I think it should be pointed out that the EM wave in vacuum isn't actually moving up and down in space. I've tutored many students, and this is what they commonly think. It is the strength of the electric and magnetic field that oscillates, so, if looking along a single propagation axis, the EM-wave is literally on a straight line that doesn't move up or down. The field strengths along this straight line merely oscillate between a maximum and minimum value. I just wanted to point this out because from my experience of tutoring, many students thought the EM-wave looked like that in space, like it was a string or something.
@@fufaev-alexander What is E=MC2 is dimensionally consistent. Maxwell's equations are fundamentally consistent WITH what is E=MC2, particle/wave duality, TIME, AND the second dimension in/of SPACE (ON BALANCE), AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy is CLEARLY (AND NECESSARILY) proven to be gravity (ON/IN BALANCE); AS TIME is NECESSARILY possible/potential AND actual ON/IN BALANCE !!! Great. c squared CLEARLY represents a dimension of SPACE ON BALANCE. Accordingly, ON BALANCE, the rotation of WHAT IS THE MOON matches the revolution. Notice what is the orange AND setting Sun. Lava is orange, AND it is even blood red. Notice what is THE EYE ON BALANCE. (Consider what is water !!!) Indeed, notice what is the TRANSLUCENT AND BLUE sky ON BALANCE !!! Water comes from THE EYE ON BALANCE. Indeed, consider what is E=MC2; AS c squared CLEARLY represents a dimension of SPACE ON BALANCE. So, ON BALANCE, consider what is the BALANCED MIDDLE DISTANCE in/of SPACE !!! THE EARTH IS ALSO BLUE. Indeed, consider what is the fully illuminated (AND setting/WHITE) MOON ON BALANCE. AGAIN, CONSIDER WHAT IS E=MC2 ON BALANCE !!! Magnificent. Importantly, gravity is an INTERACTION that cannot be shielded (or blocked) ON BALANCE. Consider TIME AND time dilation ON BALANCE, AS TIME is NECESSARILY possible/potential AND actual ON/IN BALANCE. The stars AND PLANETS are POINTS in the night sky ON BALANCE. TIME is NECESSARILY possible/potential AND actual ON/IN BALANCE, AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy is CLEARLY (AND NECESSARILY) proven to be gravity (ON/IN BALANCE). Great. Consider, ON BALANCE, what is BALANCED BODILY/VISUAL EXPERIENCE. The INTEGRATED EXTENSIVENESS of THOUGHT AND description is improved in the truly superior mind. BALANCE AND completeness go hand in hand. The rotation of WHAT IS THE MOON matches the revolution, AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy is CLEARLY (AND NECESSARILY) proven to be gravity (ON/IN BALANCE). Great ❤️❤️❤️❤️. By Frank Martin DiMeglio
Yea thats how I think about it honestly but its more like a blinking light or something maybe. Like a plane in the sky. Honestly its really hard to know how to think about any of this
May I ask how light polarization is to be understood in that context then? Since, I thought it has to do with geometrical orientation in space. Please enlight me, i am puzzled. Thanks ahead
I don't know what's wrong with physics that it attacts a lot of "lunies" writing pseudo-science gibberish. Notice that everywhere where you hear/read about physics you will find such comments. On the other hand, there's no something like that about mathematics. Mathematics somehow doesn't attacts such lunies.
as a physicist, I think the cutting edge (e.g. monster moonshine) of math is so far beyond even experts in fields that use math (e.g. me), that it's not tractable. Physics, we call all hear about big bang, quantum gravity doesn't work, spooky action at a distance, Twin Paradox....these can really set the loons off. Also on the practical side, you got high Tc superconductors, commercial nuclear fusion, quantum computing...
@@DrDeuteron Yea, I know :) I studied physics, graduated in mathematics and to my experience - physicists usually don't understand the math they use :) No offense.
There are people who writes unreliable proofs of popular conjectures. But they are usually debunked by actual mathematicians. They dont gather much attention as physics lunies.
Very nice exposition. One thing to note is that the calculation of c does not depend on the frame of reference of the observer and this is the basis of special relativity. I don't think Maxwell gets enough credit in this regard.
@@sebastiandierks7919 Yes no problem, I have at least removed that one statement where I claimed that the time derivative points in the same direction as the E-field itself...
Thank you, Eric! #### Want more videos? #### As a channel member you have many cool benefits: ✅ Unlock ALL Physics Videos ✅ Channel Badges For Your Nickname ✅ Unique Channel Emojis ✅ Your Vote Counts 10x in Polls ✅ Immortalization in the Hall of Fame ✅ And that's not all! CLICK -> ruclips.net/user/universaldenker-physicsjoin
Great video. You're an excellent teacher. Please make video about how Maxwells Equations imply that there is momentum of light/electromagnetic wave. I asked at Quora how momentum of light is even DEFINED, because "school" definition p:=mv obviously doesn't make sense here. A lot of professors and doctors answered me but in fact they didn't know :P Only one person wrote an answer that makes sense i.e. that momentum is a very general notion that stems from the Noethers theorem and conservations principles. I'd like to hear about it in the context of classical electromagnetism.
Any research work is based on a problem statement. Then you have a proposal. And then solutions statement. Achievement quotes. Similarly business and government projects. Global or regional or national origin.
