5 ms·
I don't think I have to explain (though the first explanation that comes to mind is that you were familiar enough with the location to have a pretty good idea o
by caf 9y ago
I don't think I have to explain (though the first explanation that comes to mind is that you were familiar enough with the location to have a pretty good idea of approximately which direction you were facing).
The point is that magnetic field lines are a convenient diagrammatic tool, but don't have a direct correspondence to any physical reality. It's just like the way we sometimes draw electromagnetic radiation as a sine wave, but try as you might you won't ever observe little squiggly sine waves in physical reality.
- snissn 9y ago> The point is that magnetic field lines are a convenient diagrammatic tool, but don't have a direct correspondence to any physical reality. Magnetic field lines correspond as much to physical reality as anything possibly can. https://physics.stackexchange.com/a/80913 https://physics.stackexchange.com/a/80913 Also here's a trippy video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rUZsojDdEbE https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rUZsojDdEbE
- caf 9y agoThere's a vector field, but it's continuous - you can't point to two points in space and say "a field line passes through this one, but not this one".
- snissn 9y agoYou can point to points in space and say that the scalar value of their vector field is the same or different, and say whether or not there is a continuous path of scalar value sameness between them.
- werdnapk 9y agoIron filings do a pretty good job of showing us "lines" in physical reality.
- colemannugent 9y agoThe iron filings actually concentrate the field, which leads to a bit of an avalanche effect as the concentrated field attracts more filings towards it that creates the lines. Those lines are entirely conceptual.
- mkempe 9y agoIf you see these lines in the iron filings, they are perceived, i.e. perceptual-level evidence not conceptual.