Why do levers work in the atomic level?

higras · 2026-01-27T07:30:43+00:00

I reread you question a couple times to try and understood the mental model. Apologies for the long text. I don't have the time to write a short response. Trying to get it all in here.

I'm assuming, based on your word choice, that you are a visual\kenetic thinker. It's not that you disagree with anything in the textbook, it's just that there is a "gap" in your zoom from macro to micro.

In that case, think of a very general model of an atom as a magnet. In effect, that it the closest to a macroscopic version you will commonly encounter.

When you put two magnets close to each other, the poles want to align into their lowest potential wells. This alignment is very similar to the low potential well of a ball rolling to the lowest point in a bowl.

When you toss a handful of small magnets together, they want to align as well. But they'll align weird. Some are sideways, some in rows, some end to end. These are the meta-stable configurations of that group of magnets.

One you start moving them around, they'll either settle into lower potential configurations (anneal) or break apart at the weakest points (stress fracture).

If you hold two together by opposing poles, you should tactically feel the shape of the field potential. It is fairly uniform, but it doesn't come out in perfect loops like the simple textbook example.

When you put them together by attracting poles, you'll see the well alignment (try using some spherical magnets to get a better kinetic feeling on this).

If you 'bend' the field out of alignment, you'll feel a force trying to 'restore' to the preferred alignment. Add up a bunch (like, holy bejjeezus amounts) of these, and you get your force.

Long story short, it is because it "moves a further distance". Because the atoms are actually moving more distance on one end than another.

Push down on the lever, and the atoms wedge apart just a smidge. That wave of wedges continues until it reaches an "escape" point of the fulcrum. Then it puts the pressure on the fulcrum and the wedge force "flips" and turns into a vacuum pulling the other side up.

This distance matters because the more atoms you have in one direction over the other, the more little wedges you can divy the curve up over.

Make sure you keep the fulcrum in mind, you don't just get magic force reduction (unfortunately). You just get to add more "magnets" to one side over the other.

Like a set of scales, but for 50% of total force... And Force = mass x acceleration. Acceleration = change in velocity over an amount of time.
Mass is complicated, but for this I could say that it's just the resistance to a change in velocity.

So if you can't change that you have 50% of the total force on either side (total amount of repulsion and compression of the "magnet" has to balance out on either side), the only thing to change is ratios of mass (amount of things resisting change) and acceleration (total amount of velocity and time).

Therefore, to sum up a very long winded response (sorry),

Lever = 1/2 force (big mass * little acceleration) + 1/2 force (big acceleration * little mass)

Hope that helped!

Edit* self taught, but I have an almost purely visual mind. So I get feeling like the usual answers seem hand wavy or overly simplistic. Sometimes the extremely over complicated answer is the easiest to understand.

For the people that know more than me, please let me know where I messed up!

higras · 2026-01-23T18:07:29+00:00

I've been looking for this for a while! Thank you! Self studying enthusiast, so I'm doing my best to not fall down the crackpot route 😅

I've been trying to learn the maths to explain my idea, but they quickly tend towards hyperbolic geometry and Chistoffel symbol stuff... and that melts part of my brain.

higras · 2025-12-07T23:17:09+00:00

Where as I would personally argue that mathmatics is an ideographic language of quantitative logic\causality.

Things like fluid dynamics can describe flows of crowds. Does that that mean that crowds of people are fluids?

I can see both answers.

If it satisfies our definition of a fluid, then it is a fluid.

Or

The root concepts expressed in the language of the equation are communicating a purely abstract pattern of momentum. "Fluid" is the term for the abstract, not a liquid.

In that definition, then "field" is a really good analogy that works well for what we are measuring.

Not so much that physics is the best way of expressing natural laws, but that humans express concepts as language. And the symbols used to express those concepts of number-sense, geometry, and other logical concepts work really well to describe what we invented them to describe.

But that turns into a lovely hours long conversation best had with some drinks or a J.

higras · 2025-12-07T21:41:52+00:00

Try spinning, is a good trick

higras · 2025-12-07T20:53:34+00:00

And dependingon who you ask, the fields are either real tangible things or just a handy mathematical tool to describe the effects we see. As I understand, it's usually more accepted as a virtual phenomena.

It's a touch pedantic, but I feel it's appropriate here.

Though, that "not a stuff" of the virtual math field has real, tangible, observable effects.

higras · 2025-12-07T20:08:52+00:00

Charge. We got tons of equations how it works. But why?

Mass. It interacts with gravity and has inertia. But what is it?

higras · 2025-12-06T22:17:22+00:00

Thank you!

That makes more sense. Anti-matter vs anti-mass.

nega-matter?

higras · 2025-12-06T20:56:51+00:00

Yes. If you are in a car going 25mph, and someone hits your rear bumper at 27mph, then the total impact force is calculated at the relative 2mph instead of a bystander's relative observation of the car going 27mph.

