To see subtitles in other languages: Click on the gear symbol under the video, then click on "subtitles." Then select the language (You may need to scroll up and down to see all the languages available). --To change subtitle appearance: Scroll to the top of the language selection window and click "options." In the options window you can, for example, choose a different font color and background color, and set the "background opacity" to 100% to help make the subtitles more readable. --To turn the subtitles "on" or "off" altogether: Click the "CC" button under the video. --If you believe that the translation in the subtitles can be improved, please send me an email.
Our intuition tells us that the net electric field should be zero, due to the symmetry of space. That is the paradox: We get different answers depending on how we think about it. If we think about in terms of closed surfaces, every closed surface must have an electric field, due to the charge inside. But, if we think about it in terms of the symmetry of space, the electric field should be zero.
@@pluggthis My apologies, I am not an educator. Try thinking of "closed" in this way: If you want a light to turn on, using a switch, you complete (close) the circuit which allows current to flow. When the light is off, the circuit is (open), or not completed, thus current can not flow. There are no assumptions being made. It is merely a law governing electricity. They omitted an explanation in my opinion, because this topic is far beyond introductory electricity and/or physics. By this point in the subject matter, open and closed have been clearly defined. Note: This probably is not what was meant by "closed" in this video.
Holy cow, this is one of my favourite things I have ever seen! The idea that a universe with uniform charge density throughout space is logically impossible is beautiful! It's as if we have inferred a metaphysical truth from a physical theory, which I love
from what I understand about quantum physics (quantum mechanics), the electric field or electric flux (and the corresponding magnetic field which is it’s dual) does actually exist everywhere. it is the photon field, and whenever and wherever its wave function breaks down/collapses or deposits a quanta of energy, it can transport its energy to the proton or electron or neutron field, causing motion. actually, the wave functions or fields of all particles are much more real than the particles, whose existence is only a name given to the quantization and maybe the localization of local maxima of the probability wavefunction...
You are BY FAR the best educational RUclips channel there is. AND active in the comment section. I just hope i can recommend you to the entire universe, and beyond. :-)
Well the Maxwell's equations video of his is a great start. It's a beautiful subject matter but requires a solid basis of multivariable calculus to truly understand.
Suppose for a moment that this is not a flaw in our theory of electromagnetism. There has been some recent work on Planck satellite data that suggests the universe may have positive curvature. This is still tentative. The calculations are being checked, double checked, triple checked. But if true, would that indirectly tell us something about the net charge in our entire universe?
You can help translate this video by adding subtitles in other languages. To add a translation, click on the following link: ruclips.net/user/timedtext_video?v=P0Jnx1BjIZM&ref=share You will then be able to add translations for all the subtitles. You will also be able to provide a translation for the title of the video. Please remember to hit the submit buttons for both the title and for the subtitles, as they are submitted separately. Details about adding translations is available at support.google.com/youtube/answer/6054623?hl=en Thanks.
Maybe the answear is in the 4 Dimension becouse we are able to handle all what is lower also some teoris means that Electronic is completly difrend in 4d (sorry for Grammer im from germany )
@@xxtradamxx E=MC2 is not a representation. It is a directly observable law of physics which occurs all day every day. Just because we do not experience it in our daily lives does not render it not real. We see the end results of that math for example. The sun is the easiest example to offer. Many physical laws can be tested and verified with physical experimentation, no math needed. You can even test aspects for yourself. Gravity as an easy example. Gravity is an extremely weak force. That can be tested without math, simply by raising your hand if you feel I am incorrect. As far as "small" physics, yes, math is our only way of representing that world due to not being able to directly view it. But when the math confirms something, chances are extremely high that it is a real thing.
@@timunterberg3289 It is safe to say almost anything would be very different in a 4D universe. And I feel you are correct. The solutions may lie in that 4th dimension. After all, if we lived in a 2D universe, we would have no understanding of most everything we experience in our current lives. If there are other dimensional universes, there will be math heading off into one of those directions. All we have to do is locate that math.
Aside from the fact that the electrostatic energy of this charge distribution would be infinite (so it would take an infinite amount of work to create it in the first place), the "paradox" mainly illustrates the crucial importance of the boundary conditions. You could think of the infinite charged region as a limit of a finite sphere as the radius goes to infinity. Then a solution in which the electric field is zero at the center of this sphere remains valid at all values of the radius, because you have well-defined boundary conditions during the limiting process. In other words, when going to infinity, it's not the destination that matters, but the way you get there...
