@Crime Master gogo No because the definition we use is that the direction of current is where the positive charge travels. It means that if electrons travel a certain distance the current is gonna be in the opposite direction but if protons travel in a certain direction the current is in the direction of the protons. Since the current in both frames is the same, then the magnetic field is the same. This is a commonly known and the confusing fact that when you have + and - on the battery, it means that + is a positively charged deck and - is a negatively charged deck and if you connect them with a wire the electrons from - will travel to + but we say the current is from + to -.
@Crime Master gogo Sorry it took so long to reply. The direction of the magnetic field was meant to be as you say. It is just a weird perspective that sometimes it appears other way around. I even made mistake in 10:50 since it should have different orientation there but I realized it too late :D
Here's the problem with the contracting protons theory, you have to say "wire of infinite length", which obviously dos not exist. What would happen in the real world, where wires have finite length? If the protons and the distances between them contracted then the wire itself would also contract, because it is also in the same relative motion as the protons, and if the wire contracted then the spaces between the electrons would also contract, because if they didn't then it would be the same as the electrons suddenly spreading apart from each other just because a particle was moving outside the wire, and if they spread apart then fewer electrons could fit inside the wire, so where would the extra ones go? This is how we know that length contraction is pure fantasy.
@@VortekStarling If you want to solve it for a finite wire you have to use the relativity of simultaneity as it is the actual cause of the length contraction. I would need to create animation to explain this but maybe I will when I record the video about what the length contraction really is.
@@lukasrafajpps Okay, but also record a video about a square moving vehicle with both a horizontal light beam going from the lower left corner to the lower right corner and a diagonal beam going from the upper left corner to the same lower right corner. You'll find that it's impossible to make both beams work using the same desynchronization of the clocks at the back and front of the square. Why? Because the diagonal beam is only moving toward the front of the square at half the speed of the horizontal beam, because its velocity is split half horizontal and half vertical, because its on a 45 degree angle. So it moves forward at half the velocity and therefore requires a different desynchronization, it breaks special relativity and proves it is flawed.
One of the best explanation of the Magnetic Force being a relativistic effect of the Electric field. And finally introducing the electric 4-Vector ! (which of course would deserve some more in-depth considering)
electric monopole connected to 4 dimension. Magnetic dipole do not connected to 4 dimension and appears in 3D in the moment when '+' and '-' electric monopoles ,2 halves of magnetic dipole, in 4 dimension compose magnetic dipole and annihilate themselves.
When created in 4D magnetic dipole can live long in 3D. It can be broken if begins to move. In that case some thing encountered and break it to peaces , again in "+" and "-' electric monopoles wich immediately connect themselves to 4D and process repeat. time elapsed is proportional to distance between poles. Constant frequency of electromagnetic wave is evidence then vacuum is a crystal and magnetic dipole breaks when encounter units of crystal .
It is not a relativistic effect of the electric field though. The 4-vector literally has magnetic field components. this is just a stupid explanation that doesn't really explain anything, and this seems to be a common trend in physics; take something and explain it within something wrong, but claim it is true. A single moving charge causes a magnetic field, and there is no 'difference in positive and negative' to cause an 'electric field that looks like a magnetic field.' The fact you can transform to a frame of which a magnetic does not exist doesn't mean the magnetic field is a relativistic effect of the electric field
Magnetic field is not a relativistic effect of the electric field. Light is a self-propagating electromagnetic wave, with magnetic and electric field components orthogonal to one another. There is no frame you can transform into that removes the magnetic field. If you could do this, you'd be in a frame where light has a speed of 0. So, SR directly proves that magnetic fields are not a relativistic effect. Ironic, no?
Yes it is kinda clickbait but not entirely because at that time there were only galilean transforms and therefore Maxwell's equations could not explain this. This means that at that time people would say there is something odd about maxwell's equations. So this title can be taken as from historical point of view.
However, magnets DO exist - rocks from Magnesia or Magnetic Island are magnets with a North & South Pole. The Force of Attraction (Repulsion) between protons & electrons is extremely strong . Even if velocity v of proton is relatively small so that contraction of the wire is quite small, the resultant Force is still significant. If we stood next to someone at arm’s length, & we had 1% more electrons, then the Force of Repulsion would equal the ‘weight’ of the entire Earth.
@@dnickaroo3574 "1% more electrons" is a boatload of electrons ... on the order of 10^27. Add in the fact that the electromagnetic force is about 10^37 times stronger than gravity, and ... well, let's hope you don't suddenly acquire such a charge.
This is a great explanation of this and I've just finished my first semester taking electricity and magnetism and soon going into my second semester of electricty and magnetism and these explanations really help. The connection between electricity, magnetism, and relativity is one of the most eye opening and mind blowing things I've learned about in my entire life.
