Why a permanent magnet does not lose magnetism when magnetizeing iron/ferrite

[conradelektro]

When you hook up your clothings for the night, is it energy that keeps them hanging there over night, or is it a counterforce that keeps them there?
So many confuse force with energy. As long the magnet sticks to the fridge, and do not move, work is not done, nor any energy involved 

In other words : does magnetization require energy to be spent ? I believe, yes and I believe it needs it continuously to fight against gravity.

I believe yes,there is the need of energy to become two materials bonded,up this moment there is no more need to spend energy (closed magnetic cycle)

These questions and answers point to a real mystery according to my unimportant opinion.

Similar situations can be found in the atom. Does spinning the electron around the nucleus require energy? Does holding the protons and neutrons together in the core require energy? Also, does keeping the earth in the orbit around the sun require energy? Or does it require energy to hold objects together which have the opposite charge?

I probably read all the standard answers in the scientific literature, but I am not satisfied. It all sounds to me like a circular argument (like the argumentative proofs that god exists). Yes, I seem to know the difference between energy and force, but still.

It is the question, whether keeping up a field (magnetic field, electric field, gravity, week and strong nuclear field) requires energy?

There are some speculations that the energy to keep up the known fields comes from the "zero point energy" (whatever that is https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zero-point_energy).

If you go down to the very small (quarks, gluons) the question arises, is there something tangible? The answer seems to be that quarks come and go, are only there a fraction of time. Well, does it require energy to create and to destroy quarks many times per second?

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/blogs/physics/2014/11/what-is-the-shape-of-a-proton/
http://www.desy.de/news/news_search/index_eng.html?openDirectAnchor=829

Citation: Instead of a marble, it seems, a proton is a kind of "stew": the up and down valence quarks are like the biggest chunks, but other ingredients combine to produce the total flavour. Those ingredients include gluons—particles that act as a binding "broth"—along with pairs of quarks and antiquarks. Antiquarks are the antimatter partners to quarks, so they don't pair stably with their matter counterparts. Nevertheless, in the high-energy environment inside a proton, they are constantly created and destroyed along with their partners, in a process that contributes to the total behaviour of a proton.

Generally speaking, nothing is there all the time, everything comes and goes many times per second (very crudely put). Fortunately, everything comes and goes at different instances, therefore we have the impression that something is there all the time (again very crudely put).

I hope you are confused enough to see a mystery. Not only is the keeping up of fields a mystery, the existence of everything (quarks) seems to be hazy.

I think that the answer (which has not yet been found) is in the very small (subatomic realm) and in the very big (cosmological scale). Something very big (on a cosmological scale) provides energy for the very small (keeping up of fields, creation and destruction of quarks).

Greetings, Conrad

[Low-Q]

These questions and answers point to a real mystery according to my unimportant opinion.

Similar situations can be found in the atom. Does spinning the electron around the nucleus require energy? Does holding the protons and neutrons together in the core require energy? Also, does keeping the earth in the orbit around the sun require energy? Or does it require energy to hold objects together which have the opposite charge?

I probably read all the standard answers in the scientific literature, but I am not satisfied. It all sounds to me like a circular argument (like the argumentative proofs that god exists). Yes, I seem to know the difference between energy and force, but still.

It is the question, whether keeping up a field (magnetic field, electric field, gravity, week and strong nuclear field) requires energy?

There are some speculations that the energy to keep up the known fields comes from the "zero point energy" (whatever that is https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zero-point_energy).

If you go down to the very small (quarks, gluons) the question arises, is there something tangible? The answer seems to be that quarks come and go, are only there a fraction of time. Well, does it require energy to create and to destroy quarks many times per second?

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/blogs/physics/2014/11/what-is-the-shape-of-a-proton/
http://www.desy.de/news/news_search/index_eng.html?openDirectAnchor=829

Citation: Instead of a marble, it seems, a proton is a kind of "stew": the up and down valence quarks are like the biggest chunks, but other ingredients combine to produce the total flavour. Those ingredients include gluons—particles that act as a binding "broth"—along with pairs of quarks and antiquarks. Antiquarks are the antimatter partners to quarks, so they don't pair stably with their matter counterparts. Nevertheless, in the high-energy environment inside a proton, they are constantly created and destroyed along with their partners, in a process that contributes to the total behaviour of a proton.

Generally speaking, nothing is there all the time, everything comes and goes many times per second (very crudely put). Fortunately, everything comes and goes at different instances, therefore we have the impression that something is there all the time (again very crudely put).

I hope you are confused enough to see a mystery. Not only is the keeping up of fields a mystery, the existence of everything (quarks) seems to be hazy.

I think that the answer (which has not yet been found) is in the very small (subatomic realm) and in the very big (cosmological scale). Something very big (on a cosmological scale) provides energy for the very small (keeping up of fields, creation and destruction of quarks).

Greetings, Conrad

To answer the question "It is the question, whether keeping up a field ([/font]magnetic field, electric field, gravity, week and strong nuclear field) requires energy?"[/font]
Yes, it requires energy to keep up a magnetic field. I do not know the answer to the other. This energy comes ultimately from the sun. Heat is the reason why electrons spins around its nucleus. If you remove all heat, and the magnet drops in temperature to 0K, the magnet does not longer act like a magnet.You can cool down a magnet with the cooling spray that holds approx -50°C, and the magnet is so weak that even a neodymium magnet can't stick to the fridge door. When the temperature increase, the magnetism comes back.
You can also heat up the magnet untill it reach the Curie-temperature. The actions in the electrons will then be so violent that the order will collaps and never be able to recover. This is almost equivalent to a pile of nails. You can order them in upright position so all nails point vertically. Then you can see how much you have to shake the table before everyone falls back in a chaotic pile of nails.


Beside of this you're into something we call string theory I guess. But be careful to put the label "God" to everything you don't understand. I'm sure there is a rational explanation to everything. "God" is just an excuse to not digg deeper into physics and its inner workings.


Vidar

[lancaIV]

                                                                                       in-? off-? topic
https://translate.google.de/translate?sl=de&tl=en&js=y&prev=_t&hl=de&ie=UTF-8&u=https%3A%2F%2Fworldwide.espacenet.com%2FpublicationDetails%2Fbiblio%3FDB%3DEPODOC%26II%3D19%26ND%3D3%26adjacent%3Dtrue%26locale%3Den_EP%26FT%3DD%26date%3D19770825%26CC%3DDE%26NR%3D2644927A1%26KC%3DA1&edit-text=
   
(uups,I see and read a really bad machine translation !)


but epo.org own translator is not better,cause by bad original paper description to e-copie transduction
http://translationportal.epo.org/emtp/translate/?ACTION=description-retrieval&COUNTRY=DE&ENGINE=google&FORMAT=docdb&KIND=A1&LOCALE=en_EP&NUMBER=2644927&OPS=ops.epo.org/3.1&SRCLANG=de&TRGLANG=en

                                       reverse method (not from the translation,from the magnet treating !) ?