Thanks a lot for wonderful explanations! What about the phase between B and E? Shouldn't they have a 90° phase shift like sin and cos because one is the derivative of the other?
I am also trying to find answer to exactly same question; And cannot find the explanation: Why all presenters on RUclips draw E and B fields with the same phase. Both simultaneously turning into zero, ... and other problems.
The wave shown at the beginning is a spherical wave but the obtained solution is a plane wave, can u explain the link between these two kind of waves? I know that for a distance way greater than the wavelength the spherical wave is well approximated by a plane wave, is that the case? P.S. Best video i've ever seen about the derivation of E.M. waves from Maxwell's equations
well, solutions are linear, so you a spherical wave is a sum of waves of fixed vector k (a la a Fourier transform); however, there are already special functions on a sphere called vector spherical harmonics that work better, and they have names: monopole, dipole, quadrupole, etc...
Good point, but it's the highest time rate of change of E that is coincident with the highest rate of spatial change of B, not B itself. See "Jefimenko's Equations" for a discussion of why this is important.
But photons aren't planes, they're localized little things... is there a different wave solution that restricts most of the waviness to a small region like a photon?
The electromagnetic wave can be explained in full with no quantum mechanics (photons). The solution of maxwells equations he is speaking about is the plane wave solution.
@@xhocheinsdurchmolkinda late, but no it is not. The Dirac equation is only for spin 1/2 particles. Aka particles that are only described by spinors. Photons are vector bosons and are explained by the wave equation.
Sometimes it is said that "a changing electric field causes a changing magnetic field that then causes a changing electric field and so forth and this is the cause of the wave"... but when I think about it, the equations are "at a point" so I do not see how this could cause propagation. In others words, I can see how this MIGHT explain something at a point but I do not see how it can explain something going on at one point influencing something at another point...?
You're right. Oleg Jefimenko also highlighted the problem with this loose wording & derived his own set of equations from Maxwell's and Lorentz's, showing that it was charges and their motions that caused the changing electric and magnetic fields at a distance.
Sir divergence of Electric field is not equal to zero. For time variable field divergence of Electric field is equal to ratio of charge density over permittivity in space. Gradient of divergence of Electric field is equal to zero.
@@fufaev-alexander The first, second, AND third dimension are in fundamental equilibrium AND BALANCE. INDEED, consider what is THE EYE ON BALANCE. E=MC2 AND TIME dilation are fully consistent with why what are OBJECTS may fall at the SAME RATE. Gravity/acceleration involves BALANCED inertia/INERTIAL RESISTANCE ON BALANCE, AS the rotation of WHAT IS THE MOON matches the revolution; AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy is gravity; AS WHAT IS E=MC2 is taken directly from F=ma. CLEARLY, gravity AND ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy are linked AND BALANCED opposites (ON BALANCE); AS the stars AND PLANETS are POINTS in the night sky ON BALANCE. Consider TIME AND time dilation ON BALANCE, AS TIME is NECESSARILY possible/potential AND actual ON/IN BALANCE; AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy is CLEARLY AND NECESSARILY proven to be gravity (ON/IN BALANCE). Great. What is E=MC2 IS dimensionally consistent. What is GRAVITY IS, ON BALANCE, an INTERACTION that cannot be shielded or blocked. By Frank Martin DiMeglio
@@fufaev-alexanderWHY AND HOW FRANK MARTIN DIMEGLIO HAS FUNDAMENTALLY REVOLUTIONIZED PHYSICS: TIME is FULLY consistent WITH WHAT IS E=MC2, AS TIME is NECESSARILY possible/potential AND actual ON/IN BALANCE; AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy is CLEARLY AND NECESSARILY proven to be gravity (ON/IN BALANCE). Consider TIME AND time dilation ON BALANCE. What is E=MC2 IS WHAT IS GRAVITY. Consider what is the orange (AND setting) Sun ON BALANCE. It IS the SAME SIZE as what is THE EYE. NOW, consider what is the fully illuminated (AND setting/WHITE) MOON !!!! The rotation of WHAT IS THE MOON matches the revolution. The stars AND PLANETS are POINTS in the night sky. c squared CLEARLY (AND NECESSARILY) does represent a dimension of SPACE ON BALANCE !!! INDEED, consider what is THE EYE !!! Magnificent. NOW, consider why and how it is (ON BALANCE) that there is something instead of nothing. Great. The bulk density of WHAT IS THE MOON IS comparable to that of (volcanic) basaltic lavas ON THE EARTH. The density of lava IS about THREE times that of what is water ON BALANCE. LOOK directly overhead at what is the TRANSLUCENT AND BLUE sky. Don't forget about THE EYE ON BALANCE. (The Earth is ALSO BLUE.) The density of pure water IS HALF of that of what is packed sand/wet packed sand ON BALANCE !!!! The diameter of WHAT IS THE MOON IS about ONE QUARTER (at 27 percent) of that of what is THE EARTH ON BALANCE !! Great. ACCORDINGLY, ON BALANCE, WE MULTIPLY ONE HALF TIMES ONE THIRD in order to obtain the surface gravity of WHAT IS THE MOON in DIRECT comparison WITH WHAT IS THE EARTH/ground. (The maria then occupy, predictably, one third of the near side of what is THE MOON ON BALANCE.) Notice that the blue Moon IS INVISIBLE ON BALANCE. GREAT. So, consider what constitutes (or is) the orange Sun, ON BALANCE, AS TWO THIRDS TIMES ONE QUARTER IS ALSO ONE SIXTH !!! GREAT. AGAIN, consider what is THE EYE ON BALANCE; AS E=MC2 IS GRAVITY. BALANCE AND COMPLETENESS GO HAND IN HAND. IT ALL CLEARLY makes perfect sense ON BALANCE. By Frank Martin DiMeglio
This is great at how the math works. But a cross product is used to make them perpendicular, so "why" they are perpendicular is completely skipped. A causal mechanism is where you get to understand it. Describing what you see it do with math is not an understanding. Then I need to add that laws and rules are mnemonic devices, not causes. The variables in gravity math are probably incidental, not causal, so anything with a constant in it is suspect. Math is a rote memory procedural path into these things that followers cannot let go of, because it is all they have. If you believe in angular momentum, look at my latest gyro explanation that is based in acceleration, and please let me know that you can see "causality" beyond the description.
