[The Scientist (OP)]

Please elaborate upon explanation. Thanks!

[Foolosophy]

Please elaborate upon explanation. Thanks!

What do you mean by "rub off" ?

Could you make the nature of your question a little clearer?

Thanks

[The Scientist (OP)]

Please elaborate upon explanation. Thanks!

What do you mean by "rub off" ?

Could you make the nature of your question a little clearer?

Thanks

My apologies for a badly posed question. What I meant was how do magnets 'share' their magnetism with other magnetic objects? Thanks lots!

[Foolosophy]

Please elaborate upon explanation. Thanks!

What do you mean by "rub off" ?

Could you make the nature of your question a little clearer?

Thanks

My apologies for a badly posed question. What I meant was how do magnets 'share' their magnetism with other magnetic objects? Thanks lots!

So you are asserting that magnetism is SHARED?

And that this 'magnetic sharing' occurs only between magnetic objects??

intersting

what do you mean by a "magnetic object"?

Best wishes

Foolosophy

[The Scientist (OP)]

Please elaborate upon explanation. Thanks!

What do you mean by "rub off" ?

Could you make the nature of your question a little clearer?

Thanks

My apologies for a badly posed question. What I meant was how do magnets 'share' their magnetism with other magnetic objects? Thanks lots!

So you are asserting that magnetism is SHARED?

And that this 'magnetic sharing' occurs only between magnetic objects??

intersting

what do you mean by a "magnetic object"?

Best wishes

Foolosophy

Well Foolosophy, I can't think of a better word than magnetic objects. Perhaps it would be easier understanding objects which magnets attract. Hope it helps!

[Foolosophy]

Please elaborate upon explanation. Thanks!

What do you mean by "rub off" ?

Could you make the nature of your question a little clearer?

Thanks

My apologies for a badly posed question. What I meant was how do magnets 'share' their magnetism with other magnetic objects? Thanks lots!

So you are asserting that magnetism is SHARED?

And that this 'magnetic sharing' occurs only between magnetic objects??

intersting

what do you mean by a "magnetic object"?

Best wishes

Foolosophy

Well Foolosophy, I can't think of a better word than magnetic objects. Perhaps it would be easier understanding objects which magnets attract. Hope it helps!

Yes it does help very much

Thanks for that

Regards

Foolosophy

[yor_on]

How does a (electro)magnetic field, align with, and influence another EM-field maybe? Or are they 'particles' doing it?

All particles able to have a 'charge' can be 'magnetic' as I understands it. Electrons have a negative charge, Protons have a positive charge, Neutrons are neutral. The 'charge' in its turn is thought to interact via 'virtual particles' that are 'energy carriers'. Those exist mostly due to the Heisenberg uncertainty principle stating that if something happens in short enough a 'time', immeasurable to us, then they are allowed to 'influence' real particles. Which, by the way, if you want to define 'discrete events', and believe this 'intermission' to be one, suddenly places a 'discrete event' under Plank time.

Quite strange isn't it?

You also have 'magnetic monopoles' that seems to be 'particles' in its own right. all (most?) of those ideas builds on transformations of Maxwell's equations of Electro magnetism and a magnetic monopole is an idealized quantized particle. In 1931 Dirac showed that a discrete charge naturally "falls out" of QM. That is to say, we can maintain the form of Maxwell's equations and still have magnetic charges.

"Charge quantization  is the concept that every stable and independent object (meaning an object that can exist independently for a prolonged period of time) has a charge which is an integer multiple of the elementary charge e. Thus, e.g., a charge can be exactly 0 e, or exactly 1 e, −1 e, 2 e, etc., but not, say, 1⁄2 e, or −3.8 e, etc. (This statement must not be interpreted to include quarks or quasiparticles, since neither quarks nor quasiparticles possess the ability to exist on their own for prolonged periods of time. Quarks have charges that are integer multiples of 1⁄3 e.)

This is the reason for the terminology "elementary charge": it is meant to imply that it is an indivisible unit of charge." "

[yor_on]

What one might do here is to look at the difference between 'existing for a prolonged time' aka 'matter/(particles making invariant mass) and quarks and quasi particles. It seems as if the universe has two ways of treating reality, where we need both for existing. Take a look here for more on quarks and quasiparticles
 

[Foolosophy]

It seems as if the universe has two ways of treating reality, where we need both for existing.
 

This is a profound statement!

I would imagine that the Universe contains either ONE reality or if it is more than ONE then is would have to be INFINITE in number.

At the moment the only descriptive/predictive tool that we have that can account for the behaviour of waves/particles in the micro world is quatum mechanics/electrodynamics.

This tool is non-deterministic and stohastic in nature which explains the weird counter-intuitive conclusions that it sprouts forth.

If there is a deterministic model of the quantum/micro world, there is very good chance that soemone will uncover it in the future.

If there isn't, then we may well be stuck with the approximating nature of the stochastic based mathematical tools.

(unless of course someone comes up with something utterly novel and totally revolutionary that installs yet another paradigm shift into the scientific and philosophical journey)

[yor_on]

Infinite might be the word Foolosophy
You can look on it like I do, if you do linearity is a special condition enabling SpaceTime. That doesn't mean that what we call linearity can't 'exist' outside SpaceTime, but there it will have no 'definition'. What we call 'chaos' here, is where we can't find a linearity, but outside that there might be a state where both chaos and linearity mix into one indeterminable concept, that we probably also would define as being 'chaos' if we could see it. To me it has to do with how the 'states/transitions/emergences' express themselves. In our universe they show us a linearity, as our concept of the arrow of time shows.

So infinity might just be what we would be 'forced' to call it.
As a very wild guess that is.

But it's pretty simple to see that without the linearity we wouldn't exist.