What Do Electric and Magnetic Fields Actually Look Like?
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 8 июн 2024
- This short video attempts to explain and visualize what electric and magnetic fields would physically look like if we could perceive everything about them with our eyes. Almost all illustrations of electromagnetic fields are just intended to succinctly convey the properties and are not trying to visualize the physical wave itself. In fact, I have seen almost no attempts anywhere to try to visualize them completely. This is for good reason. Electromagnetic fields contain more information than we have senses to perceive.
I hope you enjoy this video!
If you would like to see more learning content like this, check out EMPossible.net at the following link:
empossible.net/
If you would like to learn more about me and my team’s research, checkout RaymondRumpf.com.
raymondrumpf.com/
#electromagnetics #electric #magnetic #field #wave #polarization #amplitude #magnitude #direction #vector #function #graphics #visualization #antenna #metamaterial #photoniccrystal #computational #numerical #metasurface #waveguide #maxwell #lines #flux #utep #elpaso 
Наука
![Natti Natasha - Quiéreme Menos [Official Video]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/R57RrTjRGxk/mqdefault.jpg)
I think that part of the problem is that we need to show what's essentially a 4 or 5 dimensional thing in only 3, or even 2, dimensions. It would help if you'd change colors for various orientations: positive as red, negative as blue, or somesuch.
I agree that would help visualize the properties. However, here I am trying to visualize what the actual field would look like to our eyes if we could perceive everything. While the color is certainly useful, it may detract from this...or maybe not...I have no idea. LOL
I think you hit it right on the mark. This phenomenon unfolds in more than four dimensions, and what we see is only the part that applies to our space-time. I don't have the ability to develop an equation for.... I don't know how many dimensions this phenomenon requires, but it seems to me that it would represent a spiral (of several dimensions). On the other hand, if gravity is not a force but a distortion of spacetime, wouldn't we encounter the same phenomenon but with a distortion of some of these other dimensions?"
@@gabrielalejandromarturano8761 Gravity definitely affects electromagnetic waves. For example, black holes trap light through gravity. Another example is something very cool called gravity lenses.
@@empossible1577you have no clear view of the fields, clearly.
Nothing to learn from this video by any means. Absolute failure and nothing more than repeating by a proven parrot.
Continue to present what was handed to you teach. You have provided such a void in educating children and should be embarrassed for such shortcomings.
@@empossible1577 I can do this mentally, but the animation may be too complex for me. Assume the oscillation of an orbiting electron produces a visible spectral line in all directions, so the color is an expanding sphere at the same time the electron is spinning. If you slice the sphere you see a ripple of alternating color expanding away from the atom center that looks like an expanding round plate. This is the alternating magnetic field caused by the electron shifting from the upper to lower shells and back. Now, if you rotate the pizza so you're looking at it from the side, you will see the electron coming towards you and going away at the same time it bounces between upper and lower shells. I have in fact made several GIF animations of the expanding, alternating wave and could in theory superimpose the electron rotating 90 degrees to it. It's not hard too hard to visualize the result but I don't think I've got the patience to interleave that into the GIF. To get an idea, check out 25:00 at ruclips.net/video/QCeMSXWQkKQ/видео.html. This isn't an atom, but it could be. From the standpoint of a what we usually consider a stationary observer, the color would not change, but oscillate in intensity from 0 to 1. That works for an oscillating em wave, anyway.
You said, remember that experiment we've all done where we put metal filings on paper over a magnet to see the field lines ... and then in the next sentence you said, the field lines do not exist and then you moved on. Um, I think you're skipping over something here ... shouldn't you explain why it is that we are able to see lines that do not exist?
Great question! I was waiting for somebody to ask this...
When the iron filings are exposed to a magnetic field, a few things happen. First, like a compass needle, the filings align themselves to the direction of the magnetic field. Second, the filings themselves become magnetized and will attract other filings. Third, the magnetized filings link to each other to form lines.
If you want some evidence in this experiment that the magnetic fields lines do not exist, notice when you do this experiment the lines of the filings do not move (unless you shake very hard). However, if you repeat the experiment, the filings form lines in different places. If magnetic field lines really existed, the filings would form the same lines every time.
Hope this helps!
@@empossible1577 Thanks for the reply, but I think your answer cannot be correct. Those lines have been the subject of a lot of study, they used to be called "Faraday Tubes" which I really like. But what about a ferrocell? Also, you can do this experiment: use a sensitive microphone and move it through the field of a magnet and hear the static of the field lines, so the point is, there are other ways of detecting those lines other than metal filings so the lines are not the result of the filings themselves becoming magnetized (even if the filings become magnetized, that doesn't explain why they form lines). IMHO ... a magnet field does not exist in a field vacuum, there are many fields around us all the time, including from the planet itself; and the field lines manifest at the constructive/destructive regions of field interference (like a double-slit interference pattern). Also, with large solar eruptions you can clearly see the magnetic field lines visible in the solar plasma. So, I think it is pretty difficult to say that the lines of force do not exist? It's like if I say shadows do not exist, and you say sure they do there's one right there, and I say okay go get me a cup of that shadow so I can take it to my lab and analyze it. Shadows don't exist as principle first-order things, they are an effect from an object blocking light; in the same way field lines of force can be observed in so many ways, they unequivocally do exist, and I believe represent an interference pattern created within field.
Hi! Not the author of the video, but I’ve been scratching my head about this all year. I’ve been studying Faraday and Maxwell, and Faraday unambiguously states that there are indeed physical lines in electrostatic and magnetic phenomena. He had a few experiments, namely the iron filings for magnets, and for electrostatics he put some seeds in oil and charged it as a dialectic and you also see curved lines made by the seeds in the oils similar to the iron filings. His third experiment did not show lines like the other two: he charged a shellac pillar and placed a conductive sphere on top, and then using a pith ball, he would bring it near the setup, touch his finger to the pith ball, and then would measure the amount of charge on a coulomb balance. This also showed curved lines if you mapped them out via the quantities collected, and he said that certain areas would measure more charge since the lines were curved and more dense in some places rather than others. Meanwhile, Maxwell seems to agree in his prose, as he describes the strength of a magnet by the amount of lines it creates, but his vector calculus treats all of space as infinitesimal points run through by these lines, which amounts to conceiving of the field as a volume actually composed of (or at least acting as the locus of) infinite lines in any given area. I’m not sure if the debate about the nature of these lines has ever been solved adequately.
@@lw5359 I love this discussion. Thank you!
@@lw5359good point. There are two seemingly contradictory points that both exist and can be reconciled somehow. Iron filings prove the lines don’t exist because they don’t move when not disturbed, and rearrange when disturbed. Yet, things in a magnetic field can be affected by it and also influence it, which creates dynamic and complex changes over time. I assume magnetic reconnection isn’t a property of the magnetic field, but the dynamic interactions of charged and magnetic matter within the field effecting and effected by the field.
