All things return to God lady everything that is done is not for man's vanity but he who created all things! The AMEN TRINITY AMEN ✨🌠📕🙏♾️

@@tenoarrive841 Sad that the Enlightenment went over some peoples heads.

Regards ✍️

Videos have made the visualization and comprehension of the principles involved in this, and many other phenomena so much easier than when I learned this in the 60’s. By making particular subject matter like electromagnetism, relativity, and quantum physics accessible even to dull minds, it has reduced the relative value and accomplishments of my fellow colleagues at our institution.

@@commanderthorkilj.amundsen3426 At what institution?

I'm a Post Ph.d EE.... and I commend your enthusiasm...there are a lot of good vids on youtube....start your technical journey..algebra is good enough to get 80% of high tech stuff...it's fun..

That would be very exciting if you could also think mathematically. I too, encourage you to pursue some mathematics courses for that.

I am sure you aren't an ignorant electrician, but an excellent electrician. I would hire you any time.

Sparky gang

Good one

True that and solving more problems makes it more intuitive

Link?

Agreed.

yes

indian teachers be like:

Good idea, we all need to reiterate what we think we know, continuously.

well, I guess you're stumpfed

Friend, equations are nothing in Physics. Concepts are all. That's the exact reason behind the terrible proximity between physics and philosophy. For example, using lorentz transform you easily perceive that c is the mathematical limit of velocity. However c is the physical velocity limit of WHAT? Well, c is the speed limit of any material point you would say to me (photons included) which are in the same inertial frame. For instance, if you shot different very accelerated protons in opposite directions they recede (going to their opposite "sides") almost two times the speed of light. Therefore the space itself doesn't obbey the lorentz transform!!! But empty space is a physical entity? Do you catch up what I am saying, friend? This is physics. Unfortunately in Physics you also need to be a very good mathematician (despite not outstanding bright) inside the field of physics. However math is not physics because physics is a study of concepts coupled with empirical observations. Brasil

@@KRYPTOS_K5 Your example isn't true under the perspective of special relativity.

Thank you! You could create another account :p. Often this phenomenon goes untaught - I first read about it in Purcell's Electricity and Magnetism

Indeed, the original name of the paper that Einstein published when he moonlighted what is now called The Theory of Special Relativity was: On the Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies And it was this connection that made it famous. Not so much the implications about interstellar scheduling. Einstein had a lot of help writing this paper; from people who didn't necessarily agree (yet) about the implications about interstellar scheduling. In particular, Ernst Mach provided some insight about the equations regarding Doppler Shifting for the paper. And from this approach, you can get a much more intuitive sense of how a moving body observes different charge values than a relatively stationary body, regardless of the constancy of the speed of light. If you're familiar with Doppler Shifting, you know that an approaching siren sounds higher pitched, because the sound waves are relatively compressed. Now, rather than frequency of sound, as an analogy consider density of electrons. That is, the frequency at which an electron passes by an observer. Thus, a charge source moving relatively towards the observer is ""Doppler Shifted" to a frequency, that is to say charge density which is higher. And so with no knowledge at all of the spacetime topology implied by Special Relativity, it is clear that an current approaching closer to the observer has a relatively higher charge density than a current moving farther away from the observer The mathematics works out the same, since in this hypothetical thought experiment there is a chosen universal frame of reference. (The ground.). Indeed, the only situations where time dilation needs to be considered is in cases where General Relativity comes into practice, i.e. solutions to the Twin Paradox. Because in these situations alone, there is no longer that universal frame of reference. But that's another matter entirely.

@@andrewcrawford2977 Einstein has been proven wrong daily by the Thunderbolts project though. We know how magnets work today based on experiments you can do on home youself with a Ferrocell and a neodymium magnet.

Special Theory of Relativity is based on Logical Reasoning. Though the end results like time dilation, variation of mass etc. are as per predictions in my view there are some inaccuracies in the approach like unverified assumption of unidirectional speed of light as constant, unsatisfactory reasoning of Twins Paradox etc. I have worked-out a Physical Model years back. According to it the moving system undergoes Lorentz Contraction and the rays emanated from it at first focus of an imaginary ellipse will converge at a point at the second focus of that ellipse such that the observers eye-piece reaches there at same instant. I have worked-out Mathematical details of it. Seetharam svaram55@gmail.com

@@andrewcrawford2977 this made my day, thank you for the this intuitive explanation

Error correction is one of the most useful things in humanity. Never stop.

humanity, and beyond!