Just pointing out that even if it's not possible to have a uniform charge density that there is no rule in EMT that explicitly states that so either way it seems to me that the theory could be upgraded
Love the comments on this channel. How do you know negative mass do not exist? and if they do exist, can we then make an analogy between electric/magnetic fields and gravitational field? meaning it would be kind of the same "stuff" in some way? thanks for the videos
Awesome video. Great philosophy in this content. I always think of Maxwell's Laws as being defined from a point source/ exchange particle perspective. But it's concerning that it doesn't follow through in greater dimensions. An upgrade to the electromagnetic model which includes general relativity seems overdue. But it's so challenging to visualize these mathematics. So few people have even tried. I think negative mass is more a shape of time and space, and not a particle per se.
I’m a novice, so please be kind with your answer. When you say negative mass, are you referring to when we square root a value but only keep the positive answer and discard the negative answer when dealing with time, length, mass, etc?
@@luisbolanos8393 um..no. I think the complex conjugate of gravity would be inertia. I thinking more like instead of a gravitational well, negative mass would be a gravitational peak. I'll let you know if I figured it out😋
This reminds me of speculation on symmetry between matter and anti-matter. Or rather, it is a stricter symmetry for it requires not only the charge but also the quantities of each particles to be the same on both sides.
Interesting. I'm tempted to say that doesn't seem possible to apply symmetry because different points on the uniformly charged line have different potential but it's tricky to see it without a clear reference point where the potential is not actually infinite
Very Interesting point. My intuition tells me that symmetry is actually our only hope here. From the perspective of any point in the universe, all the charge is located in spherical shells around that point, so their influence cancels out. I agree that the potential difference between anywhere in the universe and anywhere outside the universe is infinite, whatever that means.
i was just reading about the utah teapot and how it became an inside joke amongst the computer graphics community, then i immediately saw one at 2:56 lol. i guess im gonna see more of it now that i know it.
4 года назад
hey could you do a video about the strong force field (how does it look like, the flux etc) supposing that you can actually split the 3 poles without creating more quarks?
That was the BEST presentations you have ever done!! It puts both support of "Quantum Flux Theory" Oxford University Press, And..Wall Thornhill's electric Universe! Your observations and presentation are breathtaking, I'm in my third year of higher physics, because I'm training my mind to visualize 4th dimensional modelling and quaternion mathematics. You have given this higher framework of electromagnetism a Viceral cognition as well. Sorry that was so long, your work has bailed me out several times in class. Love you guys!! Mr Fractal pie
Yes, since electric flux is defined in 3D, you cannot fill ALL space exclusively with positive or negative consistently. That's because positive requires negative for its definition and vice versa. The line and plane examples work because the extra available dimensions can act as negative charges if you properly fold the space. In 3D, the flux has no extra dimensions to make an "image" of the opposite charge, and thus cannot maintain consistency. Note that if one of the positive charges were removed in the infinite space of positivity, the empty space would indeed represent a valid solution, since the space could be folded around that empty spot, and therefore represent a negative charge receiving its flux from infinity in 3D.
So is the problem something like this? We can associate a uniform positive charge density with all of real 3-space (thinking of this as the divergence of some electric field at every point). If we try to partition the space into any two continuously connected spaces (For example, cutting the space in half along the xy-plane) then our intuition would tell us that the charge density of the space would have to be zero along the boundary of those two spaces, since each component of the space would be applying the same amount of electromagnetic flux into the other partition of the space through the boundary, but if you integrate the electromagnetic potential throughout any of the closed regions, then the divergence theorem (and thus, Gauss's Law) would say that the net flux exiting any nontrivial region would be strictly positive?
@@wajideus4591 thanks for reply, so magnetic flux is a field albeit having a quantity but it would be difficult to define a field, it is a phenomenon but what are its attributes. I think that is where the particles come in because it is the only way some people can define it. Problem is we go down the wrong path trying to fully understand its attributes and behaviour. Take the earth is has localised magnetic fields in some parts of the world stronger/ weaker than others now why is that and would particle theory help us to understand that phenomenon.
I already have many videos on Relativity and Quantum Theory. Check out my playlists: Quantum Videos in Order: ruclips.net/p/PLkyBCj4JhHt-elH-mR1d1NfTZ-W0_DCRl Relativity Videos in Order: ruclips.net/p/PLkyBCj4JhHt_pz8HUG7rbMeKFsStae10k
I cover eigenvalues and eigenvectors in my video at ruclips.net/video/8F0gdO643Tc/видео.html And I cover their connection to stability analysis at ruclips.net/video/p9qrHdPEe28/видео.html
How does a satellite measure field charge in space. What is its reference point. Does this reference not polarise as there is no way to discharge or ground or sink the charge built up.
Why is an electric flux assumed when there's an electric charge? If there's no charge difference, electrons have nowhere to flow to. Wouldn't an infinitely positive universe be comparable to an infinite neutral universe?