"Math is a rote memory procedural path into these things that followers cannot let go of, because it is all they have." You say this as if you have something beyond it. Not even Einstein could solve the "cause" behind the math and he dedicated his life to it.
@@riahmatic You did not look at my gyroscopic effect explanation. I can tell, because those stop talking to me. It is the difference between describing what you see it do and understanding "why" it does it.
@@fufaev-alexander WHAT IS GRAVITY IS, ON BALANCE, an INTERACTION that cannot be shielded or blocked. WHAT IS E=MC2 IS dimensionally consistent, AS TIME is NECESSARILY possible/potential AND actual ON/IN BALANCE; AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy is CLEARLY AND NECESSARILY proven to be gravity (ON/IN BALANCE) !!! BALANCE AND completeness go hand in hand. GREAT !!! WHAT IS GRAVITY IS, ON BALANCE, an INTERACTION that cannot be shielded or blocked. (WHAT IS E=MC2 IS dimensionally consistent.) Consider what is the man (AND THE EYE ON BALANCE) who IS standing on WHAT IS THE EARTH/ground, AS touch AND feeling BLEND; AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy is CLEARLY AND NECESSARILY proven to be gravity (ON/IN BALANCE); AS TIME is NECESSARILY possible/potential AND actual ON/IN BALANCE !!! BALANCE AND completeness go hand in hand. WHAT IS GRAVITY IS, ON BALANCE, an INTERACTION that cannot be shielded or blocked. WHAT IS E=MC2 IS dimensionally consistent, AS “mass"/ENERGY involves BALANCED inertia/INERTIAL RESISTANCE consistent WITH/AS what is BALANCED electromagnetic/gravitational force/ENERGY; AS TIME is NECESSARILY possible/potential AND actual ON/IN BALANCE; AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy is CLEARLY AND NECESSARILY proven to be gravity (ON/IN BALANCE); AS gravity/acceleration involves BALANCED inertia/INERTIAL RESISTANCE (ON BALANCE). INDEED, GRAVITATIONAL force/ENERGY IS proportional to (or BALANCED with/as) inertia/INERTIAL RESISTANCE; AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy is CLEARLY AND NECESSARILY proven to be gravity (ON/IN BALANCE); AS TIME is NECESSARILY possible/potential AND actual ON/IN BALANCE !!! The stars AND PLANETS are POINTS in the night sky. WHAT IS E=MC2 IS dimensionally consistent !!! Accordingly, ON BALANCE, THE PLANETS (including what is THE EARTH) sweep out equal areas in equal times. Consider TIME (AND time dilation) ON BALANCE. WHAT IS E=MC2 is taken directly from F=ma, AS TIME is NECESSARILY possible/potential AND actual ON/IN BALANCE; AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy is CLEARLY AND NECESSARILY proven to be gravity (ON/IN BALANCE). WHAT IS GRAVITY IS, ON BALANCE, an INTERACTION that cannot be shielded or blocked. WHAT IS E=MC2 IS dimensionally consistent !!! CLEARLY, gravity AND ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy are linked AND BALANCED opposites (ON BALANCE); as the stars AND PLANETS are POINTS in the night sky. Consider TIME (AND time dilation) ON BALANCE. INDEED, TIME is NECESSARILY possible/potential AND actual ON/IN BALANCE; AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy is CLEARLY AND NECESSARILY proven to be gravity (ON/IN BALANCE) !!! GREAT !!! ACCORDINGLY, ON BALANCE, the rotation of WHAT IS THE MOON matches the revolution. GREAT !!! WHAT IS E=MC2 IS dimensionally consistent. GREAT !!! It is a very great truth that the SELF represents, FORMS, and experiences a COMPREHENSIVE approximation of experience in general by combining conscious and unconscious experience. INDEED, the INTEGRATED EXTENSIVENESS of THOUGHT AND description is improved in the truly superior mind. BALANCE AND completeness go hand in hand. By Frank Martin DiMeglio
@@fufaev-alexander Physically consider why and how it is that there is something (ON BALANCE) instead of nothing in conjunction with what is TIME and what is SPACE. Importantly and fundamentally, what is gravity is, ON BALANCE, an INTERACTION that cannot be shielded or blocked. What is E=MC2 IS dimensionally consistent. Consider what is THE EYE, AND notice what is the black “space” that is associated with what is THE EYE ON BALANCE !!! Now, think about TIME. Think about SPACE !!! The stars AND PLANETS are POINTS in the night sky. Consider what is the Sun. Consider what is THE EYE !!! Now, think about TIME. Excellent !!! Consider what is THE EYE that actually IS IN what is outer “space” ON BALANCE. Indeed, think about TIME !!! NOW, consider what is the man (AND THE EYE ON BALANCE) who actually IS standing on WHAT IS THE EARTH/ground !!! TIME is NECESSARILY possible/potential AND actual ON/IN BALANCE, AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy is CLEARLY AND NECESSARILY proven to be gravity (ON/IN BALANCE) !!!! I have CLEARLY explained (and I have mathematically proven) WHAT IS the FOURTH dimension. By Frank Martin DiMeglio