This was published in 1905

You're a lucky guy Jonathan. Please get so knowledgeable about this that you obtain the understanding necessary to effect the medical and transportation and communication benefits it has to offer. This can work from the DNA level of molecular technology all the way out to Near Speed of Light travel; including atmospheric transportation. Also remember to enjoy life. Kiss some girls. It's related to this at a level that is of cosmic proportions.

@@clavo3352 cringe.

@@igvc1876 yeah, youtube took a while to catch up! Great video in my view.

We need folk with depth, but we also need folk with breadth, in education. Neither is individually sufficient. We must value all work equally.

correction is the best form of collaboration we have. Top post.

This is a gem that you've put here! I'll try to work this out soon to find out if it's correct.

www.amazon.com/Electromagnetic-fields-waves-Paul-Lorrain/dp/0716703319

There was an example, I think in Scientific American, some years ago. A train is moving, on this train near the engine is the escaping criminal, and a detective or policeman is on the train somewhat to the rear of it, and adjacent to the train is another policeman. At exactly the same instant, the two policemen, one moving with the train and one stationary beside the train, shoot lasers at the criminal. Do the lasers hit the criminal at the same time? Yes, presmably they do. The velocity of the train does not make the laser beam go any faster. Now if it was a bullet, then you would add the velocity of the train, to the velocity of the bullet, and it would get there before a bullet fired from the side of the train. But as you approach the speed of light, you cannot do it that way. And AT the speed of light, the velocity of the train becomes completely irrelevant; light goes at exactly one speed (in a vacuum) regardless of any velocity of its origin. It is this phenomenon that contributes to non-obvious behaviors in a wire.

I'm glad I could pique your interest!

We need a bridge between 'hard maths' and typical folk. Geometric representation of equations can help greatly, but it's not easy! My art work is appalling, I've tried doing this stuff, I typically get the words about right, but my drawings are rather childish. Still, it makes folk smile at my incompetence!

"I had seen this topic on veritasium a long time ago" I have a feeling that Veritasium is wrong about some aspects of this. He dismisses the importance of the wire and the electrons contained in it.

@@thomasmaughan4798 maybe you should make your own video so I can know what you mean because you’re giving me no info here. I think the main idea is how length contraption is a main cause of the phenomenon.

@@earag31415 "I think the main idea is how length contraption is a main cause of the phenomenon." So it seems. But whether it is a cause or a consequence of what is actually happening (or both together) is unclear. At time zero, everything is not moving and there is no charge. There is also no cat to rub on amber. So you must introduce charges or holes (protons that want electrons) to one end of the wire. WHY then will anything move? Obviously it is the presence of an electrostatic field; not yet magnetic since nothing is moving. But the electrostatic charge of the battery, for instance, on contact (or an instant before contact) repels the electrons in the wire nearest the battery. They repel the next, and the next, and so on. This creates movement, movement creates magnetism, and magnetism further moves electrons.

@@thomasmaughan4798 yesss I absolutely agree. I will not go back and check whether he mentioned that or not but I do agree and believe that there it a time of sole electrostatic which then evolves into electromotive force.