No.... for their to be electric charge, we must have a description of electric flux and vise versa or else our description of electromagnetism makes no sense. An infinitely positive universe will have an effect on any charged object that suddenly came into existence. Whilst an infinitely neutral universe (one with no charge at all) can't have an effect on a charged object at all, if one suddenly sprang into existence. That neutral universe would immediately have the same magnitude of charge as that charged object that came into existence. I know I made it confusing but it is still true. So an infinitely positive universe is non-comparable to an infinitely neutral universe by definition of charge.
can flux come out of a black hole? how can a black hole have charge if nothing escapes it? if EM is exchange of photons and photons cannot escae a BH how can a BH have a charge?
Evrenin kodları arısında ne kadar bilgisiz ve habersiz olduğumu hatırlattı. Ayrıca beyin yanması cabası. İyi ki varsınız. Paylaşım ve çabalarınız için teşekkürler.
7:20 You may have actually convinced me that we do live in a closed universe with positive electric charge density, because it does not matter that we cannot "solve" the equations for the whole universe. The equations are just tools. They do not govern what happens, causality does. If there was an extra positive electric charge, then the effect would presumably propagate at c (which is not factored into the equations). We probably do not have good maths for this (would have to simulate), but this does not make it impossible. The field lines would multiply for each lap of the closed universe, and cause exponentially increasing electric field strength, the net result of which would be that objects would be pushed away from each other in increasing magnitudes at a cosmic scale, right? *cough* dark energy *cough* inflation *cough* new closed CMB result *cough*
Today's astrophysics is messed up. How is the positive charge spread at the speed of light? It was there. It is connected and affected by every other charge in the Universe. There are no isolated islands.
@@clairpahlavi I mean that the charge is spreading just like a gravity wave, at c. I do not believe it is instantaneously connected to the rest of the universe. If I shake a positive charge around, you would not be able to detect it faster than c allows. So in that sense, the effect would travel around the universe repeatedly at c. And I believe this is why the equations do not add up for a disbalance, as the one extra charge would gain infinite effect.
The acceleration is uniform throughout the universe. A charge based acceleration would not be, I think. Edit: Besides, where would the extra charge come from?
@@Mernom The same place everything comes from. I think the slight variations in the accelerations could be explained by differing percentages of excess positive charge.
couldn't the negative pressure of dark energy be a negative mass ? I mean it's not a physical thing you can touch but it's relativistic effects kinda do an anti-gravity effects does it ?
In a close universe it would be impossible to make an uniform distribution of positive particles, right? Like making a grid on the surface of a sphere.
To make it add up and make sense +ve cells held together by -ve 'flux' are needed... forms the base material hex lattice... flux must be able to flow and cells at least move from their neutral, balanced position via energy.. out of place cells, and possibly the hole left behind form particles. From here you can explain gravity + dark energy and electricity in basic terms.
Yes, I think so. In QFT, this infinite sea of uniform particles will be the new zero energy level of the quantum fields in this infinite space, thus for the people inside this space, they will no longer preceive the existence of any particle at all. The space will look completely empty according to a person that live inside this space, hence in any closed gaussian surface around any point in this space, there will no longer be particles inside, thus the field will be zero, in consistence with the intuition.
@pyropulse The second part of your statement is actually my point. Now just assume that I am a complete idiot and you are a PhD holder in Physics. Let us imagine that there exist an infinite space that is filled with electrons with uniform charge density. Let say you want to know what is the electric field strenght at point A in this infinite space. Because the space itself is infinite, you can always find 2 pairs of points in this space, whose electric field will cancle out at point A, resulting the electric field there to always be zero. In other hand, if we take any Gaussian Surface around point A, you will always find charges inside this closed surface, resulting in non-zero electric flux, implying that the electric field at any point in this infinite space couldn't be zero, according to Gauss' Law. If we try to solve the problem according to your way, that we assume at first that the infinite space have a finite spherical symmetry, and then take a corresponding limit, then although you think that you will get a similar infinite space as well, you actually intodruce a boundary condition to this problem, saying that any equipotential surfaces inside this infinite space have form of a sphere with a certain radius, centered at a particular point in this space. Well, the thing is, in our thought experiment, we do not introduce any boundary condition at all. The infinite space that we are talking about doesn't need to have a certain symmetry, resulting that you can't just assume what the symmetry of the equpotential surfaces look like, and then just taking a limit to easily have a "similar" infinite space. In fact, these two cases are completely different. Now I ask you, what do you say about this? The fact that you say my intuition was wrong just means that you didn't quite understand what problem we are talking about here yet. This what you called "my intuition" is just my attempt to re-describe the paradox mentioned in the video, not my personal view of what this problem looks like. Hope you can understand well what I just said with one of your PhDs. Have a nice day though.