Two semesters of E&M? I am so damn jealous! I start Thermodynamics next semester, but I am still excite! I feel like I've have learned an incredible amount, yet I have only scratched the surface. I F'in LOVE IT, and this is why I'm going to keep going once I am done w/ my B.S..
@@chrispycryptic that’s really awesome! I might do statistical mechanics in my senior year but I wanna do as much as I can with quantum stuff since I wanna go into particle physics for graduate
@@sirawesomehat8814 Hell yeah!! Have you ever checked out Andrew Dotson's youtube? Following the journey through his PhD has been a huge inspiration for me when the going gets tough. He is in on the theoretical side of particle physics, and currently has been trying to get caught up on QFT so he can do some work in string theory (lol I know.). He is a really good dude, so when you mentioned particle phys I knew I had to give him a shout out. I wish you success in your academic pursuits, it is a hella long road, but we got this!!
He did that in the video around 4:20 . When you transform into the frame of the moving charge J changes from negative particles moving to the right to positive particles moving to the left. That is the same current so you get the same magnetic field.
Good to see somebody treating this physics as open. Keep going. It wasn't just one man's work though. The number of people who tried to decode emag is large. You are ready for polysign numbers and emergent spacetime. Structured spacetime rather than isotropic spacetime.
The purpose of science is not solely to provide a complete and definitive explanation of a phenomenon. It is often impossible to fully explain something, as there are always deeper layers that unexplained. Instead, the primary goals of science are to offer predictions and to apply the effects discovered.
This isn't the first time I've seen a video regarding the link between electromagnetism and special relativity, yet I was mind blown none the less. Your explanation was intuitive and had many valuable insights like the link between algebra and the redundant quantities, or even the of chain of discoveries which feels feels like a natural motivation for each succeeding theory. Goes to show fancy graphics don't substitute for clarity and reasoned presentation. Bravo
If your perspective is that all of the positive charges are stationary, then shouldn't the positive charge be pulled toward the wire regardless of the direction the negative charges are moving, since any movement of the negative charge causes length contraction? But this isn't what happens. Also, I'm pretty sure Maxwell's equations hold if your velocity is just the velocity between the moving charges and the positive reference charge. I think for this video to make more sense it should explain/show how when negative charges flow in one direction positive charges also flow in the opposite direction. It's hard for me to make sense of it when one of the charges is perfectly stationary. It makes it appear as if a charge stationary relative to the wire will have a force on it when a current is induced, which I'm pretty sure it does not (but I could be wrong?) I do really love this topic, and I remember when Veritasium explained it and I had the same confusions. Good video and I'd love another one going even more in depth!
This is very idealized situation of what is happening inside the wire. Usually positive charges are making the metal that the wire is made of and since the metal is conductor, there is very little resistance for electrons to move from atom to atom. Therefore we can interpret the conductor as fixed set of positive charges and moving electrons but the fact they are fixed to the metal itself has nothing to do with the relativity of this problem. The fact that the conductor is neutral when the electrons are moving is my initial assumption. In reality, if you have a conductor without current it is also neutral and when you start the current then the wire becomes charged but it will eventually neutralize itself relative to average velocity of nearby charges.
it's fascinating to consider that at the same time this was being figured out people like Peano and Russell were in the process of destroying mathematics with absurd notions like mathematics is about operations over numbers, and numbers can be defined correctly via a successor operation. the problems here are numerous, and ultimately yield Incompleteness, thus defeating the purpose of Logicism. for instance, if 1 is the successor to 0, then how is 1/2 considered a number? and, if mathematical operations operate over numbers then how does division render unit conversion possible by handling pure units? and if numbers are sequential, as the successor operation insists, then how can 1+1=2 and 1+1=48 at the same time, given that 1 frog + 1 frog = 2 frogs, but 1 foot + 1 yard = 48 inches? and if each number is unique, then how can it be that I just showed you that 2 = 48? these are literally problems that toddlers notice, and yet they're just ignored by mainstream mathematics, even after more than 90 years with knowledge of the Incompleteness they induce despite the fact that they only exist in the first place because of a misguided movement to yield completeness. and beyond this, it's still popularly believed that Whitehead and Russell proved 1+1=2, despite the fact that they never made that claim, and the book which alluded to it was the very thing being criticized by Godel in his proofs of Incompleteness. tldr, as physics got smarter, math got way, way dumber... and that's amazing.