Thank you for your efforts to put an end to inadequate ideas. I'm afraid it will be a long and rocky road, after all, pupils and students are practically confronted with this throughout their education. But the first step has been taken. 👍
Learning to sketch field lines, equipotentials, charge & current densities starting from boundary conditions goes a long way in developing a physical understading and intuition.
Another fun thing to try is taking a topographic map and compute the gradient along a trail or road, especially one that you are familiar with.
I'm glad you point out that the field arguably doesn't "exist" in a normal sense. The way I understand it, a field is all hypothetical - what the force would be on an infinitesimal charge if it were there (and so small it doesn't change something).
On the other hand, there is also a way that everything looks exactly like an EM field since light is one 😅
I have not looked into it much to say anything for sure. But, the few EM phenomena I have looked deeply into can be explained just through Coulomb's law and relativity. I am taking a leap to say all EM phenomena can be explained the same way. However, if this were true it makes me question the objective truth about the existence of E and H fields if they are not needed to explain our observations. If I had any free time, I would dig more deeply into this. Thanks for your comment!
@@empossible1577 haha yes exactly! It seems to me that saying a field is created and then propagates away at c is equivalent to saying the charge distribution changes and then the "state update" is propagating through space at c (weirdly, at a fixed time I think...)
The later may be less practical, but seems more intellectually (maybe aesthetically?) pleasing. There's just one force, plus relativity.
Thanks for your comment back, I'm kind of the quack at work on this so hearing your thoughts makes me feel like I'm maybe not so off base...
@@Superfungus0 Take pride in being the quack. That is me in every aspect of m life! 🤣
@@empossible1577 that’s what Tensors seem to apply too. It’s one field, not two, and the forces which apply depend on the relative motions of the particles involved. I haven’t yet seen a video showing tensors dynamically change over time as two or more particles move. It’s always one charged particle moving in a uniform field.
Nice attempt and very useful.
zoom in on that electromagnetic field showing the arrows and it might help others understand how a human eye could potentially visualize the construct.
At least you made an attempt, for which I am in great appreciation! Especially being an Amateur Radio operator who's been looking for "better illustrations" that I thought I broke Google Images looking for. 🤣
Thank you for the comment! On my radar are visualizations of waves detaching from antennas. I envision this a lot like soap bubbles. Some day I will make that video!
AG4YV
@@empossible1577 That'd be cool! There is already software that has to be downloaded to show an antenna's radiation pattern, like a vertical radiator for example but I don't feel that it does a well enough job of showing how those "waves" travel at ground level and then upwards and outwards at varying angles and into the far field; just a basic vertical even that is of course perpendicular to the ground! I think your video possibly forthcoming would be cool to watch.
KD8EFQ/SUBSCRIBED/👍/73
As always great explanations! Thank you for making this free and available! Are there any plans to sched some light on math for basic simulations using raytracing (reflection/transmission, diffraction, etc) as an alternative to FTDT?
Thank you! My research group is actually developing a ray tracer for simulating metasurfaces right now. That may motivate some videos in the future.
The best way I think about quantum fields is like waves on water. The waves themselves don't exist as a physical construct. They're consequence of a deeper interaction. You can describe the property of the wave but there's no way to describe where a wave begins and where it exactly ends.
In the third dimension, a reciprocal field perturbation of a magnet the dielectric is a hyperboloid, the magnetic is a torus and the electrical is a circle.
although the 3D EM field might be a visual overload, I think it's way better than the 1D version (at least as a first impression) because it conveys the volumetric nature of the EM field. the 1D slice might also incorrectly imply that something is moving up and down or side to side especially when given after the usual introduction of other types waves in physics.
Excellent explanation of the difficulties imagining EM. Thx!
Your simulations are pretty cool, even if they are "busy".
Learning to sketch electromagnet fields takes a lot of thought & efffort, but essential to developing a physical understanding of them.
A large concetpual step-function exists between Classical Mechanics and Classical Electrodynamics which is under-appreciated. We typically start with point particles, then collections of them in Mechanics, with little time spent on continuum mechanics; greater exposure to the physics of elastic bodies would help with getting a handle on fields.
I think the problem with visualization is that the equations describe the resultant vector components in three directions, while in fact there is a continuum of an infinite number of elements.
The iron filings on a sheet of paper describe one plane only out of an infinite number of planes.
Yeah, there not be a perfect visualization, but it is fun to try!
Wow, great visualizations! Subscribed!
It is great to have you hear! Checkout our main website:
empossible.net/
It won't work in a volumetric view, but you could use color for direction, saturation for strength, similar to what is done for normal maps in 3d graphics.
It took me a while to realize how diffuse these fields are since so many physical examples have the lines, but I guess that's just because plasma and metal are favorable paths and clamp these fields through themselves, and a sort of feedback loop causes those conductors to sort themselves out in some optimal way.
Yes. When I teach this topic (electromagnetics), I almost exclusively just show cross sections. I will always show an overly complicated 3D view, more to help the correctly interpret the 2D views. Thank you!
Thank You Prof.Rumpf
Glad you liked it!
You connect intuition with inspiration.
Ha ha! Thank you!
Thank you so much. This video was overdue at least for x2 centuries.
Thank you! This is great to hear!
@@empossible1577 yeah, particularly that part where you explain that EM waves are actually flat sheets. Current standard representation with a pencil beam is so inadequate.
Good video!
A question:
What are the size of the plane waves of em waves?
The flower of life pattern shows it. Waves originate from a spark. It's a bunch of sound bubbles.
Great video, as always. Thanks.
Thank you!
This is a valuable and helpful video, thanks. Have you considered using color instead of vector's to show the direction? I would suggest trying cut out sections of an opaque solid that have different colors on the faces of the cutouts. By choosing cutouts from different angles you can show the different directions inside the region and by having overlapping cutouts you can show that the direction is changing inside the bulk. Sounds hard to do though!
I have not had much luck using color for 3D volumetric things. I can show opaque slices, but that hides certain parts. If I use "fog," the colors get washed out looking through multiple colors. I could draw slices, but that would not visualize the 3D field. Very difficult problem! Try drawing what you have in mind.
the 2 eye connections sometimes their eye color can be a separate color like brown and blue eye on the same person...
Maybe a way to visualise the direction continuously could be some sort of flowing fog/smoke animation? The direction of flow/movement representing the direction of the field
Maybe. Concerned that might imply the field is actually moving. Tough problem!
@@empossible1577 yes.. but your rotating of the camera is even more confusing than if you had moving 'particles' on the scene. I think.. I don't have the skills to try to do it myself..
I think you're doing a pretty good job of trying to paint something that's invisible! And now you got me wondering what does a pigeon 'see' with their EM receptors..