@pyropulse And just for the records. I, explaning this with the help of QFT, doesn't mean that I was trying to prove that classical theory of EM is wrong. If you read carefully, it's actually an attempt to save the theory, saying that the Gauss's Law holds also, even if we introduce an infinite space with uniform charge density, which QFT will say that this infinite space will actually be empty at all, but the Laws of Physics in this region of space will slightly change, maybe for example the nature constants will be different than those of our universe.
Neat thought experiment. I guess an infinite, perfectly uniform charge distribution would have zero ramifications for other extra charges/the rest of the universe. So there would just be a different definition of zero charge density. No issue as far as Maxwell is concerned.
@pyropulse Ok, so then what would the net force be on an extra point charge located within an infinite, uniform charge manifold? What is the net force on a point charge located inside of a spherical shell of uniform charge? What about inside an infinite number of those shells? I get your point about gauss's law and the enclosed charge, and I enjoyed thinking through your expanding sphere limit approach. But yeah, there's deffinitely no way it could be a non-uniform field. The awnser has to be invariant under translation. Think about it. Simply, there's no energy for a charge to obtain by moving from one place to another, it would not prefer any specific location. Same as if the universe was uncharged. Anyways, I hope things start to shape up for you. Keep trying at physics.
What does this mean? The universe, from electromagnetism theory, is open and closed at the same time? that the universe in not electrically neutral depending on our reference? This is something I had never encountered before. So I don't know what all this is about. Of course I'll see the videos a couple of times, but I don't know where this is coming from or what the implications are.
Наука
To see subtitles in other languages: Click on the gear symbol under the video, then click on "subtitles." Then select the language (You may need to scroll up and down to see all the languages available).
--To change subtitle appearance: Scroll to the top of the language selection window and click "options." In the options window you can, for example, choose a different font color and background color, and set the "background opacity" to 100% to help make the subtitles more readable.
--To turn the subtitles "on" or "off" altogether: Click the "CC" button under the video.
--If you believe that the translation in the subtitles can be improved, please send me an email.
Lord eugene is back .
you mean, like, "Lord! Eugene is back" (with disgust) or "Lord Eugene (the great, in a sarcastic way) is back" or.... it's a paradox.
_the time back _sign transsinphinite number theory _archaicxn lord
I hate it when this happens.
%50 of viewers watch this channel for psychedelic entertainment
Exactly :)
How else to understand this?
1% Watch to het hilarity from theories that dont add up to REALITY! Yes SIR Newton, I'm laughing at you too.
@@yveslaflute9228 stfu
Yui
I need to watch some more times to understand...
same here, as usual LOL
27 times and still nothing.
@@chrish7975 same here bro 😂😂😂
@@chrish7975 hahaha .
Yes, its helpful and having the PAUSE, REWIND, STOP buttons is quite beneficial too.
I'll just leave my like and slowly back away
😂👍
Lol
I’m right behind ya.
Lol
Thanks..for suggestions of 1.5x
i can't even comprehend the paradox
It's the flux. It's all in the Flux.
Our intuition tells us that the net electric field should be zero, due to the symmetry of space. That is the paradox: We get different answers depending on how we think about it. If we think about in terms of closed surfaces, every closed surface must have an electric field, due to the charge inside. But, if we think about it in terms of the symmetry of space, the electric field should be zero.
That's what makes a paradox 🤗
@@pluggthis Closed means it's an unbroken surface. A sphere of a cube are closed surfaces. A sphere with a hole cut out of it or a flat sheet are not.
@@pluggthis
My apologies, I am not an educator. Try thinking of "closed" in this way:
If you want a light to turn on, using a switch, you complete (close) the circuit which allows current to flow.
When the light is off, the circuit is (open), or not completed, thus current can not flow.
There are no assumptions being made. It is merely a law governing electricity.
They omitted an explanation in my opinion, because this topic is far beyond introductory electricity and/or physics.
By this point in the subject matter, open and closed have been clearly defined.
Note: This probably is not what was meant by "closed" in this video.
Holy cow, this is one of my favourite things I have ever seen! The idea that a universe with uniform charge density throughout space is logically impossible is beautiful! It's as if we have inferred a metaphysical truth from a physical theory, which I love
really appreciated your hard work
Thank you.
I love the smell of electrons in the morning
We've all been waiting for you, Eugene!! Thank you from South Korea!
great content as usual!. This one reminds me a lot to the definition of boundary conditions in molecular dynamics simulations!
Thanks for the upload, love you videos !!!