👏👏👏👏Yes! I experienced the same fascination as you mention at the end of the video, many years ago, when I realized what you perfectly describe in this video.🤯 😁 The path of reasoning I learned about what happened historically is equivalent but slightly different though. Maxwell, when analyzing the findings of Coulomb, Faraday, Ampere, and together with the mathematical insight of Gauss, realized that a correction was to be made to the formula derived by Ampere. The derivative of the electric field multiplied by the electric permittivity and the magnetic permeativity had to be added. The product of these two constants is very small, so it was understandable that Ampere didn’t observe this flaw, and it took the genius of Maxwell to realize that without this term the equations yield a mathematical contradiction. By adding this term the equation of a wave function is immediately derived, a wave moving at a speed equal to the inverse of the square root of the product of the mentioned constants. This speed happened to be numerically equal to the speed of light! So this finding settled the debate about light being a wave, and the success of this finding was immense! But then, a new apparent inconsistency showed up. The electric permittivity and the magnetic permeativity are plain dimensional constants, it makes no sense for them to be different as measured in different moving reference frames. It took the genius of Einstein to solve this apparent contradiction by daring to say that, well, there it is, in front of our eyes. The speed of light is a constant with the same value in any frame of reference. 😎
Actually the speed of light is not exactly a constant, but rather it is a dimensional relativity limit of the force of time. Time (not clock time) is a force in it's own right, that is what is wrong with these equations. Light slows down when change mediums and its speed in matter is slower than in a free space vacuum.
@@enricolucarelli816 well I have a theory that the English language is backward. It’s use by people who don’t understand this, is resulting in the entropy of intelligence. No offense intended. You have the advantage to read the original papers of the giants we really stand upon. That’s all. Many great papers have not been translated. There is a paradigm shift happening. GR, SR, Minkowski space etc. are the reason why there is a crisis in cosmology, in all of science really. Everyone is going to know soon and Einstein and Hawking will be reduced to the status of Ptolemy and The four humours. Carbon dating is going to be questioned. Antigravity is going to be revealed. Christians are learning about the god they’ve been worshipping The big bang theory is being challenged by new information every two months… The whole world is going crazy. We may want to clear the table and start over where Mach and Whitehead and Tesla left off. If we’re not distracted by a word war… again. But I could be wrong.
3:15 - This definitely holds when the wire is not charged and current is not flowing, because we won't observe external electric field. Comparing to it, at 7:56 length contraction will produce external (repulsive) electric field (on the moving test particle). By the symmetry, at 7:45 the stationary observer should observe length contraction of moving electron chain, right? Length contraction should produce excess negative charge density on the wire, so we should observe measurable external electric field (i.e. stationary test particle should be attracted towards the wire). But we do not observe measurable electric field, correct? What am I missing?
My assumptions were that the wire is neutral already with the current inside. You can make assumptions as you like when you want to demonstrate some physical phenomena. If I assumed the wire being neutral without current, then after I turn ON the current then the wire becomes charged as you said. In labolatory though, after you switch ON the current the wire would neutralize itself relative to the frame in which the mean velocity of nearby charges is zero. Therefore it the wire in a labolatory without current is neutral, when you switch ON the current the charge of the wire spike up and then decay to zero.
@@lukasrafajpps (What you describe at the end is transient, but until now we only have had comparisons between steady states, so transients should be irrelevant to this problem.) The sentence *"the wire would neutralize itself relative to the frame in which the mean velocity of nearby charges is zero"* could be an explanation, but I don't understand what _"mean velocity of nearby charges is zero"_ is suppose to mean. _Mean velocity_ from whose perspective (relative to what)?
If magnetism is a relativistic by-product of electric charge then how should we re-define or re-imagine a photon, given that the usual description is along the lines of "an electric field oscillating at right angles to a magnetic field"?
Well, using Galilean transformations for the electromagnetic potentials, assuming that the scalar potential transforms like a coordinate and a component of the vector potential transforms like time, one could come to a conclusion that the electric field is not zero in the electron's reference frame. Thus, the probing electron would fly away from the wire. Right?
Try to read the paper written by Stephan J. G. Gift, that's " Light speed invariance is a remarkable illusion". This imply that the ether theory might be true and in this way, since the Maxwell's equations aren't based on this particular reference of frame, what can be done? We know for sure that in some ways these equations works so there should be a way to explain this and we need to go back to the basis.
A mechanical elites was asked what vacuum means. In his reply - vacuum is empty of matter. An electrical engineer was given the same question - he replies, vacuum is empty of matter but Aether. Aether is a fluid that has no physical but electrical property, with a permittivity measuring 8.8541817128*10-12 Farad per meter. Therefore Aether is a component necessary to enable e field and displacement charge q into the vacuum-Aether for light propagation inside. Furthermore, Aether, a fluid, always attaches to matter, from subatomic particles to atoms to molecules to ions to solid to liquid to gas and to plasma. When gas, liquid, solid moves Aether drag along with it, also together with the MMX apparatus. On the other hand, from a macrocosm scale, Aether as a fluid continue and remotely drag with everything but drift at an averages velocity defined by the nearest and most dominant body in the 3D space. With that shall we rewrite SR.
