Sorry if this is in the wrong topic, feel free to move it if need be.

Ok, let's discuss magnets. Most of this everyone will know, but I'll start at the beginning so newbies can come up to speed.

Magnetism is a purely quantum mechanical phenomenon. Classical physics cannot account for diamagnetism (and hence cannot describe the underlying mechanics of the existence of invariant-mass matter), as Niels Henrik David Bohr showed in his doctoral dissertation in 1911, which is known today as the Bohr-van Leeuwen theorem.

THE TINIEST MAGNETS IN THE UNIVERSE

----------

First, we'll discuss the tiniest (electro)magnet in the universe... the electron. A bound electron being a point charge undergoing (angular) acceleration (the two requirements for the emission of virtual photons, known as Larmor radiation... which manifests as a magnetic field), bound electrons produce a magnetic field having a magnetic moment along the axis of rotation.

The spin of electrons (free or bound) also produces a magnetic moment along the spin axis (and in fact, the primary contribution to the bulk magnetic field of a permanent magnet is due to electron spin), so even free electrons emit Larmor radiation, but we'll stick with bound electrons because they reveal some very important details about how the universe works.

Now, quite obviously, the emission of virtual photons means that a bound electron is constantly emitting energy (photons being force-carrying bosons which mediate the EM fundamental force). How does the bound electron avoid 'spiraling in' to the oppositely-charged proton(s) in the nucleus of the atom to which the electron is bound? It obtains energy from the non-zero expectation value of the quantum vacuum.

In particle physics, any dipole (as is a magnet) is a broken symmetry in virtual energy exchange between the quantum vacuum and the charge(s) forming the dipole. Thus quantum physics classifies magnetism as a pseudovector to ensure that electromagnetism does not violate parity symmetry under reflection . I'll discuss this further below.

It should be noted that some physicists consider a bound electron in its ground-state orbit to be in a 'net zero emission' state... but that's tricky-wording the issue. The word 'net' implies that emission is perfectly balanced by absorption of energy, which is what Boyer et. al. showed all the way back in 1975, and revisited the topic in 2015:

https://journals.aps.org/prd/abstract/10.1103/PhysRevD.11.790

https://arxiv.org/pdf/1511.02083.pdf

Cole and Zou also addressed the topic:

http://www.bu.edu/simulation/publications/dcole/PDF/DCColePhysicsLettA.pdf

As did Haisch and Ibison:

https://arxiv.org/ftp/quant-ph/papers/0106/0106097.pdf

As did Hal Puthoff:

https://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1204/1204.1952.pdf

As did NASA:

https://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/20150006842.pdf

"A thing to note is that the integral of the perturbation of the quantum vacuum around the nucleus for a given atomic number Z and quantum number n is exactly equal to the energy level of the electron in that state. The energy level of the electron is a function of its potential energy and kinetic energy. Does this mean that the energy of the quantum vacuum integral needs to be added to the treatment of the captured electron as another potential function, or is the energy of the quantum vacuum somehow responsible for establishing the energy level of the "orbiting" electron? The only view to take that adheres to the observations would be the latter perspective, as the former perspective would make predictions that do not agree with observation."