Anyhow, maybe we should try and remember that the only information we have about EM fields are in regard to the forces that an hypothetical particle would "feel" if placed on each point, so maybe the best we can do is simulate points as they _would_ be affected if they were charged particles when placed on each point; you could use different colors to differentiate particles being affected by M or E fields, and you could slice off the first cuadrant (cube? what's the right word?) of your 3D space so we could see the entire intersection of the 3 axis planes as well as what's going on in the other 7 parts of the volume..
There field intensity would be shown as particle density on each part of the volume, with enough particules to create a fog/smoke like @the_ALchannel suggests?
@@empossible1577 so I couldn't stop thinking about this for a while longer and I remembered ferrofluids: it's tempting to think that the "spiky blobs" that sometimes form in the surface when you cover a magnet with enough ferrofluid have something to do with "field lines", but that's wrong, they're probably just due to the viscocity of the fluid rather than to some non-homogeneity of the magnetic field distribution..
However, I wonder: what would it look like if we literally placed a sufficiently strong magnet in a sufficiently big container and blew some "ferro-smoke" into it? I'm guessing it'd have to be something like a wiff of "colloidal iron dust" just blown in there and we could watch it move around continuously (unlike large iron filings which just act as compass needles).
What do you think?
@@zippolag That would be a very cool experiment. I do not know how ferro-smoke would behave, but maybe like 3D iron filings? It might look pretty cool.
@@empossible1577 let me know if you ever figure it out :D
Or we can get @AlphaPhoenixChannel to do it maybe xD
nice video
Thank you!
How we are tracing magnetic lines of force in labs in colleges etc using a small magnetic compass?
The magnetic field has direction associated with it. The needle of the compass lines itself with that direction. I can take any vector function and trace lines through it, but that vector function itself is not made of lines. The problem with the field line model is that it implies, especially to those just learning about magnetism, there is no magnetic field off of the lines and it only exists on the lines. The lines are a useful mathematical tool to track the direction of the magnetic field.
I was confused for years by pictures of EM waves. Walter Lewin says that one should visualize the wave front as extending infinitely in the x and y directions. But how does that make physical sense? What does the wave actually look like?
A "plane wave" is of infinite extent and also infinite in time. In this regard, it is impossible to visualize. We can only look at a piece of it.
Physical waves are finite in both time and space. That means beams is the thing that is physically real that contain a small spectrum of frequencies instead of a pure frequency.
I am not sure this helps and I don't have any great visualizations of this online at this time.
The diagrams are made to obfuscate the clear image of a magnetic and electric field.
This is a due to the British Royal Society.
Torus outer shell with a hyperbola with centrifugal cone(vortex) touching tips with its opposing centripetal cone.
From the inside out and back, to everything in all existence, ropes in spiral threaded, sinusoidal, meandering, curves.
This is natures way and it is done simply for a reason.
That same reason imprinted on us, in, us, and on any and every thing condensed of matter in motion that must adhere to these principles or it is no thing.
(♾️) as a sideways view while this is the inward(🌀) acceleration towards the center void(-⏳-)towards a whirling expulsion (🌀) zone.
This is the reason for culture.
This is the creator, of religion.
The ancient Indian archetypal X, sign of the cross.
In the holy science it is the cross section.
Literally the Hebrew built into the gesturing hand as well as hidden as esoteric knowledge while being presented in exoteric form by those who have lost its true meaning.
Spiraled locks, cube on wrist with spiraled leather strap wrapped around arm(tefillin), braided bread, bagel, torus in the hand casting shadows through the donut to create the first hand signs/language.
This channel has nothing to provide you as this person has no clear picture from conception.
He can not even present the orientation of magnetic fields properly.
No view of what is being accelerated to form those ropes, lines of force.
Good at repeating wiki but sadly that information will be altered as people learn how to think first and don't just make videos with nothing to say.
Distorsions in the space-time continuum.
"When we turn our attention to the general case of electrodynamics ... our first impression is surprise at the enormous complexity of the problems to be solved.", Max Planck (1932), quoted at the opening of Chapter 15 "General Electromagnetic Fields" in Andrew Zangwill's "Modern Electrodynamics".
If *he* thought it was tough, what hope do the rest of us have? ;)
Awesome visualization and discussion! If I may, the best idea I have for smooth and continuous vectors is the natural example of flow, water. Perhaps you could have silvery (or some other color) fluctuations to distinguish from the yellow and showing those fluctuations flowing and the fluctuations would also be proportional in brightness to the background field (thinking of quantum visualizations here) thus weakening with distance.
Also you stated that fields aren’t real. I’ve both heard, learned, and myself figured definitely, but I’m also not %100 convinced either way. Best argument I have is second quantization from quantum mechanics. What do you think?
I have some similar ideas about visualizing the 3D field. I just need to keep improving my graphics skills to realize them!
The whole idea of electric and magnetic fields potentially not even being a real thing is only about five years old for me. To some degree, it was always there but I have recently looked deeper. For the few phenomena I have looked into, it can all be explained with just Coulomb's law and relativity. I am making a large mental leap, but cannot help thinking maybe all phenomena can be explained similarly. If that is the case, what does it say about the existence of electric and magnetic fields?
Great video. In the end, an EM wave-function is not in terms of force (a function of mass) but of potential.
Smooth and continuous just illustrates a point in space exerting force in all direct like a circle and collapsing back into the center in a pulsating mana thats all it is. Just higher octave vibration
If you don't want to imply the field is spotty. The spots have to be very small or faded (almost like blur). In the animation, the field have to be moving, in order to see how it change over time. The spots have to change its color by changing the magnitude of the field. In example. 2 waves interacting with each other to form a bigger one and two waves smashing with each other destructively, eliminating one to the another.
Here, in this example of electron orbitals, they do something abstract similar, to explain what it means..
ruclips.net/video/W2Xb2GFK2yc/видео.htmlsi=A3pnxBvBGoXv7bWA
Those are very nice! Thank you!
3:45 - another error. The lines do not just enable us to track the direction of the magnetic field, they are lines of equal field strength.
They allow you to see the shape of the field and strength of it and how that field intensity varies with distance.
They’re akin to contour lines like what we see in a map.
I use a transmitting antenna, and two colours - one for the electric and another for the magnetic component. The point intensity of the colours in 3D space is the energy density - i.e. the solutions to Maxwell equations.
Knowing electromagnetic fields means to acquire the capability of solving and visualising the results of Maxwell equations in Space. Someone may spend ten years on the this matter before visualising the radiation lobes of an antenna...
You might want to depict fields and waves from the reference of the observer. i.e a wave passing by , or a field as the observer walks thru it.
