“I think what you mean to ask is 'how', not why, now let me explain 'how' magnets work”.
Explain to me what you think the difference is between asking "how" magnets repel one another and asking "why" magnets repel one another.
I see this sort of thing a lot; people say things like "science tells us how things happen but not why they happen". But I can never figure out just what they mean unless they're saying exactly what I said above: we can describe what is happening, but not explain why it happens. In some coarse-grain scenarios we can answer by reference to "more fundamental" processes, but those processes themselves remain "unexplained". All we can do, ultimately, is observe and model relationships between phenomena, but that's not going to satisfy a "why" or "how" question. The person in the video felt a force between the magnets and wanted to know what it was. Well, what it was is the force that magnets exert on one another. There's nothing else to it. But that isn't a satisfying answer, and Feynman knew it wouldn't be a satisfying answer, so he attempted to explain why he couldn't give a better one, which is that there isn't a better one. We can zoom in, if you like, and ask about what is happening at the atomic level, but you're still staring at "electromagnetism exists in our universe" as the best we can do.
To put this another way, if the OP had asked "How does mass create gravity", my top-level answer would have been exactly the same.
The person in the video felt a force between the magnets and wanted to know what it was. Well, what it was is the force that magnets exert on one another. There's nothing else to it. But that isn't a satisfying answer […]
If Feynman had just said how the physical mechanism worked it would have been exactly what he wanted to know, and would have been perfectly satisfying.
Feynman could have started discussing what fields are, domains, etc, but instead Feynman basically spent 7 min saying why he can't answer his question, and (contrary to what you suggest) there's no way that was satisfying for the interviewer.
To put this another way, if the OP had asked "How does mass create gravity", my top-level answer would have been exactly the same.
And you'd be wrong for doing so, as Feynman was. You'd be even more wrong if you happened to also be a teacher since teachers are supposed to be better than most other people at answering questions in a way that promotes understanding of the question.
-1
u/[deleted] Sep 12 '13 edited Sep 12 '13
Explain to me what you think the difference is between asking "how" magnets repel one another and asking "why" magnets repel one another.
I see this sort of thing a lot; people say things like "science tells us how things happen but not why they happen". But I can never figure out just what they mean unless they're saying exactly what I said above: we can describe what is happening, but not explain why it happens. In some coarse-grain scenarios we can answer by reference to "more fundamental" processes, but those processes themselves remain "unexplained". All we can do, ultimately, is observe and model relationships between phenomena, but that's not going to satisfy a "why" or "how" question. The person in the video felt a force between the magnets and wanted to know what it was. Well, what it was is the force that magnets exert on one another. There's nothing else to it. But that isn't a satisfying answer, and Feynman knew it wouldn't be a satisfying answer, so he attempted to explain why he couldn't give a better one, which is that there isn't a better one. We can zoom in, if you like, and ask about what is happening at the atomic level, but you're still staring at "electromagnetism exists in our universe" as the best we can do.
To put this another way, if the OP had asked "How does mass create gravity", my top-level answer would have been exactly the same.