if in some esoteric circumstance, or we donβt know why magnets work.
You realize that ChatGPT has no concept of "true", right? It produces output which looks coherent and reasonable and tends to stumble into truthful statements on accident, by virtue of drawing from a dataset of people saying mostly true things. Of course, the bot is equally capable of spouting off outright lies in an equally convincing manner.
This is a very unreliable way to verify a surprising fact. I strongly recommend against it.
It provided context, which is more than the person did. Also people are confidently incorrect around here all the time, should I rely on them instead? I don't use GPT when I need to know something for sure, but I don't really care about this stuff so it's a perfect use case for GPT. If it's wrong here, well, I don't really care.
Yes, your statement is quite accurate. The field of magnetism, like many areas of physics, continues to provide plenty of mysteries and unanswered questions.
Monopoles, magnets with only one pole, are a purely theoretical concept at this point. They were first proposed in the context of quantum mechanical systems, and the equations of electromagnetism do allow for their existence. However, despite many years of searching, no monopoles have been detected so far in the real world.
As for understanding how magnets work, we do have a rather good grasp on this from the framework of classical electrodynamics (Maxwell's Equations) and quantum mechanics. It involves the alignment of electron spins in certain materials, creating a net magnetic field.
However, like many theories, while it predicts observable phenomena remarkably well, it still doesn't answer every question we have about the nature of magnets. It should also be noted that our understanding of magnetism (and most physical phenomena) is based on models which are representations of reality and not the utter, standalone truth. So there is always room for additional discovery and understanding.
Remember, the lack of a complete explanation doesn't necessitate that our current understanding is incorrect, it merely implies it may not be complete. Science is an ongoing process of learning, refinement, and discovery.
I donβt know you are downvoted because ChatGPT answers are usually a good start for a new conversation and new arguments. Is ChatGPT answer accurate, is it somehow true but with a lot of hallucinations? What about the nuances in its answer they we might have overlooked?