I have tried this, even did some things in virtual reality (VR) with some help. A problem happens in 3D when you look through a wave coming mostly at you or away from you. The ripples of the wave vanish and really are only apparent in waves travelling perpendicular to your light of site. I've tried visualizing waves at heat waves, fog of alternating colors, arrays of vectors, etc. I did not like anything I came up with. It starts to look a little better if I move the camera around the field, but is still very confusing.
that also looks like a black hole tunneling...or a wormhole...
How about maybe still using luminance to denote amplitude , but a colour gradation to denote direction , that might reduce the confusion in your wave example of opposite directions looking the same , since our visual systems can’t process the arrows in a bulk sense , better to replace arrows directions with hue ? Curious how that would look
This has some up several times in response to this video. In principal, I could encode XYZ as RGB but I am not sure how to convey positive and negative values in each direction. The other problem with color in 3D is that the colors wash out when viewing through them. I have not been able to figure out even how to draw a 3D wave except from the side. It is a very challenging and fun problem!
And what is the carrier of the magnetic field, shall 5called them quantum particles or old style called eather
How does this visualization change if the magnetic field is treated as a bivector field? There is an illustration in the fifth capter of this book:
Understanding Geometric Algebra for Electromagnetic Theory y John W. Arthur
I have no idea. While I have a interest in learning more about geometric algebra, I really do not know anything about it to comment. Sorry! The little bit of awareness I have gets me fascinated that very complicated things can be succinctly expressed and manipulated algebraically, particularly the coordinate transforms.
I have been thinking about this for years now.
I am reluctant to question things as it is often seen as antagonistic rather than an attempt to gain knowledge.
Two basic questions spring to mind from this video (or rather your explanation of it) ..... You say that the fields are smooth and not granular, but is this true on all scales? If you go small do the fields actually granulate at all? The other question that I suspect is harder to answer is .... How do you explain the wave particle duality evidenced by the two slit experiment?
I thank you for trying to add clarity and accuracy to a difficult subject that is usually glossed over!
Unfortunately, my answer is "I don't know." What I am presenting here is Classical Electromagnetics. This is what was understood in the 19th century. This model does not consider relativity, quantum effects, etc. So we already know that the classical model is flawed and does not explain things like the particle nature of electromagnetics. The classical model certainly says fields are smooth and continuous at all scales. With quantum theory, I really do not know. My brain is somewhat stuck with the classical model (wrong and incomplete model) so I picture the field still being smooth and continuous, but that it just cannot be generated in packets smaller than a photon. I wish I had a better answer for you!
@@empossible1577 "I don't know" is the most honest answer anyone can give!
tbh I too am stuck with a classical model in my head ..... but hoping to update it!
My gut tells me that we will not get a much better understanding to base a model on until we get new physics. It seems like the more we know the more we realise that we do not know much at all!
Thanks!
7:42 what about treating it similar to contour lines in a 2D map with wire mesh in 3D model and along the mesh put arrow of direction? Or do you think that will look too much like the iron file clumpy perspective? Another means to convey direction produce animation. Maybe color bands moving in a direction in the 3D model space.
The idea of using fluid flow visualization has definitely come up. I am interested in this topic in several regards. First, just visualizing all the properties at the same time to gain a better understanding of what is happening. Second, trying to visualize what the fields would actually look like if we could perceive all the properties at the same time. This video is attempting the second.
Hypothetically, if there were an “ether” all throughout space, the kind that scientists use to argue existed, and electromagnetic radiation were perturbations of thus ether, would it make everything easier to visualize?
Weird question, I know. Lol
I am not sure it would simply because that would be another thing to try to visualize at the same time as the field. It is a difficult and fun problem!
Sure, the standard line of reasoning is that magnetic field lines do not physically exist, but the phenomena of evanescence, flux pinning, and magnetic reconnection, certainly are enticing.
Are we sure about these fields being 100% continuous or is there anything that can be inferred from the fact that energy ends up forming discrete quantized packets? In other words, is there anything apparent about the visualization of fields that would infer the necessity for quantification? After all, aren’t particles simply interacting fields and forces?
This video presents fields according to the classical model. I don't know for sure, but I still imagine a photon as a smooth blurry blob. LOL
Does magnetism really exist? Or is it a side-effect?
What I learned:
Imagine there are 2 parallel moving objects with charge q, distance r speed v (to outside observer).
I added a simple time-delay to the Coulomb force (C*q*q/r*r).
Which would give me a delay of delta t= r/v.
So I would get the Coulomb force at the time of reception.
And noticed that the distance traveled by the field is larger with more speed,
decreasing the electric force between the objects.
The difference is exactly q*v x q*v / r*r Which is the "magnetic force".
It only needs to be corrected in direction.
The force needs to come from the current position(t) instead of the delayed position(t - delta t).
This correction is also necessary for conservation of energy,
as it prevents the charges from pushing each other forward.
It may seem a step back from relativity, but it may give us more insight in what
is really going on. And it is far simpler.
I am supposed to be some kind of expert, but I honestly do not know. I am leaning about 60% toward electric and magnetic fields not being physical things. I wish I had a better answer for you!
@@empossible1577an expert in what exactly????
Repeating words from the daily recommended workbook?
You do not even have any clue on a basic magnetic field model.
This is embarrassing for you!
@@lifeunderthemic In this video I am not attempting to explain what a magnetic field is or if it even exists. I am attempting to visualize the magnetic field according to the classical theory of electromagnetics. I believe I stated all of this in the video.
My qualifications include:
1. Slept at a Holiday Inn Express last night.
2. Owner of a wonderful dog.
3. I read all about electric and magnetic fields in a dictionary one time.
@@empossible1577 as I have stated, you are incorrect from inception! No clarity whatsoever! The same reason you can poll are there parrots like yourself and each would come up with your own blind view. Just as the blindfolded scientists each grasping at a part of an elephant, never to gather the entire image.
I can guarantee you your lacking education only made it as far as whatever was provided to you.
What was it you were looking to do with this video again? What purpose do you feel like you have fulfilled this in any way, shape, form?
Nothing but observer based descriptions. Through sleight of hand lab experiment.
No single explanation.
More parroting of abstract concepts that are not yours and are inherited failure.
Nature alienated failure, by design.
What a life wasted and you have been preaching this cult to children!!
@@empossible1577 why delete comments when you have a completely rational.. I'm just kidding, that's exactly why you delete comments
Does QED (Quantum Electrodynamics) have the answer to the questions posed in this video? Or does QED not answer it?
I don't really know. That I am aware, it does not.
Watch some videos on the subject of Helio dynamics and you'll hear terminology regarding solar plasma filaments "following" or "aligning" with the prevailing solar magnetic fields actually saying "field lines", even the solar physicists use the wrong terminology or fail to understand what is going on.
Thank you!
Seems like it would make a great publication! Can we expect to read about this in Physical Letters anytime soon? 😂❤
I don't think it would get accepted. What I am presenting here is not new or novel. It is just something not discussed or attempted very often because the graphics is very difficult!