@2:52
Utah Teapot :)
Blender
I'm late.
from what I understand about quantum physics (quantum mechanics), the electric field or electric flux (and the corresponding magnetic field which is it’s dual) does actually exist everywhere. it is the photon field, and whenever and wherever its wave function breaks down/collapses or deposits a quanta of energy, it can transport its energy to the proton or electron or neutron field, causing motion. actually, the wave functions or fields of all particles are much more real than the particles, whose existence is only a name given to the quantization and maybe the localization of local maxima of the probability wavefunction...
Great to see your videos back.
thanks for the upload, your channel is a treat
Thanks.
I greet the the greatest animator of physics and God of physics animator Eugene Khutyransky
The introduction with the backgrounds reminded me of those shooting star memes
Love these videos!!
Thanks.
You are BY FAR the best educational RUclips channel there is. AND active in the comment section. I just hope i can recommend you to the entire universe, and beyond. :-)
Thanks for that really great compliment.
@@EugeneKhutoryansky
@@EugeneKhutoryansky Thanks. See?
You guy are a legend!!!
Impressive artwork, perfectly explained concepts! Thank you!
Thanks for the compliment.
Pls enlighten me with a summary .
Amazing as usual. Thank you.
Thanks.
Thanks for sharing this information in a video. It has helped me a great deal
Glad my video was helpful. Thanks.
The best physics videos on RUclips. Actually the best on anything.
Thanks for the compliment about my videos.
As always great video
Thanks.
Amazing job, thank you.
Thanks for the compliment. More videos are on their way.
love your videos they give me life!!!
Thanks!!!
Super enjoying Thank You
Glad you liked my video. Thanks.
You are always great..
Thanks.
I think I have watched this video 50 times can’t seem to get it off my mind thanks for sharing
Glad you liked my video that much. Thanks.
Thanks for the video!
Thanks.
Video was uploaded yesterday, but its already has russian subtitles, great
Thank you so much.
You are welcome and thanks.
Excellent. Thanks a lot.
Thanks.
Great visuals, but I still have no idea what you're on about. It feels like a video made for people who already understand this stuff.
lol, yep well... you could call this episode 604; case (b) scenario 13, theoric physics #99
Well the Maxwell's equations video of his is a great start. It's a beautiful subject matter but requires a solid basis of multivariable calculus to truly understand.
And what’s wrong with that?
@@oo88oo Absolutely nothing! :)
Gauss’s law
Awesomely explained! Thnx mam!
Suppose for a moment that this is not a flaw in our theory of electromagnetism. There has been some recent work on Planck satellite data that suggests the universe may have positive curvature. This is still tentative. The calculations are being checked, double checked, triple checked. But if true, would that indirectly tell us something about the net charge in our entire universe?
Or that the Universe is spherical? And not an A morphological blob?
Nice video & excellent commentary
Thanks for the compliments.
You can help translate this video by adding subtitles in other languages. To add a translation, click on the following link:
ruclips.net/user/timedtext_video?v=P0Jnx1BjIZM&ref=share
You will then be able to add translations for all the subtitles. You will also be able to provide a translation for the title of the video. Please remember to hit the submit buttons for both the title and for the subtitles, as they are submitted separately.
Details about adding translations is available at
support.google.com/youtube/answer/6054623?hl=en
Thanks.
Maybe the answear is in the 4 Dimension becouse we are able to handle all what is lower also some teoris means that Electronic is completly difrend in 4d (sorry for Grammer im from germany )
@@xxtradamxx
E=MC2 is not a representation. It is a directly observable law of physics which occurs all day every day. Just because we do not experience it in our daily lives does not render it not real.
We see the end results of that math for example. The sun is the easiest example to offer.
Many physical laws can be tested and verified with physical experimentation, no math needed.
You can even test aspects for yourself.
Gravity as an easy example.
Gravity is an extremely weak force. That can be tested without math, simply by raising your hand if you feel I am incorrect.
As far as "small" physics, yes, math is our only way of representing that world due to not being able to directly view it. But when the math confirms something, chances are extremely high that it is a real thing.
@@timunterberg3289
It is safe to say almost anything would be very different in a 4D universe. And I feel you are correct.
The solutions may lie in that 4th dimension. After all, if we lived in a 2D universe, we would have no understanding of most everything we experience in our current lives.
If there are other dimensional universes, there will be math heading off into one of those directions.
All we have to do is locate that math.
Here is the missing piece to particle physics.... www.deviantart.com/joshua-j-whitworth/art/The-Official-Seed-of-Life-Fractal-Symbol-816518631
I am God by the way. Nice to meet you all.
0:06 The point at which my brain melted.