It is the internal inconsistency in a theory that drove progress in science. Good job that you pointed out the problem in Maxwell's equation. I don't know if Maxwell or his contemporaries had noticed the problem and followed up. Or they noticed the problem but failed to come up with a resolution. Today we have the dark matter and dark energy problems that cannot be explained by existing theories. We are waiting for the next Einstein to be born to come up with a resolution. This coming breakthrough will be huge as it will uncover secrets of spacetime or how the universe works in large scale. The new understanding could allow us to build wormhole and wrap-drive. It could come next year or in the coming centuries.
That is very true. Have you heard of the entropic gravity by Verlinde? He explains gravity as entropic force and it is possible to make dark matter and dark energy work.
Maxwell had nothing to do with the 4 equations that bear his name. Nothing at all. They are a coup by the Germans who considered themselves the masters of electricity and yet failed to grasp almost all of the theory Maxwell and Tait worked on, or is in his book. They did not understand him, and made an empty vacuous claim that those particular equations which keep their experiments and add enough to make radio waves is all that was of value in Maxwell's treatise. The whole history of physics we have been handed down is more heavily influenced by propaganda of the time than by anything to do with experiments or other historical events in the canonical fairytale. I have almost all the original books, what we are told is written in them simply is not what is written in them. Hard as that is to believe, it is the truth and anyone willing to look will find the same.
@@tinkeringtim7999 All off Amperes, Faradays, and Gauss laws can be tested with a common hardware store multimeter, some copper wire, a battery and a magnet.
Those are actually Heaviside's equations. Maxwell origionally published 20 equations and 20 unknowns in Quaternion style math. Heaviside looked at those and said "These poor electricians will never be able to build circuits with these equations", so he truncated them down to the 4 equations we have today. Heaviside was right, but what they called electricians back then were more like lineman of today, they didn't have years of advanced mathematical training. They needed something simple they could use to figure out the easiest way to build electric circuits for a economy that strongly desired to have modern (of the day) electric environment. What Heaviside actually did was strip off the 4th quaternion dimension and built 4 simplified equations that work in our 3 dimensional mind. Those equations forced electricians to build symmetrically regaged circuits. Or, input will always be equal and opposite to output. Vector and Tensor analysis was born out of Heaviside's equations, or similar very similar math. Useful but limiting. Terry Berrett looked at Maxwell's original 20 equation paper - a higher order math, and came up with Resonance and Aspect Matched Adaptive Radar. This would not have been possible with the worlds best Vector and Tensor analysis, because these equations ignore that integrated 4th dimension. Don't crap on Maxwell's equations so much. Yes they are missing some esoteric components, but then again, they aren't really his equations. They are Heaviside's truncated interpretations of Maxwell's original 20.
On page 8:20 when -ve charged electrons moving right produces B field downward. It will then produce B field point up moving left. If we reverse the polarity from -ve to +ve for ions, ions moving left SHOULD produce B field downward and not upwards.
I am in class 12 and do u know how much I researched for this answer🙂...My teacher told me remember this as a property that moving charge creates Magnetic field but I wasn't satisfied...I searched too much and I am happy that I finally found it now,!!❣️
@@lukasrafajpps well, I *am* a native speaker and you did very well. I don't mind sleight grammatical errors or pronunciation errors especially given the clarity of pronunciation. I had professors and other mentors who were very lax with their strictness and it made it challenging. For microeconomics I had an instructor who I never managed to understand more than 20% of words, so I taught myself out of the textbook.
@@lukasrafajpps articulate with a pleasant accent. 👌 Most video made by english speaking indians are exactly opposite, hard to understand, and I worked with people from India for 20 years of my life and it hasn't helped.
(comment on what is said at 4:50 min) There is a 4th possibility: the velocity v is the velocity between the two frames of frames of reference. In two dimensions you can think of each frame of reference as a massless sheet that slide through each other. This _relational_ velocity is frame independent.
It seems to me that this explanation does not stand for at least 3 reasons : - the length contraction effect depends only on the modulus of the speed, so the effect would not depend on the direction of the current. - the contraction effect play a symmetrical role also for the electrons when the reference frame of the atoms is used. - you could consider a free electron beam, i. e. suppress all the positive charges, and the magnetic effect would be the same (not considering the electrostatic force) It is the EM field itself that is viewed differently from each reference frame, it doesn't depends on the way it is produced.