@@fufaev-alexander TIME is NECESSARILY possible/potential AND actual ON/IN BALANCE, AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy is CLEARLY AND NECESSARILY proven to be gravity (ON/IN BALANCE). Accordingly, ON BALANCE, what is E=MC2 is taken directly from F=ma; AS the rotation of WHAT IS THE MOON matches the revolution; as the stars AND PLANETS are POINTS in the night sky. Consider TIME AND time dilation ON BALANCE. By Frank Martin DiMeglio
He explains it very well, what do you mean? He literally showed you that Maxwells equations were volume chargedensity and currentdensity is equal to zero in free space, which simplifies Maxwells equations. Because the curl of E and B are coupled diff equations, you have to use curl to decouple them. We then see that we get Laplaces equation which satisfies the the general formulation of the wave equation. Letting f first equal to E in the wave equation you can solve for the speed v. Lastly, we see that v equals the speed of light, which means that light consist of a electric and magnetic component as it propogates through free space with the speed c.
@@Ainz18 well i do not understand the laplace equation. i have to figure it out by myself. i do not want him to explain it to me anyway. i simply do not understand how he can one use something he does not understand
Universaldenker, you got to get your fact correct to be a universal thinker. I know you are not expecting critics of Faraday / Maxwell, but I look at real science, not the name behind it. in real science = Persian, There is no magnetic / electric field in light. Light is a stream of photon. Photon has physical structure that explains its travel from A to B and interaction. The electric field needs a surface to display its property. Moving Magnetic dose move electron in conductor, but current dose not create magnetic field. Man dose not know structure of matter to understand magnetic field is by product of matter function. This is normally mitigated by electron. When electron is forced to move by a potential, the magnetic flux can escape and be detected outside conductor. This has made Maxwell to reach wrong conclusion that e/m wave in space made of e and m. Most of western leaders know over 90% of current man’s model of space and particle physic is wrong. Angela Merkel refused to give me permission to correct them, as it will undermine western science belief. Ferydoon Shirazi. MG1
@@MultiversalGoat if you know electric field, you should have noticed it is true in a conductor, static field can be detected out side but their field are parallel. this make osculation wrong.
@@googleacc7243 you are repeating current belief which is over 90% wrong. electron only move in conductor unless it is separated from nuclei like plasma.
![Skilla Baby - Misfit (Feat. Polo G) [Official Video]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/IjsylSnNMyw/mqdefault.jpg)
eBook: en.fufaev.org/physics-equations-book
Paperback: tinyurl.com/physics-paperback
Hardcover: tinyurl.com/physics-hardcover
Trying to image the excitement when Maxwell realized that the speed found was the speed of light!
I think it should be pointed out that the EM wave in vacuum isn't actually moving up and down in space. I've tutored many students, and this is what they commonly think. It is the strength of the electric and magnetic field that oscillates, so, if looking along a single propagation axis, the EM-wave is literally on a straight line that doesn't move up or down. The field strengths along this straight line merely oscillate between a maximum and minimum value.
I just wanted to point this out because from my experience of tutoring, many students thought the EM-wave looked like that in space, like it was a string or something.
Yes, you are absolutely right!