Aside from the fact that the electrostatic energy of this charge distribution would be infinite (so it would take an infinite amount of work to create it in the first place), the "paradox" mainly illustrates the crucial importance of the boundary conditions. You could think of the infinite charged region as a limit of a finite sphere as the radius goes to infinity. Then a solution in which the electric field is zero at the center of this sphere remains valid at all values of the radius, because you have well-defined boundary conditions during the limiting process. In other words, when going to infinity, it's not the destination that matters, but the way you get there...
Just pointing out that even if it's not possible to have a uniform charge density that there is no rule in EMT that explicitly states that so either way it seems to me that the theory could be upgraded
Superbly explained
Thanks.
Thank you.
sooooo great
Is there a video about the paradox of uniform mass density in newtonian gravity?
Double the points again. And you got flashback to several years old video about dimensions
awesome video, although i dont feel that this is a paradox per se; thats just what happens when you deal with infinities
Love the comments on this channel. How do you know negative mass do not exist? and if they do exist, can we then make an analogy between electric/magnetic fields and gravitational field? meaning it would be kind of the same "stuff" in some way? thanks for the videos
Awesome video. Great philosophy in this content. I always think of Maxwell's Laws as being defined from a point source/ exchange particle perspective. But it's concerning that it doesn't follow through in greater dimensions. An upgrade to the electromagnetic model which includes general relativity seems overdue. But it's so challenging to visualize these mathematics. So few people have even tried. I think negative mass is more a shape of time and space, and not a particle per se.
I’m a novice, so please be kind with your answer. When you say negative mass, are you referring to when we square root a value but only keep the positive answer and discard the negative answer when dealing with time, length, mass, etc?
@@luisbolanos8393 um..no. I think the complex conjugate of gravity would be inertia. I thinking more like instead of a gravitational well, negative mass would be a gravitational peak. I'll let you know if I figured it out😋
This reminds me of speculation on symmetry between matter and anti-matter. Or rather, it is a stricter symmetry for it requires not only the charge but also the quantities of each particles to be the same on both sides.
It's all in the Flux my dudes.
The animation is surreal. It looks like war.
Great! Thanks.
Thanks.
Thank God for Eugene
Thanks.
There MUST BE slack and overlap, for ANY of THIS to BE!.
Interesting. I'm tempted to say that doesn't seem possible to apply symmetry because different points on the uniformly charged line have different potential but it's tricky to see it without a clear reference point where the potential is not actually infinite
Very Interesting point. My intuition tells me that symmetry is actually our only hope here.
From the perspective of any point in the universe, all the charge is located in spherical shells around that point, so their influence cancels out.
I agree that the potential difference between anywhere in the universe and anywhere outside the universe is infinite, whatever that means.
Finally back
i was just reading about the utah teapot and how it became an inside joke amongst the computer graphics community, then i immediately saw one at 2:56 lol. i guess im gonna see more of it now that i know it.
hey could you do a video about the strong force field (how does it look like, the flux etc) supposing that you can actually split the 3 poles without creating more quarks?
I cover that in my video at ruclips.net/video/FoR3hq5b5yE/видео.html
Amazing
Thanks.
That was the BEST presentations you have ever done!! It puts both support of "Quantum Flux Theory" Oxford University Press, And..Wall Thornhill's electric Universe! Your observations and presentation are breathtaking, I'm in my third year of higher physics, because I'm training my mind to visualize 4th dimensional modelling and quaternion mathematics.
You have given this higher framework of electromagnetism a Viceral cognition as well. Sorry that was so long, your work has bailed me out several times in class. Love you guys!!
Mr Fractal pie
Thanks for the compliment about my videos and I am glad that they are helpful.
Love it
Thanks.
Yes, since electric flux is defined in 3D, you cannot fill ALL space exclusively with positive or negative consistently. That's because positive requires negative for its definition and vice versa. The line and plane examples work because the extra available dimensions can act as negative charges if you properly fold the space. In 3D, the flux has no extra dimensions to make an "image" of the opposite charge, and thus cannot maintain consistency. Note that if one of the positive charges were removed in the infinite space of positivity, the empty space would indeed represent a valid solution, since the space could be folded around that empty spot, and therefore represent a negative charge receiving its flux from infinity in 3D.
So is the problem something like this?
We can associate a uniform positive charge density with all of real 3-space (thinking of this as the divergence of some electric field at every point). If we try to partition the space into any two continuously connected spaces (For example, cutting the space in half along the xy-plane) then our intuition would tell us that the charge density of the space would have to be zero along the boundary of those two spaces, since each component of the space would be applying the same amount of electromagnetic flux into the other partition of the space through the boundary, but if you integrate the electromagnetic potential throughout any of the closed regions, then the divergence theorem (and thus, Gauss's Law) would say that the net flux exiting any nontrivial region would be strictly positive?
