Electrical current flows in a certain direction

...

All neutrinos obey the left hand rule. All of them.

>magnetism
>neutrinos

>Good thread OP, I have always wondered about this, why is it right hand rule not left hand rule?
Because that's the convention engineers and scientists use. It's like how we declared that current flows from high to low voltage even if that's not literally the case. The right hand rule is just a mnemonic that helps you keep track of signs.

>It's almost like everything emits a magnetic field when moving (so everything) and so when I push something forward, it's resisting me because there's so many goddamn fields in the way.

So you stopped believing in straight lines right?

It's an electro-magnetic universe you faggots. Wake up.

It's an electro--weak-strong-gravitational universe retard

>gravitational

Never say that word again.

i'm sorry, it's so weak we can just ignore it anyway, i'm sure it's not important

>Because special relativity, electrons go very fast so they feel the contraction of space, this make them feel other electrons closer and thats "magnetic" force
someone explain this better it doesnt make sense

also means that the magnetic field doesnt actually go counterclockwise around a current traveling up, if you're looking from the top? it's just "arbitrary"? i don't get that, how can the magnetic field be both

Gravity is so weak it can form extremely light gases such as helium and hydrogen into spherical balls of fire that are floating in a vacuum.

Gravity is a fucking joke.

just never compare it to any other fundamental force, the result will shock you!

Moving charges create a magnetic field.
Non moving charges do not create a magnetic field.
This was known in the 1800s.

The problem with this is:
If I move with the charges, I see no magnetic field.
But if you're just standing there watching us move, you do see a magnetic field.

This was fixed when maxwell adjusted Faradays law. But Einstein was bothered that you used different physics to explain different perspectives.

At the end of the day, the discrepancy was fixed with SR. Because SR implies no frame is at absolute rest, implying there's always a magnetic field when charge is present.

In this way, you can think of magnetic force as fictitious. Just like centrifugal forces result from the cross product of a central force and and linear force.

You "feel" the force but there isn't anything actually pulling you in that direction.

At this point, we keep the magnetic field because it is convenient.

There's no point anyway because it doesn't exist.

can someone explain WHY the right hand rule is the way it is?

why can't it be the left hand rule?

why does nature have a certain directionality to it?

are you talking about that gravity is entropy theory?
that seems to have a shitton of holes in it

that's exactly my question but nobody seems to give me any straight answer for it

it's just a convention, see

It becomes somewhat obvious when you sit down and do the math. The specific form of the Lorentz force, for example, can be derived through special relativity: cds.cern.ch/record/630753/files/0307133.pdf

The pivotal point is that it's a direct result of an underlying rotational symmetry.

this is not an adequate answer. why has the universe chosen a magnetic field to point in a certain direction when electrons flow in a certain direction?

Holy shit this question has already been answered.

It's the convention. See

>it's the convention

Isn't there an IQ thread you can shitpost in?

Yep. That's the case. You're the one asking asinine questions.

no, you are misunderstanding it.
magnetic fields are the relativistic lorentz transformations of electric fields

The magnetic field is caused by the rotating stars above us.

ur moms tongue is the relativistic lorentz transformation of the rim of my asshole

Wwe have a winrar

pmuch

>everything is not one thing only, no it's 4 "forces" and dozens of indivisible particles. Why would the universe work in the most efficient way possible. There's no way that gravity could be "incoherent magnetism" from the spinning core(s) of the planet or anything. It's not like magnetism affects every material on the planet or anything.

There is no such thing as "no charge". There is charge and discharge.

>In this way, you can think of magnetic force as fictitious. Just like centrifugal forces result from the cross product of a central force and and linear force.

You're right, they are an effect not a cause.

>There's no way that gravity could be "incoherent magnetism" from the spinning core(s) of the planet or anything
what about the moon, or mars, or asteroids, guess they all have spinning cores now to account for the gravity
>Why would the universe work in the most efficient way possible
why would it follow your definition of "efficient"?
we still haven't discovered all the fundamental rules of the universe, but i'd say that SU(3)×SU(2)×U(1) symmetries are simple and pretty and explain a lot more than whatever shit you believe

>What about the moon, or mars, or asteroids, guess they all have spinning cores now to account for the gravity.

Hmm, well they don't actually spin themselves so they can't attract things very well can they? That's why they rely on the power of other things spinning to keep them orbiting. The asteroids are in an equilibrium state to rotate around the sun. The moon orbits us and in turn, churns our core more and gives us more precession. It also wobbles our orbit around the sun. Then the sun orbits the milkyway, then the milky way orbits (insert spinning thing here, ad infinitum). they rely on the spin of other

>math and human models
Neat. Universe doesn't know what that shit is. It likes ratios though.

>why would it follow your definition of "efficient"?

Neither created not destroyed. The law of thermodynamics itself. Why would something come from nothing? Why would something go back into nothing? Would you care to tell me how that is even possible?

>math and human models are bad
i'm sure you know everything though, what the universe likes, its dislikes, its dreams and wishes
you should write this down, make a revolution in science

>everything is not one thing only, no it's 4 "forces" and dozens of indivisible particles
I hope you're not talking about mesons, those are all made of only 18 different types of quarks

>that's like a world where (...)
lemme guess, you're one of those people who doesn't understands you just can't make analogies between random things?