So what causes the iron filings to line up in discreet curves?
A few things happen to cause this. First, the iron filings are like tiny compass needles and align themselves to the direction of the magnetic field. Second, they get magnetized, become tiny little magnets themselves and link up with other filings. Third, after linking up, they form lines along the direction of the magnetic field. This happens because of the magnetization of the filings, not because there are actual magnetic field lines.
Some evidence in this experiment that the magnetic field lines do not exist: (1) observed the lines do not move unless the paper holding the filings is shaken. (2) Every time the experiment is reset and repeated, the lines form in different locations. If there were actual magnetic field lines, the iron filings would line up in the same positions each time.
Hope this helps!
@@empossible1577 I am so grateful for this reply. The phenomenon has been troubling me ever since I first saw it, in elementary school. That was a long, long time ago.
I have a mental quirk that does not allow me to go with "well, it works!" as an explanation for anything. I have to understand what is really going on.
This problem hindered me all through my studies of electricity in school and university. What they were using as models couldn't possibly be right!
I think your explanation (and admission that we are dealing with something that in some ways passes our understanding) should be the basis of all study.
They don't look like anything. You can't see that which doesn't emit photons. You could draw a vector diagram, maybe sprinkle some iron filings on a magnetic field. Field lines are usually drawn on equipotentials.
Technically you are right, but it is fun to try anyway.
QUESTIONS: PHOTONS:
A photon swirls with the 'e' and 'm' energy fields 90 degrees to each other. A photon is also considered massless. What keeps the 'e' and 'm' energy fields together across the vast universe for billions of light years? And why doesn't the momentum of the 'e' and 'm' energy fields as they swirl about not fling them away from the central area of the photon? And why aren't photons that go across the vast universe torn apart by other photons, including photons with the exact same energy frequency, and/or by matter, matter being made up of quarks, electrons and interacting energy, quarks and electrons being considered charged particles, each with their respective magnetic field with them?
Electricity is electricity and magnetism is magnetism varying possibly only in energy modality, energy density and energy frequency. So why doesn't the 'e' and 'm' of other photons and of matter basically tear apart a photon going across the vast universe?
Also, 'if' a photon actually red shifts, where does the red shifted energy go and why does the photon red shift? And for those who claim space expanding causes a photon to red shift, what exactly is 'space' and how exactly does space expand?
Why does radio 'em' (large 'em' waves) have low energy and gamma 'em' (small 'em' waves) have high energy? And for those who say E = hf: (f = frequency, cycles per second. But modern science claims space can warp and expand and time can warp and vary. If 'space' warps and expands and/or 'time' warps and varies, what does that do to 'E'? And why doesn't 'E' keep space from expanding and time from varying?). And again, what exactly is 'space' that it can warp and expand and what exactly is 'time' that it can warp and vary?
And for those who claim 'gravity' is matter warping the fabric of spacetime, then I also ask:
What exactly is 'space' and how exactly does space warp?
What exactly is 'time' and how exactly does time warp?
Is what is called 'gravity' also a part of electro-magnetism ('em'), gravity acting 90 degrees to the 'em' modalities of a photon, which of course act 90 degrees to each other? Is that how a photon stays together across the vast universe? Possibly even the 'gem' photon being the energy unit of this universe that makes up everything in existence in this universe, including space itself (the 'gem' photon) and time (the flow of energy), spacetime being energy and it's flow, as well as possibly even numbers so that math can do what math does in this existence? It currently seems so to me.
GRAVITY TEST: (Short Version):
Direct a high powered laser 90 degrees through an electric field and magnetic field polarized as such to nullify the 'em' of the laser. "IF" my current TOE idea is correct, a gravitational black hole would become evident. (The 'gem' photon being the energy unit of this universe that makes up everything else in existence in this existence.)
Great video! I am still trying to reconcile a propagating EM field in my mind.
I find it hard to reconcile the oscillation of the EM field along the x-axis, because the charge at that point is only oscillating because the charge producing the intensity at that point is constantly moving closer and further away. If the accelerating charge was depicted, we would see that the charge moves up and down along the y-axis and the electric field intensity is based on the position of the charge at some time in the past. 3blue1brown has a good recent vid on this too and shows that the charge vectors aren’t actually perpendicular to the x-axis.
Now, there is another way of graphing EM field of a charged particle. If instead, we always align the origin to the accelerating charged particle, the electric field intensity would be static and its intensity would drop off based on the relevant inverse square law, but what would the plot of the magnetic field look like???
Don't try to get too much out of that first animation. I was just trying to animate the notation that "charges interact over some distance after some delay." That animation is not intended to be anything rigorous. Sorry for any confusion!
The magnetic field would only arise during the motion of the charge and would radiate away in a typical dipole radiation pattern (i.e. donut).
@@empossible1577 I very much appreciate your animations and what you’re trying to achieve. A better understanding of reality and a better mental model to avoid confusions so we are all on the same page and can advance science. There are still so many questions in my mind. I had it in my mind that the traditional lines are more like contour lines. Except they are different to contour lines on a map in that the force is in the direction of the lines. But then it seems that magnetic fields lines represent something different.. the iron filing example, they align in the direction of the line, they don’t move along the lines, yet other objects seem to snap together with great force. Maybe the iron filings are doing to too, but a lot gentler due to their size. I like that this video has got my mind thinking so much.
@@br3nto The math describing electric and magnetic fields is identical so the lines represent the same exact thing. The reason we think of them being so different is that there is no such thing as magnetic charge and magnetic current. This essentially exposes different parts of the math to electric and magnetic fields.
@@empossible1577you probably know better than I do how hard this is.
But Just as a guess. There is an amazing coincidence between the number of dimensions and the number of primary colors. Up, left, and forward correspond to red, green and blue. So one would think that a volume could be filled with directional arrows represented as a color dots whose color represents a direction by composing the color of each dot using a color composed of an RGB(a, b, c) where a, b, and c a are in the range 0 to 255, with 0 representing - infinity, and 255 representing +infinity. Maybe this would require training to understand, but it shouldn't be that hard.
@@LowellBoggs Hmmm... Maybe...It may be weird to interpret color as direction, but probably worth trying. Thanks!
So how do you explain solar flares?
I am not entirely sure what is happening on or in the sun to produce the flares. There are a lot of charges moving around on the sun so electromagnetic radiation is not a surprise to me. I wish I could give a better answer!
thx
What about using a colored fog with direction color-coded?
That is a good idea and has been suggested here several times. My biggest confusions with that is that it would be very intuitive and difficult to make out colors in 3D when looking through multiple colors. My goal here is not to do a better job at illustrating the properties of the field, but to do a better job at illustrating what the field physically are...that is volumetric, smooth, and continuous. It is a difficult and fun problem!