1: It depends on the relative motion of the observers. If the observer is moving _with_ the current the effect will be different than when the observe is moving against it. That is why the direction matters. 2: Correct.The single charge moving relative to the wire would be length contracted from the point of view of the positive charges in the wire. What do you think this would change? 3: If you ignore the electrostatic force between two parallel electron beams the effect would be the same. But the electrostatic force completely dominates this experiment! There will never be a net magnetic attraction. The magnetic effect in this scenario would be to effectively weaken the electrostatic repulsion. This is an effect of _time dilation_ . The force seen on moving particles produces less acceleration than we expect. This video by Eugene Khutoryansky explains this effect in some detail ruclips.net/video/rKFzV8sVDsA/видео.html "It is the EM field itself that is viewed differently from each reference frame, it doesn't depends on the way it is produced." Correct. But if you don't know what produces it you don't know how to transform it because the transformation depends on your motion relative to the source. These effects show why it makes so much sense to view E and M as a single field in the first place.
@@narfwhals7843 Thank you for your response. On point 1 I see that you are right, because the movement of the particle is also inverted. On the point 2 it would lead to a global increase of the negative charge density, and thus an electrostatic force that would be seen on non moving particles. On the point 3 I know that it is a little trickier, and I am not sure that I am right...
@@christianthom5148 Charge density is a relative property when we consider length contraction. The total charge is conserved. Do you mean that the moving charge should see an electrostatic effect on a charge that is not moving relative to the wire? It does! Since the wire is electrically charged in this reference frame. But it also sees that charge move through a magnetic field. And the magnetic and electric effects cancel out to no net force.
@@narfwhals7843 It is just that, as the moving particle sees a positively charged wire due to the length contraction of the ions, a fixed charge will see a negatively charged wire due to le length contraction of the moving electrons. It should induce a force on this non moving particle. Maybe it is the case, but I was not aware of this phenomenon.
@@christianthom5148 the fixed(relative to the wire) charge does not set a negatively charged wire when the current is steady. The wire is neutral in its own rest frame. The moving electrons are length contracted, but for a steady current the effects balance out. What happens in detail when you turn the current on is pretty complicated, though.
For those who are still confused....you need to watch a RUclips video about why we are moving through Space-Time at exactly the speed of light no matter how we measure our velocity through space.
Your video is on the top of all videos I’ve looked at on this subject, and it is very simple for a non math student to comprehend. I am going to show this video to my Ham Radio club this coming Monday 9/25/23. My topic is, “What are Radio Waves…..Really?” Thanks again for making this video.
Something (amongst all the other stuff I don't understand about all this): How can we talk about positive charges in the wire, when most of the electrons in the (assumed metallic) wire are still bound to their respective nuclei, and hence 'shield' most of the charge on the nucleus. When a current flows in a wire, are there indeed 'extra' electrons in that wire compared to a non-connected wire? Otherwise it would seem that as you increase the voltage in the wire, you are more and more ionising the wire, as extra electrons are freed from their orbitals. Where am I going wrong?
Since the metal is conductor the electrons are almost free and can easily travel from atom to atom. Otherwire the wire would not be able to conduct electricity. About the extra electrons, when you have a neutral conductor without a current and then you apply current then the wire becomes temporaly charged but it will neutralise itself relative to the reference frame in which the average velocity of nearby charges is zero.
@@lukasrafajpps Thanks for your speedy reply. Somehow I thought that only 'valence' electrons were free to drift in a metal. I had thought that the innermost ones were too tightly bound to become free.
Imagine space as non motion holding its position. Imagine thermal energy singularity frequencies being repelled by cold resistance throughout space as space. Maximum momentum velocity in resistance. Thermal energy singularity frequencies and cold stationary negative fabric of space itself. Imagine that these thermal energy singularity frequencies harmonize their flow in unidirectional forward maximum momentum velocity in resistance. Increasing their overall level of harmonics, and interweaving their spiraling frequencies and resistance towards forward maximum momentum velocity in resistance, increases in amplification, to the harmonics harmonization of flow, redirecting forward momentum into cycling circulation patterns, holding mass together in equalization of resistance. Occupational space vibrating in forward momentum reducing distance from entanglement of redirected trajectories cycling in magnetic fields, of clockwise, and counterclockwise, at the same value of maximum momentum velocity in resistance. Resistance is a constant value throughout space and mass. In mass it is outward force of pressure known as weight contained in mass. Maximum momentum velocity is constant, in and out of entanglement. Fluidity to illusionary solidity cycling patterns. Space vibrates itself as dark energy passing through mass. This is the reason for aging or decay. We are space itself in occupation. We are a wave pattern that travels through it as it. Thermal energy singularity frequencies rebounding in mass as weight. Resistance is a repellant. Thermal energy singularity frequencies are propelled towards mass, as mass, is the weakest point of resistance, which is mass. Mass surrounding areas of space neutralizes resistance in it as outward force of pressure known as weight, contained within. Trajectories of mass are repelled towards mass as the weakest point of resistance. The star close to proximity massive mass is losing its equalization to the greater mass of weaker resistance. So the stars outermost layers are pushing their thermal energy singularity frequencies towards the weakest point of resistance which is greater occupation in resistance, producing the star to lose its outer pressure towards the weakest point of resistance. The equalization of resistance has to be maintained for cycling patterns. Only thermal energy singularity frequencies can disrupt cycling patterns. Thermodynamics variations affecting elements. Hydrogen absorbs thermal energy singularity frequencies and expands into helium. Helium occupies more area than hydrogen. Helium has more outward force of pressure known as weight contained within. Occupational space. Proximity mass weakens resistance. The moon is neutralized resistance of space. Trajectories are repelled to occupational areas of space by resistance. The water rises because resistance is weaker by proximity mass neutralized resistance. Thermodynamics is outward pressure. Space is cold fabric. Temperature is dependent on accumulated thermal energy singularity frequencies. Thermal energy makes or breaks mass. Equalization of resistance to thermal energy is key.