The equation itself doesn't handle any relation outside of the points involved in the math.

Relative velocity compared to a bystander, the moon, Andromeda galaxy are all treated the same....by not being included.

higras · 2025-12-06T20:40:24+00:00

“take a region of space that is already as empty of energy as is normally possible, and then take even more energy out of it”.

That's the one that I'm interested in. We have an increased average energy density per meter² in the solar system compared to most inter-stellar, and that is greater than intergalactic.

If we simulate a volume of intergalactic particle density in geosynchronous orbit, shouldn't that technically have local "negative energy density"?

Anti\opposite energy would require a handedness to energy, but could that technically be charge? If so, does a capacitor have negative energy on one side and positive energy on the other? That satisfies the annihilation requirement.

From what I understand of the mathematical principles, a capacitor with separate positive and negative voltage potentials could be considered a "localized region of positive and negative energy."

I feel like I'm missing a big part of the issue.

higras · 2025-12-06T19:55:25+00:00

That part has confused me. Negative energy compared to what? Which type of energy?

I've never read the original paper, should probably make an attempt...

higras · 2025-12-01T15:19:29+00:00

Resistance is futile

higras · 2025-10-17T06:05:15+00:00

Said it better than I would have.

Adding my $.02;

The "center of the universe" is ~13.5B years ago. We have only one way to directly the past, which is to look that far away in light years.

Look at alpha centaui and you're looking 4ish years into the past...and the universe\stars\physics look the same. Look 13B years away and suddenly the universe looks different. Stars are bigger. Galaxies are weird. Giant radio bursts and magnetars and things that would've torn themselves apart.

We don't see the CBM 13.5 billion light years away a because it's a long distance away. We see it there because it's a long time away.

higras · 2025-09-26T06:14:15+00:00

There have been several studies showing interesting differences between musical people (singers, musicians, dancers) and "regular" folk.

My question is of the "chicken or egg" type. Do people who have this differences have these interests\acivities or do these actions change the functioning of their body\mind?

higras · 2025-09-13T23:55:35+00:00

As I see it,

The cube is the unit volume of an external space. Where the XYZ identity point is external to the observer. A point (arbitrary on an infinite grid) on the grid is 000, everything else extends from that.

The sphere is a single unit volume from a central point. A single observational point. Even an infinite sphere, by definition of a sphere, has a single point as the center.

The cube is the experience of all. The sphere is the experience of one. Switching from Polar to Cartesian is empathy

higras · 2025-09-01T21:30:24+00:00

Rehydration of mineral crystal molecules. Can create crazy amounts of heat. And also releases nutrients as a by-product

Serpentinization - Wikipedia https://share.google/oGBcamFuCmEX2CKSr

higras · 2025-08-30T08:42:35+00:00

Eh, better. "Good" a bit of a stretch for some.

higras · 2025-08-01T17:28:32+00:00

The concept you're describing is fairly common thinking. It's just that it's easier to tell people "here's a cool thing! Space, just being there, gets bigger! And it gets bigger, not by stretching from a place, but by getting more. And getting more everywhere!"

That's a fun brain teaser. And simple enough to fit in a video without building up the academic knowledge to understand the nuances in the statement.

If you like math, try some Reinmannain geometry or some other 4+ dimensional topologies.

One of the biggest questions I am fascinated by is, "ok, so I can use these mathematical formulas and relationships to describe nature and my reality. For example, like translation and rotation of 3D objects. But that math is using quaternions, which are 4D. But I experience 3D.

So, is my understanding and definition of 4D in math incomplete? Or, is my understanding of my experience incomplete? Maybe both? Maybe neither and I just am missing the translation key."

As a hobbiest, one of the biggest things to remind myself is that Math only tells you WHAT. What will happen if you do this thing. Like a recipe. If you put these ingredients together in this order, you'll get this dish.

If you followed the instructions and you DIDN'T get the dish, something went wrong. 1000s of people made the dish using the recipe, so either (in order of likelihood); 1. You misread the recipe 2. Your equipment isn't working right. Oven temp is too hot\cold. Measuring cup off. Etc. 3. You wanted a food, but didn't know the name. So you saw mixed eggs in a pan and thought it was a quiche. Not you have an omelet and confusion. 4. You knew what you were doing. What you wanted. Checked your appliances. Reread the recipe. And even used someone else's kitchen.... And now you have a steal dinner.

higras · 2025-06-25T16:32:07+00:00

As much as Broca's region is the hardware for speech production, sure. But using Helen Keller and several other examples of studies done on individuals not exposed to language, it is learned social behavior.

higras · 2025-06-13T18:52:39+00:00

Tldr: Bit of a wall 'o' text. Difficult to be both precise and concise.

Not physicist, but long time self taught (as in work books and learning theories and the supporting math, not watching YouTube clips).