@@empossible1577 I personally think you succeeded in your goal!
@@brynduffy Thank you! I will keep trying!
I wonder what the gravitational wave would look like.
No my area, but I suspect just the scalar part I have been showing for EM.
@@empossible1577 I am a ham radio operator. And when in physics I was learning about the transverse electomagnetic wave I also could not understand the fact that it looks the way you depicted with the alternating electic and magntetic field.The fog was a better explanation. I imagined the wave like a big hum close to a mist that propagates out of the antenna. Like a spread our mush that flies away. Also, I never understood why the wave propagates with the speed of light instantaneously. It is impossible to have a function that does something in zero seconds. That is why I ask many physicists what causes the speed of light. And they can't answer. Nice video.
@@user-ky5dy5hl4d I have no idea why the "speed of light" exists. I can say, since there is a speed of light, mechanisms are not instantaneous. Everything takes some time due to there being a speed of light.
Many years ago my wife was taking an orbital mechanics class. All the equations they used assumed an instantaneous gravity. I wonder what effect the speed of gravity has on this?
AG4YV
@@empossible1577 Yes, what is the mechanism of the photon detaching itself from the source and acquiring the speed and it does not matter what speed. Because before a particle reaches a certain speed it must accelerate. And that's my argument that the speed of light is not constant. Either it does move instantaneously or the time has a variable or the other way round. One of the two must be affected. My, my, my. El Paso Texas. I was stationed at Fort Bliss learning radars there while in US. Army. Just unbelievable. My call sign: SQ5KIE
what about wave reflection?
We actually have a video on that. It is an old one, but here is the link:
ruclips.net/video/aTk7Clr6Vys/видео.htmlsi=w698L4Sut1vGk8_m
It is not as simple of an answer as you think!
could you incorporate rainbow coloring into your model to better illustrate instead of just one color I wouldn't know exactly what you wanted to illustrate with it but I just feel like it might help with something
Maybe. In 3D, looking through multiple colors sort of washes them out. Very difficult problem!!
So fields are blobs around a magnet or charge, the EM wave is just the blob vibrating like a jelly😂
I think that is a better picture than lines! 🙂
Insightful!
Thank you for the education!
And can I ask....
Do you agree with these quotes, or do you align with the bubble surface charge interpretation?
“Unfortunately to a large extent in dealing with dielectric fields the prehistoric conception of the electro-static charge, the ‘electron’, on the conductor still exists, and by its use destroys the analogy between the two components of the electric field, the magnetic and dielectric. This makes the consideration of dielectric fields unnecessarily complicated”
- C.P. Steinmetz (Electric Discharges, Waves and Impulses)
“My ideas regarding the electron are at variance with those generally entertained. I hold that it is a relatively large entity carrying a surface charge and is not an elementary unit (particle). When the ‘electron’ leaves an electrode of high potential and in a high vacuum it carries an electrostatic charge many times greater than normal.”
- N. Tesla
“JJ Thomson developed the “Ether Atom” ideas of Michael Faraday into his “Electronic Corpuscle”, this indivisible unit. One corpuscle terminates on one Faradic tube of force, and this quantifies as one Coulomb. This corpuscle is not an electron, it is a constituent of what today is known incorrectly as an “electron”. (Thomson relates 1000 corpuscles per electron) In this view, that taken by W. Crookes, J.J. Thomson, and N. Tesla, the cathode ray is not electrons, but in actuality corpuscles of the Ether.”
- Eric Dollard.
"There is much confusion concerning the many kinds of particles of matter such as electrons, protons, photons, neutrons and others. These many particles are supposedly different because of the belief that some are negatively charged, some are positively charged and some are so equally charged that one supposedly neutralizes the other. There is no such condition in nature as negative charge, nor are there negatively charged particles. Charge and discharge are opposite conditions, as filling and emptying, or compressing and expanding are opposite conditions. Compressing bodies are charging into higher potential conditions. Conversely, expanding bodies are discharging into lower potential conditions. To describe an electron as a negatively charged body is equivalent to saying that it is an expanding-contracting body."
- Dr. Walter Bowman Russell
Cause they have a point.
We can only have a negative direction, we can't have a negative magnitude. Its silly to imply magnitudes below 0.
But the kooks had reigns of academia it seems and reason lost its way so now 'Negative Charge' is apparently an actual entity lol
I look forward to your answer after viewing this detailed video!
Unfortunately, my thinking on all of these things has reached the solid point of "I have no idea." LOL My education in this field came from applied science and engineering, not theoretical physics. Until just a few years ago, I was convinced electric and magnetic fields existed. My main evidence was: (1) consistency with observation, and (2) the time-delay implies there is something in between interacting charges. In recently years, I have been slowly learning that EM phenomena (I don't know if all) can be explained just with Coulomb's law and relativity. I am making a big leap here, but I cannot help wonder if that is true about all EM phenomena, what does that say about the existence of electric and magnetic fields? Unfortunately, I have no answers to give you.
Thank you so much for this input and those quotes. My father-in-law as his PhD in particle physics. I wonder his thoughts on this.
@@empossible1577 Mhmmmm....
Particle Physicist you say?
Was he a Bohr fan? What does he think of our inability to structure the Atom, and does he know it was primarily Bohr who who wanted to "renounce our ability to understand"....
Could you tell him that on the fringe we are close to structuring the geometry below the bubble? (Its not 99.9% space like Rutherford said, or like the Absolute Space cultists of Newton so desperately wish it was)
And I'd be careful Sir!
Maric-Lorentz-Poincare-Minkowski-Onestone (Einstein) formulisation of Machian Relationalism is not only illogical but incoherent dribble that dabbles in reification.
REAL Physicists know that Space and Time are MATHEMATICAL ABSTRACTIONS of Distance/Length/Volume and Density/Periodicity/Cycles.
But Theoretical Physicists (Sociology for Mathematicians) think of it as a tangible entity with material properties....
While Heavisides simplifying of Maxwells equations also leave a lot to be desired... Walther Ritz was very disagreeable to instant action, as am I.
Sorry, I seemed to ramble there a bit and forgot where I was going.....
Oh yeah, careful with being agreeable to theories of ad hoc.
I can tell you, Einsteinian Metaphysics is wronger than wrong, abysmally ficticious to the point of New Relativists actually acting as obstructionists against experiments which debunk it lol
I'd look to Galilean Transformations and Galilean Electrodynamics if I was you sir... he practically did all the work before Einstein and his goons abstracted it into sci-fi.
@@empossible1577 Oh and I should ask!
Do you know of Rob Distinti?
Apparently Heaviside-Maxwell didn't predict the Camelback Effect, but he did according to FractalWoman!
Oh and do you agree with our "current" definition of Charge?
And do you also know of Ivor Catt and his argument against the existence of Electrical Current?