If magnetic charges exist the magnetic force can be "real", without them we can see magnetic force is only a side effect of the electric force as it is electric charge that creates the whole phenomenon
Quite confusingly, E and B are merely pseudovectors. There is an electromagnetic 4-tensor, but no separate E and B 4-vectors. There is an electromagnetic 4-potential.
Well, the electric field itself is not a pseudovector if we are considering vectors in 3D. The problem is that E and B are not tensors under Lorentz transformations and therefore are not transforming covariantly which creates problems when our equations are written in terms of these E and B.
@@lukasrafajpps Then strictly speaking we should draft Maxwell's equations in terms of a 4-tensor of the second rank. It is condescending to the reader to draft them in terms of apparent vectors when actually corresponding 4-vectors do not exist. I have been amusing myself with writing a little computer program in Excel VBA which does a numerical solution of the one-dimensional Maxwell's equations starting with a bare patch of magnetic field. It is written in 3-vector form, but I remark in the comments that this is a 3-pseudovector. Since the program is spreadsheet-based, I would distribute it if I could find a system which allowed that.
@@david_porthouse the 4-potential is just a combination of a scalar and a 3-vector(and c). The electric potential and the magnetic vector potential. There is nothing misleading about using these, or derived quantities which are more familiar. The EM tensor also just includes the E field and the B field, it only has 6 independent components, which are basically the two 3-vectors. But you absolutely can write Maxwell's equation in 4-vector form, once you've introduced all these 4-vectors. They simply become []Aα=4pi/cJα, where []is the d'Alambertian, Aα is the EM 4-potential, and Jα the 4-current. But how many viewers would have recognized that form?
@@narfwhals7843 Personally I am a fluid dynamics man to begin with, so I am happy with div and curl. I am setting out to teach myself a bit of electromagnetic theory by the method of writing computer simulations. What happens if we start with a bare patch of pure magnetic field? Now I know. In one dimension it splits into a left-going and a right-going magnetic field. These are accompanied by electric fields which are created as if ex nihilo. This is obvious with hindsight, but seeing it actually happen is interesting. We can put in repetitive boundary conditions to make the electromagnetic waves go round the clock and meet up again. Briefly we will see the electric fields cancelling and vanishing. In Excel VBA my calculation of Poynting's vector uses a line like Set P = Vcross (E,B) The vector is defined in a class module, but Vcross is defined in a separate ordinary module. I could of course define a 4-tensor as the working data type instead.
I don't understand why the electrons spread out in their frame. They start moving so length contracts in their direction. Meaning that they are closer to other electrons leading to increased electron density but the protons contract too leading to increased proton density. I've been wracking my head on this problem for a while now. I have no idea why the electrons spreadout.