@@fufaev-alexander What is E=MC2 is dimensionally consistent. Maxwell's equations are fundamentally consistent WITH what is E=MC2, particle/wave duality, TIME, AND the second dimension in/of SPACE (ON BALANCE), AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy is CLEARLY (AND NECESSARILY) proven to be gravity (ON/IN BALANCE); AS TIME is NECESSARILY possible/potential AND actual ON/IN BALANCE !!! Great. c squared CLEARLY represents a dimension of SPACE ON BALANCE. Accordingly, ON BALANCE, the rotation of WHAT IS THE MOON matches the revolution. Notice what is the orange AND setting Sun. Lava is orange, AND it is even blood red. Notice what is THE EYE ON BALANCE. (Consider what is water !!!) Indeed, notice what is the TRANSLUCENT AND BLUE sky ON BALANCE !!! Water comes from THE EYE ON BALANCE. Indeed, consider what is E=MC2; AS c squared CLEARLY represents a dimension of SPACE ON BALANCE. So, ON BALANCE, consider what is the BALANCED MIDDLE DISTANCE in/of SPACE !!! THE EARTH IS ALSO BLUE. Indeed, consider what is the fully illuminated (AND setting/WHITE) MOON ON BALANCE. AGAIN, CONSIDER WHAT IS E=MC2 ON BALANCE !!! Magnificent. Importantly, gravity is an INTERACTION that cannot be shielded (or blocked) ON BALANCE. Consider TIME AND time dilation ON BALANCE, AS TIME is NECESSARILY possible/potential AND actual ON/IN BALANCE. The stars AND PLANETS are POINTS in the night sky ON BALANCE. TIME is NECESSARILY possible/potential AND actual ON/IN BALANCE, AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy is CLEARLY (AND NECESSARILY) proven to be gravity (ON/IN BALANCE). Great. Consider, ON BALANCE, what is BALANCED BODILY/VISUAL EXPERIENCE. The INTEGRATED EXTENSIVENESS of THOUGHT AND description is improved in the truly superior mind. BALANCE AND completeness go hand in hand. The rotation of WHAT IS THE MOON matches the revolution, AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy is CLEARLY (AND NECESSARILY) proven to be gravity (ON/IN BALANCE). Great ❤️❤️❤️❤️.
By Frank Martin DiMeglio
Yea thats how I think about it honestly but its more like a blinking light or something maybe. Like a plane in the sky. Honestly its really hard to know how to think about any of this
May I ask how light polarization is to be understood in that context then? Since, I thought it has to do with geometrical orientation in space. Please enlight me, i am puzzled. Thanks ahead
Thank you so much, way better than my prof's derivation. so simple!
You're welcome, Finn! Thanks for the comment! 🙂
I don't know what's wrong with physics that it attacts a lot of "lunies" writing pseudo-science gibberish. Notice that everywhere where you hear/read about physics you will find such comments. On the other hand, there's no something like that about mathematics. Mathematics somehow doesn't attacts such lunies.
Mathematics is more abstract and there arent many obvious Connections to everdyday Life. With physics its different
as a physicist, I think the cutting edge (e.g. monster moonshine) of math is so far beyond even experts in fields that use math (e.g. me), that it's not tractable.
Physics, we call all hear about big bang, quantum gravity doesn't work, spooky action at a distance, Twin Paradox....these can really set the loons off.
Also on the practical side, you got high Tc superconductors, commercial nuclear fusion, quantum computing...
@@DrDeuteron Yea, I know :) I studied physics, graduated in mathematics and to my experience - physicists usually don't understand the math they use :) No offense.
@@plrc4593 none taken, Murray Gell-Man said "experimentalists think they understand quarks because Dick [Feynman] made a pretty model, but they don't"
There are people who writes unreliable proofs of popular conjectures. But they are usually debunked by actual mathematicians. They dont gather much attention as physics lunies.
Very nice exposition. One thing to note is that the calculation of c does not depend on the frame of reference of the observer and this is the basis of special relativity. I don't think Maxwell gets enough credit in this regard.
I am studying the griffiths electrodynamics and i was stuck here. Beautifully explained, earned a subscriber:)
Me too.
I re-uploaded the video to correct a mistake!
I have to say, much respect to you for immediately correcting the mistake and re-uploading so quickly :)
@@sebastiandierks7919 Yes no problem, I have at least removed that one statement where I claimed that the time derivative points in the same direction as the E-field itself...
Brilliant lecture.
This is gold thank you very much
Thank you for your work
Thanks for your explanation and for your effort.
the best video with the best explanation!!!! thx
I realy like the animations in the equations. It makes the maths really easier!
great. Thanks for reuploading
These explanations are GREAT. Many thanks
Thank you very much! 🙏
Oh what a nice discovery is this channel. Love every detail and the speed of your explanation. You are a gifted teacher
Hello Helmut, thank you very much for the positive feedback!
يا أخي كلمة شكرا لا تساوي حقك 😍🌹
Wow, that is a beautiful explanation
Thank you!
Thank you for demystifying the science I so long to comprehend 🎉
Wonderful and easy delivery.
Thank you, Mofazzal!
Great video thank you
this is such a good video! thank you
Great Video! I am looking forward to the case in Dielectric medium!
An excellent explanation. Thank you.
Thank you!
Perfect!
Que gran explicación!
Gracias!
the best explanation sir. thanks a lot
Thank you for the kind comment!
Excellent video
Thank you, Eric!
#### Want more videos? ####
As a channel member you have many cool benefits:
✅ Unlock ALL Physics Videos
✅ Channel Badges For Your Nickname
✅ Unique Channel Emojis
✅ Your Vote Counts 10x in Polls
✅ Immortalization in the Hall of Fame
✅ And that's not all!
CLICK -> ruclips.net/user/universaldenker-physicsjoin
Great video. You're an excellent teacher. Please make video about how Maxwells Equations imply that there is momentum of light/electromagnetic wave. I asked at Quora how momentum of light is even DEFINED, because "school" definition p:=mv obviously doesn't make sense here. A lot of professors and doctors answered me but in fact they didn't know :P Only one person wrote an answer that makes sense i.e. that momentum is a very general notion that stems from the Noethers theorem and conservations principles. I'd like to hear about it in the context of classical electromagnetism.