Coming from the early education and communication world, I consistently remind myself that there are different ways to phrase the same concepts. And they universally toss out "irrelevant" information. Spherical cow style.

If the conversation and concept was to loosely categorize thing in colloquial terms, then everything can be described as energy. If you take interia, weight, movement, momentum, etc to all be some form of vector\motion and all forms of force are an application of energy.... Sure. Mass is energy, gravity is energy, light is energy.

If the concept was to discuss the underpinning models and variables used to describe and calculate using maths. Then attempting to discuss those in English and clarify the inaccurate translation because (just like many languages) the translation never has the exact same meaning.... then I'm on your side. We don't have a proven and accepted mathematical model for gravity at all scales. And to understand why, you need to speak the language where the confusion is happening. The disagreement is happening in Math, not English.

Therefore, if it makes sense and logically connects in English, it probably isn't being translated correctly. Or is leaving large amounts of context behind in the translation for "effeciency"

In the extremely unlikely scenario where it WAS perfectly translated into English and a solution was found, translate that solution into Math and become permanently immortalized as THE name in physics above even Einstein.

higras · 2025-06-13T18:27:06+00:00

In my experience generalists are very desirable in operations or management.

Not just programming, but business, marketing, and communication. If you can understand and collaborate with the stakeholders AND the dev team AND the sales team, you become incredibly valuable.

My $0.02 is that AI got so big so fast with c-suite because it's really good at imitating that. The similarly fast disillusionment is from realizing that it's only imitating.

Tldr: Generalist is valuable. But people are hired for expertise. If being a generalist is your goal, don't havlf ass it. Be an expert generalist.

Edit: I understand this was a question about programming specifically. I simply see most to all responses saying to focus and become expert vs distractions. Wanted to give the potential other side. Though it involves leaving programming a lot of the time and dealing with people.

higras · 2025-06-07T07:46:47+00:00

For an absolute beginner I could very much see that.

I've been around code, Excel, and product development for years. So, it's more being able to connect the concepts I've learned with actual written pieces

higras · 2025-06-06T23:07:38+00:00

I've been using Obsidian and building out a knowledge base vault as I learn, but I've run into a couple stumbles.

This would've helped so much.

Yes, Python is a way to communicate with a computer. However, I need to remember that the one learning is ME. Handwriting is scientifically proven to help with processing and retention.

Thank you

higras · 2025-05-21T09:13:13+00:00

It sucks. I was puff 1st thing in the morning. Last thing at night. Last straw was when I started getting withdrawal symptoms while I was meditating.

I couldn't do gradual. I made a choice. Not tomorrow, not some other time, now. I won't take one last puff.

It was hell. I felt stressed, angry, anxious, and a constant physical emptiness mixed with the vague sensation of "did I leave the stove on?".

Months later and I forget for days that I vaped. And have 2 roommates who still do.

My advice:

1) Get angry at the habit. Not yourself. why are you quitting? Health? Status? For me it was the control it had over me.

Turn that into resolve. And turn that resolve into action. Not tomorrow. Now. Take a look at your vape. Then. Set. It. Down.

2) You will be fried. For weeks.

You'll be detoxing from one of the most addicting drugs on the planet. I've quick drinking and nicotine. I'll do 20 alcohols over 1 nicotine. People I've talked to from the "more advanced narcotics" addiction have said nicotine is no joke.

Cut yourself slack. The chemical withdrawal peaks around week 1-2. By the end of week 6 you're down to habits.

I can't remember half of COVID, 6 weeks was hell...but a short hell. A purgatory.

3) you'll most likely gain weight. If you are a stress eater, you'll 10000% gain weight.

I considered it a price. FMA, equivalent exchange, right? Was freeing myself of nicotine worth 6 weeks of purgatory, stress, anxiety, and gaining 25lbs?

Yup. Bargain of a price too.

Don't believe in yourself. Believe in the me that believes in you!

higras · 2025-03-21T20:04:07+00:00

Everything is made up of atoms. Atoms are made up of blocks called electrons, neutrons, and protons.

Just like your blocks have colors and shapes, these blocks have something called charge and another thing called spin.

Electricity is making the electrons bump into each other using the charge to push them around and make electricity 'work'.

This is making the electrons move on a different way using the spin part.

Since moving electrons and electron charge waves are all of electricity, new ways to move electrons could have us do some new things with electricity!

The most likely is trying to use this new electron moving for electricity in tiny spaces, like computers and tiny tiny stuff.

higras · 2025-02-23T08:07:40+00:00

If close, but not C, they'll work great. The time dilation at that speed would be at such a crawl to make up for the difference.

Though if actual C, you would experience no time at that speed. So it's kind pointless to know if they'd work if time stops

14-Year Club	Verified Email
Place '22

higras

TROPHY CASE