@@jaydenwilson9522 Maybe five years ago I would have given you a pretty confident answer that I agree with the conventional definition of charge and current. I am now questioning everything. I am not aware of Ivor Catt. Can you point me to this argument?
@@empossible1577 If you google about the Catt Anomaly and his article Death of Electric Current he'll say it better than me...
Essentially he doesn't believe in the fluid dynamics analogy of "flow" and current...
Neither do I lol (We based everything on water, the gram, economy and finance... even how electricity operates lol its been over-analogised)
Apparently "Charge" as defined is causing major problems.... and our Concrete Maths which turn -a*-ab=ab are also causing problems like they did for the electron....
I think we might need to go back to the start and reformulate EM Theory with a new Rule of Signs.
What about like a flowing fluid
That has definitely come up. If used for statics it seems to introduce "lines again." If used for waves, it erases the ripples of the wave. I am unsure, but I do love fluid flow visuals.
Thank you for even attempting to discuss a field. Terence Howard has don some work attempting to describe actual reality. Lines and waves are a nice starter but leads down a false rabbit hole , I believe.
Listen.
Magnetic Fields are emanating from a physical object,
which has small imperfections due to manufacturing methods.
The material flaws are visible in the field.
Indeed, the field strengths are a beautiful
3 dimensional fog surrounding the field emitter.
You are so close!
now consider existence of virtual higher dimensions, created by the function's derivative - and you have the solution for three body problem.
I once developed a simulation of gravity and moving masses. I was curious how the speed of gravity affected things. I cannot trust my simulations at all, but the conclusion from my untrustworthy simulation is that the speed of gravity is not that important until you get to galaxy level motion. Did I mention my simulations of this should not be trusted?
@@empossible1577 Please consider developing a model of the solar system, including magnetic planet reconnection and creation of sunspots and cme's, like enlil, but more than 2 au and prediction of future cme's not just tracking of already created. we are in dire need of that model.
@@Fish-ub3wn I once tried to animate our solar system for a talk my wife was giving at a grade school. Unfortunately, drawing it to scale was not feasible because almost nothing could be seen. I had to way distort the scale of the planets and distance between them. It was not a simulation, but more a visualization to explain seasons, phases of the moon, etc.
@@empossible1577 a question of right gui - if u click an icon, and it zooms you in and shows you the scale, it easy to use.
birth, conception when one to two cells divide to form the fetus,, looks like the magnetic field too..
Check out Theoria apophasis for a great description and explanation.
you're done a great job I really enjoyed the video however I believe that this can be expanded man not to say that you didn't do good enough but there's got to be a way to pear deeper into the Looking Glass
There absolutely is. In the past, we have tried some things in VR as well as visualizing other difficult concepts in science.
@@empossible1577 could you maybe incorporate sound waves being perfect sine waves and their frequency also for some reason I can't stop thinking about how to try to model this I'm even talking about it with my mathematician friend
@@empossible1577 I just think it needs to be expanded for some reason it seems to be very important in my mind anyway
@@empossible1577 has Holograms been attempted
@@mattman8685 I think they would look like what I have shown here minus the arrows. Sound is a scalar phenomenon.
By model, do you mean just to visualize or to simulate? If you mean simulate, there are several ways to do this. I have personally simulated sound waves using a technique called finite-difference time-domain (FDTD). While there are many sources for this, and probably much newer and better ones than I used many years ago, here is the book I used:
www.amazon.com/Electromagnetic-Simulation-Using-FDTD-Method/dp/0780347471/ref=sr_1_2?crid=12606FCD0W0PZ&dib=eyJ2IjoiMSJ9.GGTrZ6k4wGVAnKZE9u_eNR9y6O2ptiqI730xcMunA1ieGOpL4S5PB3rzMZ_hMtcoCN1Q0014uCPFkQ2-o5s-3i27nbkFmwySKyFovQtdYxjL6IQo31IyCPmIS8KgUYDIUe4TqVUQnuwPvvCyB2sCaWbfjS9YxPoAqJVXze7pHlzxq7OLxM2HP62bf45qvhjJ_eo8MCwKhYRf84GMjuO3KaW7UCFLLSTaynFbLE0ZV27DE19oDSBcqPvz1ip67MhEfOPJEiTFkmieplpvK_tVyMaMePTvVA3bQu5wYEkgSmw.jpphxSZTI1POyniIHQ2k_37MKZhbP7-pH-ss9mzIJzY&dib_tag=se&keywords=sullivan+fdtd&qid=1716297105&sprefix=sullivan+fdtd%2Caps%2C166&sr=8-2&ufe=app_do%3Aamzn1.fos.9f2cdd2d-df47-45ac-9666-580d6bb0ee10
Your fog analogy clouds the issue.
...
Doug gets banned from EMPossible.
Jokes like that get you promoted around here.
as much as i appreciate your intentions, i think its better to accept that this is a much worse visualization of the fields. I don't think a better way to visualize is possible. But who knows, I wish you luck. Maybe stick to 2d slices instead of 3d.
I agree with you. In my experience, when I teach I show these visualizations at first and then back up to the more conventional slice views and line drawings because the properties are conveyed in a simpler diagram.
Not sure if you've seen it, but minutephysics tried to do a similar thing with orbitals in ruclips.net/video/W2Xb2GFK2yc/видео.html
Mapping these abstract concepts onto our day-to-day senses/experiences is difficult! Going with your fog analogy, it would seem like the bulk properties (e.g. movement) could be used to show some values. But then as soon as you wanted to show how fields vary over time that would seem to break down. 😢
I have seen this. They are amazing visuals. He did great!
I honestly think that you have to be upfront and real about the analog of these fields. If it quacks like a duck, then behave as though it's a duck until you discover otherwise. Too many scientific people are continuously ignoring the obvious. EM fields behave similar if not identically to sound traveling through water. I propose accepting the Aetheric medium as the best and most reasonable explanation of em propagation until otherwise. There are way to many unproven irrational theories that are be used as a basis of truth. They are not. Lets all stick with the non-dogmatic RATIONAL ways of thinking. We live in a sea of energy. We are the energy...
What does an electron do in the color space ? Nothing...that medium is not accesible for the electron.
@cazymike87 That's t probably because the electron is a stable form of the medium. Keep in mind that all of our current measurements and tools are just meant to aid us in defining a tiny part of the energy and material spectrum. The totality of this spectrum is beyond our natural senses. The only way to leap beyond the limits of our senses and tools is to go far beyond the dogmatic institutionalized learning formats. The answers have been with us all along. We have been conditioned to not see the obvious answers.
@@rod3134 What you observe in nature is that reallity is structurated as layers upon layers , due to the emergence phenomena. So, yes if I want to agree with you that there's got to be The One medium ....then I will say that this medium will be the Wave Function Of The Univers. If you dont know what it is I suggest to read about it .