AWESOMEEEEEEEE !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Any research work is based on a problem statement. Then you have a proposal. And then solutions statement. Achievement quotes. Similarly business and government projects. Global or regional or national origin.
Thanks Sir 👍
Most welcome
Love the videos, how about a video on singular value decomposituon, and eigenvalue decomposition? I guess you could beautifully animate those :)
Yes! I vote for that. Along with an intuitive explanation.
Thanks a lot for wonderful explanations!
What about the phase between B and E?
Shouldn't they have a 90° phase shift like sin and cos because one is the derivative of the other?
I am also trying to find answer to exactly same question; And cannot find the explanation: Why all presenters on RUclips draw E and B fields with the same phase. Both simultaneously turning into zero, ... and other problems.
The wave shown at the beginning is a spherical wave but the obtained solution is a plane wave, can u explain the link between these two kind of waves? I know that for a distance way greater than the wavelength the spherical wave is well approximated by a plane wave, is that the case?
P.S. Best video i've ever seen about the derivation of E.M. waves from Maxwell's equations
well, solutions are linear, so you a spherical wave is a sum of waves of fixed vector k (a la a Fourier transform); however, there are already special functions on a sphere called vector spherical harmonics that work better, and they have names: monopole, dipole, quadrupole, etc...
Wait, shouldn't they be 90° out of phase? Since the highest rate or change in the E field should induce the maximum of the B field and vice versa?
Good point, but it's the highest time rate of change of E that is coincident with the highest rate of spatial change of B, not B itself. See "Jefimenko's Equations" for a discussion of why this is important.
But photons aren't planes, they're localized little things... is there a different wave solution that restricts most of the waviness to a small region like a photon?
The Photon is a solution of dirac equation
The electromagnetic wave can be explained in full with no quantum mechanics (photons). The solution of maxwells equations he is speaking about is the plane wave solution.
@@xhocheinsdurchmolkinda late, but no it is not. The Dirac equation is only for spin 1/2 particles. Aka particles that are only described by spinors. Photons are vector bosons and are explained by the wave equation.
M.E. solutions admit superposition, so you can add up a bunch of plane waves and get any shape you want.
Sometimes it is said that "a changing electric field causes a changing magnetic field that then causes a changing electric field and so forth and this is the cause of the wave"... but when I think about it, the equations are "at a point" so I do not see how this could cause propagation. In others words, I can see how this MIGHT explain something at a point but I do not see how it can explain something going on at one point influencing something at another point...?
You're right. Oleg Jefimenko also highlighted the problem with this loose wording & derived his own set of equations from Maxwell's and Lorentz's, showing that it was charges and their motions that caused the changing electric and magnetic fields at a distance.
@@jonatankelu and it's the sources only on the past light-cone that matters.
1 - ( - 2 ) = 3
Sir divergence of Electric field is not equal to zero. For time variable field divergence of Electric field is equal to ratio of charge density over permittivity in space. Gradient of divergence of Electric field is equal to zero.
Yes, you are right! However, the video treats EM-waves in VACUUM. There are no charges, so charge density = 0.
@@fufaev-alexander OH You are right . Thanks for reply
@@fufaev-alexander The first, second, AND third dimension are in fundamental equilibrium AND BALANCE. INDEED, consider what is THE EYE ON BALANCE. E=MC2 AND TIME dilation are fully consistent with why what are OBJECTS may fall at the SAME RATE. Gravity/acceleration involves BALANCED inertia/INERTIAL RESISTANCE ON BALANCE, AS the rotation of WHAT IS THE MOON matches the revolution; AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy is gravity; AS WHAT IS E=MC2 is taken directly from F=ma. CLEARLY, gravity AND ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy are linked AND BALANCED opposites (ON BALANCE); AS the stars AND PLANETS are POINTS in the night sky ON BALANCE. Consider TIME AND time dilation ON BALANCE, AS TIME is NECESSARILY possible/potential AND actual ON/IN BALANCE; AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy is CLEARLY AND NECESSARILY proven to be gravity (ON/IN BALANCE). Great. What is E=MC2 IS dimensionally consistent. What is GRAVITY IS, ON BALANCE, an INTERACTION that cannot be shielded or blocked.
By Frank Martin DiMeglio
@@fufaev-alexanderWHY AND HOW FRANK MARTIN DIMEGLIO HAS FUNDAMENTALLY REVOLUTIONIZED PHYSICS:
TIME is FULLY consistent WITH WHAT IS E=MC2, AS TIME is NECESSARILY possible/potential AND actual ON/IN BALANCE; AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy is CLEARLY AND NECESSARILY proven to be gravity (ON/IN BALANCE). Consider TIME AND time dilation ON BALANCE. What is E=MC2 IS WHAT IS GRAVITY.