Great video ! There is something I still don't catch. I understand how length contraction creates this charge imbalance when in the frame of reference of the moving charge. However, why is length contraction not considered when in the frame of reference of the positive charge lattice ? Surely, the electrons are moving relative to the positive ions right ? Why is there length contraction in one case and not the other ? Thanks
Hi, this question is actually very common. The answer is simple, the neutrality of the wire before the transformation was my initial assumption. When solving problems in physics you always start with your initial assumptions but I think you probably need something practical. Imagine you are in your experimental room and you have a wire there without a current. In the frame of the room, the average velocity of nearby charges is zero and there is no reason for the wire to be charged therefore is neutral. now if you start current in the wire it becomes electrically charged relative to the room as you say. but since the average velocities of nearby charges relative to the wire is zero, it is no longer true relative to the electrons inside the wire. This means that positively charged particles nearby the wire start fall onto the wire and negatively charged particles would be reppeled until the wire neutralise itself relative to the room. This way, you can have a neutral wire with a current because there is always a frame in which the wire is neutral. hope this helps :)
@@lukasrafajpps ok I now understand better how you get to having a neutral wire, and you take that situation as the initial conditions for your demonstration. In a similar situation, the person in the moving frame of reference relative to the wire could argue that their wire is neutral so the Lorentz force would be of magnetic origin. So from our point of view, in the frame of reference of the wire, the wire would indeed be charged and an electric field would arise. The important message if I understand correctly is that we agree on the total force acting on the moving charge. Thank you for your answer
Yes, the total force is the only thing observers have to agree on. Whether they conclude if it is electric or magnetic field responsible for the force that depends on the observer because the definitions of those fields are simple. You have a stationary charged particle and there is some misterious force acting on it? It is electric force. is the particle moving and the force acts in perpendicular direction to that movement? It is magnetic field. But the movement is relative so if one conclude it is electric field, other would conclude it is magnetic field or both. Maxwell's equation are here to teach us that electric charge is the source of electric field and then they teach us how electric and magnetic fields are coupled. In future I am planning to make a video that goes in depth into this issue with electric and magnetic field because those are just 3D representations of something more fundamental as I said in this video :)
hi buddy ! I had done my graduation in Physics and even then these concepts are a kind of problem to me. Watched many videos but nothing made much sense, you are the one person which just blew my mind with this clearance of the topics..... Thanks buddy ... Make more such content.. and try to make on the standard model in this manner chronologically . Thanks once again.
Hi, thank you. Particle physics in general is comming but I have very little time to do these videos so it is gonna take a while but I am glad you enjoyed this video :)
The miclelson-morley experiment wasn't measuring the speed of light in all directions, it was an attempt to discover the medium in which light propagates.
Have you ever considered that the only way to sense both the electric field force and the magnetic field force simultaneously, is by utilizing matter e.g., sensors created out of matter. I like the idea that the electric field and the magnetic field are really just two manifestations of the same force.
Unit of 3D crystal is only place where can be located electric monopole and only place where magnetic dipole can't be located . That's why speed of light is constant. When (1D)magnetic dipole begins moving with arbitrary speed, it inevitably encounter unit of crystal and will be broken in two peaces, '+' and '-' (0D)elictric monopoles, wich immediately will be located in nearest units and connected to 4D. In 4D time to meet '+' and '-' is proportional to distance between units, and time of reincarnation of dipole in 3D also constant. So at next collision dipole will have speed of light independently wich speed it have before first collision.
I personally refute QFT and the space-time bending of SR and GR. The stationary charge in the diagram is made into a dipole by the magnetic field and being a small particle aligns itself with the magnetic field of the live wire so that virtual photons are entering at the south pole and leaving from the charges north pole. When the charge has a velocity it gains more virtual photons by virtue of its velocity and spews them out at its equator via the particles spin which forces it away from the wire by the Magnus effect. The one force is the strong nuclear force which is repulsive and is caused by the kinetic energy of superluminal fundamental particles emanating and entering the core of all long lived elementary particles and bosons including photons
There is no QFT here and no spacetime bending in SR. Virtual photons are a feature of QFT, I thought your point was to refute that? The strong nuclear force is a feature of the Standard Model of Particle Physics, which is based on QFT as well.
@@narfwhals7843 Those are just circular arguments. In place of virtual photons put superluminal fundamental particle of extremely low mass that comprise the mass and charge of elementary particles and bosons including photons. Mass by virtue of their quantised number in the region of the particle and charge by the quantised difference in emanation or absorption of the fundamental particles. Short lived elementary particles, mesons and bosons are sprays of fundamental particles caused by collisions between elementary particles. These can coalesce back into fundamental particles. It is just my own little layman's TOE to compensate for limited maths skills and I can use certain facts in QFT or the standard model without accepting the whole package. All I meant was that I believe the aether theory was right and fields should be interpreted as streams of elementary particles such as solar winds or cosmic rays as well as the ubiquitous superluminal fp that cannot be detected individually.
Twistors in spacetime is the next mindblowing stuff coming from relativity. Writing the complex argand plane as the Riemann projection of the celestial sphere and showing the SU(3,1) can be written as holomorphic maps is almost magic stuff
Excellent video and explanation. I agree that referring to the electromagnetic force seems like making a concession to the fact that a magnetic force does actually exist - it is somehow mixed in there with the electrical force. A magnetic force is no more real than a gravitational force.
Nice explanation. Totally unrelated: this is the 2nd time in my life I saw someone with gray eyes, first time was when child and I end by thinking it was just a mistakenly registered memory, but now I could confim myself it is possible to find them.
Hi, thank you for your explanation. What I do not understand is what will happen to stationary charge near current carrying wire? Will it feel any force or will it remain stationary?
Hi. Well, this really depends only on what you measure. If you see the cahrge drifting away, you know the wire is electrically charged. This is the definiton of electric field. If it remains stationary, then you know the wire is electrically neutral. This is the whole point. The electric charge of the wire depends on the reference frame of the observer. If you have a wire with a non zero current inside, there is only one frame of reference in which the wire is neutral and in all other it appears charged. I hope it is clear enough now.