I’m trying to visualize this, but I’m having one struggle with this idea. It is the electric field that is applying the force on the charge carriers, and electric charges need not come in dipoles like magnetic fields. The property known as spin is associated with the magnetic field, and electrons will align with magnetic fields in one orientation or the opposite (as evidenced by the Stern Gerlach experiment, to name one), but I have never heard of electrons orienting their spins in the same direction in the presence of an electric field alone. So my question is, if a magnetic field is required to align magnetic domains (assuming the material isn’t ferromagnetic, like the average current carrying wire made of copper isn’t ferromagnetic) then what would cause the alignment of domains that would produce the magnetic field about a wire. In other words, you can’t cause alignment, in say copper, without a magnetic field. So claiming aligning domains create a magnetic field doesn’t make sense with my knowledge that a magnetic field is required to align these domains. The electric field does apply a force on charged particles, but the charged particles in the wire aren’t electric dipoles, and spin is not affected by the electric field as far as I can tell. Without a doubt I’m more than interested in any information you have that would help me understand the model you are describing, I’m perfectly happy to be wrong and learn something new. From what I can tell the relativistic effects show a direct and accurate prediction of the origin of the magnetic field about a wire. Even though drift velocity is very slow the change in apparent electric charge density in the wire due to length contraction does predict the magnetic force is simply and electric force in disguise. This was what special relativity was originally about, and why it was invented. I am currently in my third semester of EM, and we are currently studying relativistic effects for electric and magnetic fields. While I wouldn’t claim to be any sort of expert in the field (I do really well with the classical EM, but definitely need more study in relativity), it seems like this videos explanation is the most well respected and calculable theory.

@@isaacjohnson8752 The simplest atom (hydrogen) is nothing more than a dipole. Proton nucleus (positive charge that has a magnetic moment) and electron (negative charge that also has a magnetic moment). I understand your point. But there is no getting around the magnetic field that manifests around a wire when a charge separation (aka electric field) on the ends of the wire is applied. The charge separation that is polarizing the constituents of the wire is supplied by a battery or a power supply. There is also no getting around the fact that in order for a magnetic field to manifest, aligned electron spins are required. If you want to propose a new physical mechanism that would allow a magnetic field around the wire - or anywhere, really - to become manifest, with completely randomly-aligned electron spins, I want to hear that. An analogy: the physical existence of paint is required to paint a fence. If you have a brush, and the fence, and an empty paint can, the fence will remain unpainted. You cannot paint the fence without paint. You cannot manifest a magnetic field without aligned electron spins.

@@isaacjohnson8752 Another issue SR/GR did not account for is the possibility of electric and magnetic field carriers in the Vacuum. Remember - all magnetic field-generating entities - wire with current, a permanent magnet - function in space. The QED Vacuum is said to consist of electron-positron pairs that quickly self-annihilate. Our working theory relies on the fact that electron-positron pair annihilation produces gamma rays - this has been demonstrated in labs across the globe for decades. Yet there is no gamma ray background that is detectable in space (or anywhere) that should exist, if the QED Vacuum actually consisted of rapidly-annihilated electron-positron pairs. We work on artificial gravity devices and rely on the persistence of electron-positron pairs throughout the Vacuum for our work. In General Relativity, Einstein said "space is empty, there is no aether" and also said "space is curved". If there is nothing in space, there is nothing to curve. This is a problem. In Einstein's defense, Dirac and the existence of electron-positron pairs came many years after GR. When a propagating electric and magnetic field leave our Sun (a light wave for e.g.) - when electromagnetic waves have left our Sun, but have not yet reached Earth, they are in the Vacuum. In order to manifest the electric field and the magnetic field in the Vacuum, there must be electrically and magnetically polarizable constituents in the Vacuum. You will NOT find 'Vacuum Engineering' taught in the university - artificial gravity tech has been perfected and sequestered for many decades.

Permanent magnets in nature are not very strong. We make super strong ones by running current through certain metals in which all the atoms domains (the atoms electrons spend more time on one side of the atom) line up perfectly and you have exactly half of the metal with a north or positive charge and half with a south or negative charge. How does a magnet repel or attract another magnet. By what mechanism is going on? We don’t know. We only know the rules of the game. Like poles repel, opposites attract. Like the atom itself we do not know how the proton repels other protons but attracts electrons. We just know they do. Also we don’t know what the hell gravity is. All stuff I took for granted. We just know the rules and when you know the rules you can do a lot with it.