This is an reversal of make charged part of Kell sweepy time indicating attack tanks
The direction indicates direction, got it!
sensacional!
The most educational channel in RUclips
Thanks for the compliment.
The flux is a field the particles are imaginary.
But I thought the particles are a field and the flux is imaginary???
@@jul9cuz your close but you cannot define a field especially when you add invisible particles.
@@wajideus4591 thanks for reply, so magnetic flux is a field albeit having a quantity but it would be difficult to define a field, it is a phenomenon but what are its attributes. I think that is where the particles come in because it is the only way some people can define it. Problem is we go down the wrong path trying to fully understand its attributes and behaviour.
Take the earth is has localised magnetic fields in some parts of the world stronger/ weaker than others now why is that and would particle theory help us to understand that phenomenon.
Glass of fresh water with piece of cake while watching the marvelous Video
Glad you liked my video.
Please post more complete topicwise video on Relativity and Quantum theory please
I already have many videos on Relativity and Quantum Theory. Check out my playlists:
Quantum Videos in Order: ruclips.net/p/PLkyBCj4JhHt-elH-mR1d1NfTZ-W0_DCRl
Relativity Videos in Order: ruclips.net/p/PLkyBCj4JhHt_pz8HUG7rbMeKFsStae10k
Could you please visualize the Connection between eigenvalues/eigenvectors and differential-equations ,keep up the good work .
I cover eigenvalues and eigenvectors in my video at ruclips.net/video/8F0gdO643Tc/видео.html
And I cover their connection to stability analysis at ruclips.net/video/p9qrHdPEe28/видео.html
Awesome
Thanks.
Great video. But I feel like this should be at the start of the playlist after Maxwell's equations and the creepy angels.
New subscriber.
Thanks for your videos.
May I ask what program you use to animate them?
Glad to have you as a subscriber. I make my 3D animations with "Poser."
@@EugeneKhutoryansky Thanks, dude!
How does a satellite measure field charge in space. What is its reference point. Does this reference not polarise as there is no way to discharge or ground or sink the charge built up.
Nice I got more informations ..helpfully
Interesting i would like to watch more videos
Why is an electric flux assumed when there's an electric charge? If there's no charge difference, electrons have nowhere to flow to. Wouldn't an infinitely positive universe be comparable to an infinite neutral universe?
No.... for their to be electric charge, we must have a description of electric flux and vise versa or else our description of electromagnetism makes no sense. An infinitely positive universe will have an effect on any charged object that suddenly came into existence. Whilst an infinitely neutral universe (one with no charge at all) can't have an effect on a charged object at all, if one suddenly sprang into existence. That neutral universe would immediately have the same magnitude of charge as that charged object that came into existence. I know I made it confusing but it is still true. So an infinitely positive universe is non-comparable to an infinitely neutral universe by definition of charge.
So in an infinite universe of uniform electric charge, enclosed volumes will have a net charge different from that of the universe.
Very interesting.
Could you make videos on nanomagnet
Please make the explanation of Genyo
atoms and DDL it is very interesting and need the attention of the physics researcher.
Is infinite positive charge paradox in 3D space resolvable in 4D? (Since the line and plane positive charges are resolvable.)
can flux come out of a black hole? how can a black hole have charge if nothing escapes it? if EM is exchange of photons and photons cannot escae a BH how can a BH have a charge?
Evrenin kodları arısında ne kadar bilgisiz ve habersiz olduğumu hatırlattı. Ayrıca beyin yanması cabası. İyi ki varsınız. Paylaşım ve çabalarınız için teşekkürler.
7:20 You may have actually convinced me that we do live in a closed universe with positive electric charge density, because it does not matter that we cannot "solve" the equations for the whole universe.
The equations are just tools. They do not govern what happens, causality does.
If there was an extra positive electric charge, then the effect would presumably propagate at c (which is not factored into the equations). We probably do not have good maths for this (would have to simulate), but this does not make it impossible. The field lines would multiply for each lap of the closed universe, and cause exponentially increasing electric field strength, the net result of which would be that objects would be pushed away from each other in increasing magnitudes at a cosmic scale, right? *cough* dark energy *cough* inflation *cough* new closed CMB result *cough*
Today's astrophysics is messed up. How is the positive charge spread at the speed of light? It was there. It is connected and affected by every other charge in the Universe.
There are no isolated islands.
@@clairpahlavi I mean that the charge is spreading just like a gravity wave, at c. I do not believe it is instantaneously connected to the rest of the universe. If I shake a positive charge around, you would not be able to detect it faster than c allows. So in that sense, the effect would travel around the universe repeatedly at c. And I believe this is why the equations do not add up for a disbalance, as the one extra charge would gain infinite effect.