But given the fact that it is sooo vast and not necesary for us humans beings , and to be onest not even for the electron ...This medium ( the wave function of the universe) is like wayy to many layers behind what I experience , and an electron also, that it is not usefull to relate to IT.
Instead, we relate to our layers .....and to say that the electromagnetic field and the quarq field can relate to the same layer of reality is not correct, simply because the quarq field its maybe 1 layer behind the EM Field, due to its complexity.
The EM field is a thing in 4 dimensions , while a Quarq field its in 9 dimensions. It's like comparing a circle with a sphere, onestly.
@cazymike87 I completely agree with your thoughts and observations. All of existence is built though upon a singular source. We're all observing the same thing. We just see it in its multitude of different forms from various perspectives, be it energy/waves or in its higher to less energetic state that we term matter. Instead of just seeing wave functions, I prefer to visualize it like a hyper-superfluous gas. (Motion or Stillness yet undetermined) More refined than the quark level. It's like we are fish in a bowl, and then the postulative nature of existence becomes simple. The dimensional levels only indicate the increasing complexity of the energy interactions, be it stable or fleeting, within our complex construct. The units of our measurements only indicate the energetic quality of the energy states, not what it actually is.
And this way of visualizing it is not correct, in the same way as visualizing in your every day life a human or a car in motion as a collection of electrons. It is not your layer of emergence . Try to say that you see atoms when you are trying to take your driver's license and see how it goes. It is the same situation for our subject of discussion.
Rational Science Channel. Use it.
a magnetic field is not a physical object, it's a map of potentials an actual physical object will be effected by if placed in a location within the field.
you can't look at something that has no physical existence.
Yet it is fun to try!
They are not vector functions. They are vector quantities.
Worrying if we can't even get the terminology right.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vector-valued_function
Pfff... See the work "Uncovering the Missing Secrets of Magnetism (3rd)" by Ken L. Wheeler, scribd, archive etc.
I will look for this. Thank you!
@@empossible1577 Just wanted to chime in and say I 100% support copperhead's recommendation, Wheeler is a very controversial figure and not the most pleasant guy around, but when it comes to field theory, what a field is and where they come from, he absolutely knows his stuff, even if I don't agree with everything he claims he's got one of the best laid foundations of field theory I've seen so far.
Edit: Also you are absolutely correct that the "lines" model we have of (Di)electric and Magnetic fields do not exist, they are just abstractions to help us visualize the fields. If you can get past the drivel and insulting language in Ken's book it's worth it.
@@JenkoRun Thank you for this!
👌😍🙏
I think what is missed is 2 fold, first it is not understood what the wave is controlling. This comes from the poorly understood magnet and the poor integration of physic discipline which has lead to no real definition of charge and how it is manifested from the magnet. Everyone knows a magnet has it donains pointing in a common direction, which is also called the polar axis. And so we know the electromagnetic wave must control the axis of the conductor or medium it is travelling in.
Alignment of the dipole particles of the ether, which engage in flux cancellation to try to neutralize charged particles in the area.
If you can explain it to six years old don’t make it possible for you to explain it to an older person with a higher education. So your theory is limited to a six years old kid.
Magnetic field lines do not imply there is field on the lines only and nowhere else. That interpretation is by people that have little knowledge of magnetic fields.
They are contour lines like on a topographical map of terrain, they represent lines of equal field strength.
I am disappointed you failed to even mention this
They are quite valid and correct to use. You just need to understand they are lines of equ-magnetic field strength.
Same goes for electric field lines.
They are lines of equipotential.
With so many errors already in less than 3 minutes of this video I am really questioning if I should watch the entire video .
The magnetic line thing has always frustrated me. Mass channels the field through itself and lines up creating a line, but the line wasn't there before the mass lined up. Not sure, but I think that there is still a theory about particles entering the Earth's field which creates a descending radio whistle from spiraling around the magnetic line.
Your learned knowledge has steered you wrong. Understanding our universe is not linear. Yes, you may understand that you see this, as you present this is not linear. but, you are.
I think the healthiest way to view my education is simply as a sparse overview of how others have modeled and solved problems. Nothing more. I don't accept anything as absolute fact. I only treat some things as fact because I don't have time to go back and justify everything.
How is it you can answer what the Fields look like when you have no clue of the orientation of the magnetic field and falsely use an incorrect model to make your failed assumptions.
You could not get a basic magnetic field Diagrams orientation correct with that of reality.
Such absurd failure of opposing poles being attracted🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣. 🐒(really bro)
I can sense magnetic fields because I am half human and half honeybee.
Pretty laughable. The standard diagrams are much better than the examples you give here.
There are much clearer ways to visualize electromagnetic fields when you are just interested in summarizing the basic properties, such as magnitude or direction of the field. The problem with those diagrams for beginners is that they lose the fact that fields are volumetric, smooth, and continuous. I am trying to come up with visualizations that do a better job at illustrating what fields physically are, even though they may do a poorer job at quantifying the specific properties of the field.
It is a very difficult and fun problem!
@@empossible1577 ok, thanks for the explanation.
Why you don't use color gradients? (like "infrared" vision in predator movie?) red for the hotter objects, and gradient of colors of rainbow... blue for the coolest)
In this case could be red for the greatest magnitude in "Electic charge field value" gradient of color... Blue for the smallest magnitude in electric field value.
In that way, the human brain can "see" a fourth dimension in a 3D image..
It will be seen as a blurry colored fog (like rainbow colored plasma)
I have and still do. The problem is that in 3D those colors wash out when you look through them. They really are only distinguishable if looking at something like a wave from the side or are looking at a cross section. Volumetric stuff I really struggle with for this reason.
If you have any skills in this area, give it a try. You may be able to figure out something I cannot. That would be awesome!
You can use colored "dots" or "spots", and even use a gradient of "concentration" of spots to represent the magnitude of the field in a certain area. The more spots, the greater the magnitude of the field in that zone.
Even the 3D image can be monochromatic. (like in prometheus movie scene, where the "engineers hollographics" show what happen to the crew)
ruclips.net/user/shortsmZEnn3U3UCc?si=jbt1D8ee_X0UcAH8
I definitely thing so. I just don't want that picture to imply too strongly that the field is spotty. Some kind of spots are necessary though because to convey a 3D field you need to be able to look through it.
COLOUR SATURATION..?
Love your visualization and the effort you put into helping people learn EM!
The best visualization I have seen so far is this one, I could not imagine how amazing if you two collaborated on some interesting topic...
ruclips.net/user/shorts81QNyDnYtg0?si=fJ7AjSyJ4PygrnKQ
I've seen his work. I think he is quite a bit better than me. I think he also uses a more powerful platform for generating graphics. I definitely admire his work!