Consider what is the orange (AND setting) Sun ON BALANCE. It IS the SAME SIZE as what is THE EYE. NOW, consider what is the fully illuminated (AND setting/WHITE) MOON !!!! The rotation of WHAT IS THE MOON matches the revolution. The stars AND PLANETS are POINTS in the night sky. c squared CLEARLY (AND NECESSARILY) does represent a dimension of SPACE ON BALANCE !!! INDEED, consider what is THE EYE !!! Magnificent. NOW, consider why and how it is (ON BALANCE) that there is something instead of nothing. Great. The bulk density of WHAT IS THE MOON IS comparable to that of (volcanic) basaltic lavas ON THE EARTH. The density of lava IS about THREE times that of what is water ON BALANCE. LOOK directly overhead at what is the TRANSLUCENT AND BLUE sky. Don't forget about THE EYE ON BALANCE. (The Earth is ALSO BLUE.) The density of pure water IS HALF of that of what is packed sand/wet packed sand ON BALANCE !!!! The diameter of WHAT IS THE MOON IS about ONE QUARTER (at 27 percent) of that of what is THE EARTH ON BALANCE !! Great. ACCORDINGLY, ON BALANCE, WE MULTIPLY ONE HALF TIMES ONE THIRD in order to obtain the surface gravity of WHAT IS THE MOON in DIRECT comparison WITH WHAT IS THE EARTH/ground. (The maria then occupy, predictably, one third of the near side of what is THE MOON ON BALANCE.) Notice that the blue Moon IS INVISIBLE ON BALANCE. GREAT. So, consider what constitutes (or is) the orange Sun, ON BALANCE, AS TWO THIRDS TIMES ONE QUARTER IS ALSO ONE SIXTH !!! GREAT. AGAIN, consider what is THE EYE ON BALANCE; AS E=MC2 IS GRAVITY. BALANCE AND COMPLETENESS GO HAND IN HAND. IT ALL CLEARLY makes perfect sense ON BALANCE.
By Frank Martin DiMeglio
Har har mahadev 🙏🙏🙏
The divergence of E is not iqual to Zero!
Here electromagnetic waves in vacuum are treated! That's why the divergence of E is zero.
@@fufaev-alexander Ok. Thanks for your answer!
@@josecarlosbianchi5603 I think it is because there are no charges around so Q = 0 so Q / ε_0 = 0
This is great at how the math works. But a cross product is used to make them perpendicular, so "why" they are perpendicular is completely skipped. A causal mechanism is where you get to understand it. Describing what you see it do with math is not an understanding. Then I need to add that laws and rules are mnemonic devices, not causes. The variables in gravity math are probably incidental, not causal, so anything with a constant in it is suspect. Math is a rote memory procedural path into these things that followers cannot let go of, because it is all they have. If you believe in angular momentum, look at my latest gyro explanation that is based in acceleration, and please let me know that you can see "causality" beyond the description.
"Math is a rote memory procedural path into these things that followers cannot let go of, because it is all they have." You say this as if you have something beyond it. Not even Einstein could solve the "cause" behind the math and he dedicated his life to it.
@@riahmatic You did not look at my gyroscopic effect explanation. I can tell, because those stop talking to me. It is the difference between describing what you see it do and understanding "why" it does it.
@@jnhrtmn correct, I'm not watching some rando's vids
@@riahmatic LOL It's RUclips! You may be one of those people that cannot see causality, because it wasn't taught to you.
@@jnhrtmn are you not trying to teach people? Or do you just get off on portraying yourself as enlightened? Give me a break lol
The key to understand what is E=MC2 is the second dimension.
?
@@fufaev-alexander WHAT IS GRAVITY IS, ON BALANCE, an INTERACTION that cannot be shielded or blocked. WHAT IS E=MC2 IS dimensionally consistent, AS TIME is NECESSARILY possible/potential AND actual ON/IN BALANCE; AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy is CLEARLY AND NECESSARILY proven to be gravity (ON/IN BALANCE) !!! BALANCE AND completeness go hand in hand. GREAT !!!
WHAT IS GRAVITY IS, ON BALANCE, an INTERACTION that cannot be shielded or blocked. (WHAT IS E=MC2 IS dimensionally consistent.) Consider what is the man (AND THE EYE ON BALANCE) who IS standing on WHAT IS THE EARTH/ground, AS touch AND feeling BLEND; AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy is CLEARLY AND NECESSARILY proven to be gravity (ON/IN BALANCE); AS TIME is NECESSARILY possible/potential AND actual ON/IN BALANCE !!! BALANCE AND completeness go hand in hand.
WHAT IS GRAVITY IS, ON BALANCE, an INTERACTION that cannot be shielded or blocked. WHAT IS E=MC2 IS dimensionally consistent, AS “mass"/ENERGY involves BALANCED inertia/INERTIAL RESISTANCE consistent WITH/AS what is BALANCED electromagnetic/gravitational force/ENERGY; AS TIME is NECESSARILY possible/potential AND actual ON/IN BALANCE; AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy is CLEARLY AND NECESSARILY proven to be gravity (ON/IN BALANCE); AS gravity/acceleration involves BALANCED inertia/INERTIAL RESISTANCE (ON BALANCE). INDEED, GRAVITATIONAL force/ENERGY IS proportional to (or BALANCED with/as) inertia/INERTIAL RESISTANCE; AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy is CLEARLY AND NECESSARILY proven to be gravity (ON/IN BALANCE); AS TIME is NECESSARILY possible/potential AND actual ON/IN BALANCE !!! The stars AND PLANETS are POINTS in the night sky. WHAT IS E=MC2 IS dimensionally consistent !!! Accordingly, ON BALANCE, THE PLANETS (including what is THE EARTH) sweep out equal areas in equal times. Consider TIME (AND time dilation) ON BALANCE.