The acceleration is uniform throughout the universe. A charge based acceleration would not be, I think.
Edit: Besides, where would the extra charge come from?
@@Mernom The same place everything comes from. I think the slight variations in the accelerations could be explained by differing percentages of excess positive charge.
thanks
couldn't the negative pressure of dark energy be a negative mass ? I mean it's not a physical thing you can touch but it's relativistic effects kinda do an anti-gravity effects does it ?
In a close universe it would be impossible to make an uniform distribution of positive particles, right? Like making a grid on the surface of a sphere.
To make it add up and make sense +ve cells held together by -ve 'flux' are needed... forms the base material hex lattice... flux must be able to flow and cells at least move from their neutral, balanced position via energy.. out of place cells, and possibly the hole left behind form particles. From here you can explain gravity + dark energy and electricity in basic terms.
War thunder flashbacks as I listen to physics
So many questions...
Does not quantum field theory address this?
Also, I moss the pretty angels and demons of earlier videos, all the same, great work.
Yes, I think so. In QFT, this infinite sea of uniform particles will be the new zero energy level of the quantum fields in this infinite space, thus for the people inside this space, they will no longer preceive the existence of any particle at all. The space will look completely empty according to a person that live inside this space, hence in any closed gaussian surface around any point in this space, there will no longer be particles inside, thus the field will be zero, in consistence with the intuition.
@pyropulse The second part of your statement is actually my point. Now just assume that I am a complete idiot and you are a PhD holder in Physics. Let us imagine that there exist an infinite space that is filled with electrons with uniform charge density. Let say you want to know what is the electric field strenght at point A in this infinite space. Because the space itself is infinite, you can always find 2 pairs of points in this space, whose electric field will cancle out at point A, resulting the electric field there to always be zero. In other hand, if we take any Gaussian Surface around point A, you will always find charges inside this closed surface, resulting in non-zero electric flux, implying that the electric field at any point in this infinite space couldn't be zero, according to Gauss' Law. If we try to solve the problem according to your way, that we assume at first that the infinite space have a finite spherical symmetry, and then take a corresponding limit, then although you think that you will get a similar infinite space as well, you actually intodruce a boundary condition to this problem, saying that any equipotential surfaces inside this infinite space have form of a sphere with a certain radius, centered at a particular point in this space. Well, the thing is, in our thought experiment, we do not introduce any boundary condition at all. The infinite space that we are talking about doesn't need to have a certain symmetry, resulting that you can't just assume what the symmetry of the equpotential surfaces look like, and then just taking a limit to easily have a "similar" infinite space. In fact, these two cases are completely different. Now I ask you, what do you say about this? The fact that you say my intuition was wrong just means that you didn't quite understand what problem we are talking about here yet. This what you called "my intuition" is just my attempt to re-describe the paradox mentioned in the video, not my personal view of what this problem looks like. Hope you can understand well what I just said with one of your PhDs. Have a nice day though.
@pyropulse And just for the records. I, explaning this with the help of QFT, doesn't mean that I was trying to prove that classical theory of EM is wrong. If you read carefully, it's actually an attempt to save the theory, saying that the Gauss's Law holds also, even if we introduce an infinite space with uniform charge density, which QFT will say that this infinite space will actually be empty at all, but the Laws of Physics in this region of space will slightly change, maybe for example the nature constants will be different than those of our universe.
My "friends" say they binge-watch Netflix.
I binge-watch this!!
Was drunk, got from Invasion of the Body Snatchers to here.
Neat thought experiment. I guess an infinite, perfectly uniform charge distribution would have zero ramifications for other extra charges/the rest of the universe. So there would just be a different definition of zero charge density. No issue as far as Maxwell is concerned.
@pyropulse
Ok, so then what would the net force be on an extra point charge located within an infinite, uniform charge manifold?
What is the net force on a point charge located inside of a spherical shell of uniform charge? What about inside an infinite number of those shells?
I get your point about gauss's law and the enclosed charge, and I enjoyed thinking through your expanding sphere limit approach.
But yeah, there's deffinitely no way it could be a non-uniform field. The awnser has to be invariant under translation. Think about it.
Simply, there's no energy for a charge to obtain by moving from one place to another, it would not prefer any specific location. Same as if the universe was uncharged.
Anyways, I hope things start to shape up for you. Keep trying at physics.
What does this mean?
The universe, from electromagnetism theory, is open and closed at the same time?
that the universe in not electrically neutral depending on our reference?
This is something I had never encountered before. So I don't know what all this is about. Of course I'll see the videos a couple of times, but I don't know where this is coming from or what the implications are.
Wonderful....can u make video on some computer science topics