🙂

Your brain is a super computer, your brain can figure out anything. No one is born knowing anything. Be very interested and try to understand it, what you don’t understand go and try and understand that and keep repeating. Read the same concept from multiple sources and try to conceptualise it in your mind… you can learn anything, the hard part is to keep going when you don’t understand something, just keep taking in the info thinking it over, at some stage it will just click - I’ve done this many times, I just treated myself like a robot and didn’t spend time with all the unhelpful thoughts like “this is so hard”, “why don’t I understand this?”, “I dont get it, I’ll never get it!”, “some people are just naturally smart and I’m not” Kids don’t tell themselves these things and they are able to acquire language and other things better than adults - I think this is a consequence of what mental baggage they carry versus actual physiological differences. Try it! All those negative thoughts take away from the actual goal, be a robot 🤖 or be like a child again, drop the baggage

Undergraduate electrostatics and magneto-statics will explain the E and B fields of lines of charge and linear currents, respectively. (it's late 19th C physics). The length contraction / Lorentz transformation is 1st semester undergrad special relativity. (It's early 20th C physics, 1905 to be exact).

P

yes please someone explain this

As i understood even though moving electrons appear contracted to the stationary charge outside, distance between their middlepoints is still the same as distance between two positive ions that don't move. Because of that there is no difference in charge density between electrons and ions in wire, there are same number of electrons over distance as ions no matter if electrons are contracted or not. Don't take this seriously this is just my understanding, i didn't read it anywhere. I am happy to hear someone who really know this stuff and can explain it correctly and with proof.

If that was intentional then he is a genius

I didn't think it would get me so many new subscribers, I was really just trying to get involved in the math youtube community!

I guess most of the crowd from Veritasium

Be well, Paul. When and if I should make it to your ripe age, I should hope that I will keep my facilities' gears and cogs spinning like you are. Keeps the cobwebs and rust from forming. Where folks used to worry about aging, being alone, or only having regularly scheduled programming/books and a newspaper to read all day for entertainment, now we span the entire globe instantly -and without thinking -ready to meet any other like minded people we care to, to share ideas or as a catalyst for relationships. We are lucky to live in this time of humanity; where data may flow as fast as one can operate the spigots! 🚰🙌

watch Science Asylum's video on this topic

I think we really want to think of an "electromagnetic" field and not one vs the other. A permanent magnet has moving electrons in the metal :)

kinks in the Field from accelerating particles in a radiative pattern, a sinusoid

The fuzzy hair guy didn't discover shit

Exactly. I have the same doubt

@RipWords I had the same question in the back of my mind. The Veritasium explanation was the first time I had seen someone frame it using SR. But now it seems incomplete.

Yes, the expression for the contracted length between electrons in this model is logically inconsistent with the rest of it. If no current is flowing through the wire, then the net charge density must be zero (it is quasineutral), therefore the lengths between electrons and cations must be equal (for all observers). Once the electrons start to move they "enter" a non-rest reference frame relative to the wire (cation lattice) with the drift velocity v0 and the observer in the rest frame of the wire must therefore observe contraction in their distance, therefore difference in charge distributions (densities) of electrons and cations, therefore a net electric field as well. That would make even a non moving charge accelerate. That is, if the principles of STR are actually at play and are such as discribed in this and Veritasium's video.

Also, the main counterargument still lies in the nature of the force applied. Electric field always accelerates IN the direction of its intensity, whereas the magnetic field accelerates PERPENDICULAR to its intensity as well as the charge's velocity. Just based on that this model can never hold, because this kind of electric field can never produce the circling trajectory the charge would actually move along.

@@GiraelCS It seems like the magnetic field is defined in such a way that its effects are the same of an eletric field. About the non-moving particle being accelerated, if you come to know how to explain that I would appreciate. I have this same question and can't find the answer anywhere.

Yes. You have to be _moving with_ the charged particle to experience the electrostatic charge effect of the wire. In reality!

Don't forget about the displacement current that begins to flow when the electric field capacitively couples to the load through a transmission line (the capacitance looks like a short to the changing voltage as the wavefront propagates down the wire). Then, as you described, once the line has reached electrostatic equilibrium the displacement current will cease and the inductance of the transmission line will keep the direct current flowing (the inductance looks like a short once the transmission line has reached equilibrium). This is also why "ELI the ICE man" - the Voltage (E) in the inductor (L) leads the current (I), hence ELI; and conversely, the current (I) in the capacitor (C) leads the Voltage (E), hence ICE.