WHAT IS E=MC2 is taken directly from F=ma, AS TIME is NECESSARILY possible/potential AND actual ON/IN BALANCE; AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy is CLEARLY AND NECESSARILY proven to be gravity (ON/IN BALANCE). WHAT IS GRAVITY IS, ON BALANCE, an INTERACTION that cannot be shielded or blocked. WHAT IS E=MC2 IS dimensionally consistent !!!
CLEARLY, gravity AND ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy are linked AND BALANCED opposites (ON BALANCE); as the stars AND PLANETS are POINTS in the night sky. Consider TIME (AND time dilation) ON BALANCE.
INDEED, TIME is NECESSARILY possible/potential AND actual ON/IN BALANCE; AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy is CLEARLY AND NECESSARILY proven to be gravity (ON/IN BALANCE) !!! GREAT !!!
ACCORDINGLY, ON BALANCE, the rotation of WHAT IS THE MOON matches the revolution. GREAT !!!
WHAT IS E=MC2 IS dimensionally consistent. GREAT !!!
It is a very great truth that the SELF represents, FORMS, and experiences a COMPREHENSIVE approximation of experience in general by combining conscious and unconscious experience. INDEED, the INTEGRATED EXTENSIVENESS of THOUGHT AND description is improved in the truly superior mind. BALANCE AND completeness go hand in hand.
By Frank Martin DiMeglio
@@fufaev-alexander Physically consider why and how it is that there is something (ON BALANCE) instead of nothing in conjunction with what is TIME and what is SPACE.
Importantly and fundamentally, what is gravity is, ON BALANCE, an INTERACTION that cannot be shielded or blocked. What is E=MC2 IS dimensionally consistent.
Consider what is THE EYE, AND notice what is the black “space” that is associated with what is THE EYE ON BALANCE !!! Now, think about TIME. Think about SPACE !!!
The stars AND PLANETS are POINTS in the night sky. Consider what is the Sun. Consider what is THE EYE !!! Now, think about TIME. Excellent !!! Consider what is THE EYE that actually IS IN what is outer “space” ON BALANCE. Indeed, think about TIME !!! NOW, consider what is the man (AND THE EYE ON BALANCE) who actually IS standing on WHAT IS THE EARTH/ground !!!
TIME is NECESSARILY possible/potential AND actual ON/IN BALANCE, AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy is CLEARLY AND NECESSARILY proven to be gravity (ON/IN BALANCE) !!!!
I have CLEARLY explained (and I have mathematically proven) WHAT IS the FOURTH dimension.
By Frank Martin DiMeglio
@@fufaev-alexander TIME is NECESSARILY possible/potential AND actual ON/IN BALANCE, AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy is CLEARLY AND NECESSARILY proven to be gravity (ON/IN BALANCE). Accordingly, ON BALANCE, what is E=MC2 is taken directly from F=ma; AS the rotation of WHAT IS THE MOON matches the revolution; as the stars AND PLANETS are POINTS in the night sky. Consider TIME AND time dilation ON BALANCE.
By Frank Martin DiMeglio
@@fufaev-alexander c squared CLEARLY represents a dimension of SPACE ON BALANCE.
By Frank Martin DiMeglio
this is ok but you do not explain anything
He explains it very well, what do you mean? He literally showed you that Maxwells equations were volume chargedensity and currentdensity is equal to zero in free space, which simplifies Maxwells equations. Because the curl of E and B are coupled diff equations, you have to use curl to decouple them. We then see that we get Laplaces equation which satisfies the the general formulation of the wave equation. Letting f first equal to E in the wave equation you can solve for the speed v. Lastly, we see that v equals the speed of light, which means that light consist of a electric and magnetic component as it propogates through free space with the speed c.
@@Ainz18 well i do not understand the laplace equation. i have to figure it out by myself. i do not want him to explain it to me anyway. i simply do not understand how he can one use something he does not understand
Universaldenker, you got to get your fact correct to be a universal thinker. I know you are not expecting critics of Faraday / Maxwell, but I look at real science, not the name behind it. in real science = Persian, There is no magnetic / electric field in light. Light is a stream of photon. Photon has physical structure that explains its travel from A to B and interaction. The electric field needs a surface to display its property. Moving Magnetic dose move electron in conductor, but current dose not create magnetic field. Man dose not know structure of matter to understand magnetic field is by product of matter function. This is normally mitigated by electron. When electron is forced to move by a potential, the magnetic flux can escape and be detected outside conductor. This has made Maxwell to reach wrong conclusion that e/m wave in space made of e and m.
Most of western leaders know over 90% of current man’s model of space and particle physic is wrong. Angela Merkel refused to give me permission to correct them, as it will undermine western science belief. Ferydoon Shirazi. MG1
Light is an oscillating electric and magnetic field.
@@MultiversalGoat if you know electric field, you should have noticed it is true in a conductor, static field can be detected out side but their field are parallel. this make osculation wrong.
@@primemagi Light is a photon but also an electromagnetic wave. This is why from a current we can emit a variable electromagnetic wave frequency
@@googleacc7243 you are repeating current belief which is over 90% wrong. electron only move in conductor unless it is separated from nuclei like plasma.
@@primemagi you statement is 90% wrong. Metals also have free electrons that can therefore be moving charges