>i'm sure you know everything though, what the universe likes, its dislikes, its dreams and wishes
you should write this down, make a revolution in science

I'm not using human contrived measurements to understand how the universe works. It's dogs barking at the wind. The best word anyone can use is "change" because there is really no other way of defining what the first cause actually is and what type or "power" it is. No matter what branch of science you belong to, all you have to go on is observations. Let's break it down in the most logical manner we can

I am the universe, I need to create "change". But wait, if I needed to create it, that implies it never was to begin with. How do you create something with nothing? Even with our primitive level of thinking we don't even need to bring math to the table to answer this question. There is absolutely no argument you're going to conjure up to counter the statement;
Nothing, does NOT create something. The best you have is "but what if it can" which resorts back to nothing but the same circular reasoning.

I am the universe, I need to create an "end". Why I don't know, perhaps it is because I am out of energy because I was too stupid not to just recycle the same energy. There is no "end". How do you define an end when you can't even find a "0" in the fucking system you're looking in? "Well we ALMOST created absolute zero", "well we ALMOST found a particle with no spin". I want a fucking "0" because then you can prove the universe has the capability to halt itself, which it can't because using the previous and logic conclusion:
>it had no beginning

So if it had no begging then it is already infinite, or at least still "growing" with no end to be seen. And it makes sense. Going by what you see in nature, things in nature recycle. Plants, animals, everything recycles by reproduction, then "dies" but "death" is just turning into another more form.

>well we ALMOST found a particle with no spin
we did absolutely find that, sit down autist

No autist, all you found was that the standard model of particle physics is wrong.

>predicts particle with certain properties in the 1960's
>finds particle with all the predicted properties
>must mean the theory is wrong

AHAHAHAHAHAHAA.

>he honestly believes that they found the Higgs Boson

They can't even properly define what a "field" is and you expect me to believe that they found a "no spin" particle. Wait till they develop a more accurate "particle smasher".

i'm sure your fringe pet theories will get validated, then you'll show us all!

Actually, there is another right hand for measuring the force from the magnetic field. So if you used a left-handed system you'd end up with magnetic fields pointing the other way but the force would be in the same direction.

The direction of magnetic fields is purely convention.

Look, I like sci-fi as much as the next guy, but please could you tone it down a bit? This is a science board, might be more your thing.

Ooh, Ooh, are we doing fringe pet theories? Because I have a fringe pet theory!
Okay so, first we assume that prior to the 'big bang' (or whatever you want to call it) there was no energy and no matter in the universe, or rather, there was no energy or matter in the area that would become the universe.
Next we assume that after the 'big bang', the opposite is true and there is just fuckloads of energy and matter all over the joint.
The question then, is how did we go from no energy or matter whatsoever to some amount of energy and and matter. Many people here seem to assume it was just 'created' somehow (possibly by the big bang itself) but I would like to propose something different.
we already know that there are several different types of energy, when you hold a ball up in the air and then drop it, gravity acts on that ball and turns the potential energy it gained though you lifting it up into kinetic energy - causing it to fall down. My pet theory is that the very existence of energy (and by extension, matter) can operate in a similar fashion.
In other words, prior to the big bang, all the energy (and matter) in the universe existed as a sort of "potential universe" and that the 'big bang' caused it to begin transforming into "real" energy (and then matter). While I have absolutely no maths to back this up I think its a neat model as it explains how the expansion of the universe is powered (through the continuous transformation of more "potential universe" into real universe) and even where all the energy lost to entropy is going (its turning back into "potential universe")
Since this is nothing more than a pet crackpot theory and thus open to baseless speculation, I further posit that the transition from "potential" to "real" universe is actually part of a gigantic, universe wide oscillation with all energy (and matter) in the universe constantly changing back and forth between the two, just over an inconceivably huge timeframe.

That is exactly what I just said without using the words "prior to" and "big bang". It is a constant fight between inertia and the loss of inertia and this creates infinite change. This is why it never started nor began. There was no "big bang" or "before bigbang", more so the "bigbang" is actually just inertia.
>we already know that there are several different types of energy, when you hold a ball up in the air and then drop it, gravity acts on that ball and turns the potential energy it gained though you lifting it up into kinetic energy - causing it to fall down.

You can lift the ball up and drop it back down, but it never stops moving. You cannot give nor take away more potential than it already has, you can mediate and disperse it's effects though.

>That is exactly what I just said
I'm afraid it isn't my friend. Inertia has nothing to do with my pet crackpot model and I explicitly mention a "time" prior to the big bang.

No the magnetic field does actually have a direction, up to sign, and you can directly measure it by moving a charged particle along the lines of the magnetic field. Because the velocity vector of the particle and the magnetic field (pseudo)vector are parallel, the resulting force is zero. If you moved the particle in a direction not perfectly parallel to the magnetic field it would experience a force. That is why we can say that the line integral around a closed path is proportional (minus a few correcting terms from GR) to the flux of the current through the surface bounded by that curve.