@@lukasrafajpps Thank you for your answer, I understand conceptually that if it remains stationary that wire is neutral and if charge drifts away that wire is electrically charged. My question is what will happen? Will it remain stationary or will it move? There must be one true behavior of the stationary charge near current carrying wire. The frame of reference is just the way we observe these things. I couldn't find anywhere what will happen to a stationary charge near a wire and how that makes sense from relativistic point of view? Thank you.
Ok so first of all we need to clarify what maxwell's equations tell us. If we measure a certain value of let's say electric field and how it changes in time, we can calculate how the magnetic field will behave. Maxwell's equations have no predicting power for what will happen to a charged particle near a wire with non zero current without proper initial conditions. You have to put some information into the equations (like the measured charge of the wire in certain frame of reference) and then you can make predictions. Let's assume couple of different situations. scenario 1) We have a charged particle near a wire and we know the current in the wire is non zero. We measure no force acted on the charged particle therefore we conclude the wire is neutral. Now we can use the information about the current inside the wire and calculate what force would act on the charged particle if it started moving with certain velocity and we would conclude it is due to magnetic field of the wire. But from the particles point of view, we just pushed the particle into a frame where the wire is electrically charged. Scenario 2) We have a wire with the same current but now we measure a force acting on our stationary charged particle. We conclude that the wire is electrically charged, then we can calculate for example how fast should the particle move in the opposite direction so the magnetic field compensate the measured electric field and there would be no force on the particle. But from the particles point of view, we just pushed it into a frame where the wire is neutral. This video is just about the fact that different observers would conclude that the force is due to different effect but the strength of the force must remain the same.
@@lukasrafajpps ruclips.net/video/1TKSfAkWWN0/видео.html this is the link to the video of Veritasium. Please look at 1:24 where he claims that stationary electric charge will feel NO force near a current carrying wire. For me this makes no sense. Do you know is this true or no? Do you know maybe, did someone made some experiments about this topic and what was their conclusion? Thanks
@@markoula7211 in 1:20 he made an assumption that the overall electric charge of the wire is zero. This assumption is just to make things clear. So before doing any experiment, we must measure the electric charge of the wire by measuring the force acting on a stationary charged particle. Usually, if you are in a lab, the wire is neutral in your frame of reference because statistically, all particles inside the laboratory have zero velocity on average (considering velocities in all directions). Therefore the wire will neutralize itself relative to the frame in which the average velocity of charges around is zero.
Have in mind that Lorenz transform was introduced by Lorenz to prove that there is a global frame of reference (the so called aether) for all observers (option 1) in order to explain why the Michelson-Morley experiment didn't produce any results... But Einstein used Lorenz transform to prove that there is not a global frame of reference for all observers (option 2). So as you can see, it is a matter of interpretation, or a philosophical position whether which is correct... and not an actual fact...
Einstein did not use the Lorentz Transforms to prove this. He _assumed_ that the speed of light is constant for all observers and used that assumption to *derive* the Lorentz transforms. This basically shows that any aether theory which obeys the lorentz transform must have a completely undetectable aether.
Thanks!!! right now I am focusing on special relativity but it is linked with electrodynamics so there is certainly going to be another videos of such kind :)
@@lukasrafajpps Us that has done engineering work on any kind of transmission, know that Maxwell is never used. Euler is what is in all textbooks and we can do wonderful things like FFT (fourier). All of this math only works if there is a medium. ruclips.net/video/gZRDSy88SN4/видео.html Check it out and please find errors.
You forgot to mention the debunk of the concept of eter. About the moving electric charge: the old physicists imagined the eletron either as a philosophical atom (not compressible, not divisible) or as a wave like a photon (one exclusive or other). In that philosophical exclusive or situation it was difficult to imagine the conclusion of your video. Congrats about your video. I believe you are not American neither Russian but anyway you live in a cold climate. Thank you. Good video. Brasil
@@lukasrafajppsCertainly I understood it. But your spectator probably is a naive youngster. Moreover there are lots of natural philosophy concepts applied to the apriori previous fundamentals of physics (as well as in Euclidean Maths). It is goot to explicit the old underlying ideas of the epoch to the young students. Cheers. Brasil
magnetic flux ring as conical in frequency rates natural encryption yes or no? as in fm graphed moduluation change rate conical dopler 3rd demension colapse
It is called the aether. Sadly, Einstein virtually discounted electromagnetism. Velikovsky almost had him about to change his mind before the Professor passed away.
Why are the lines of magnetic force stationary at (3:25) and (4:04)? So much is being parroted without any consideration to think for oneself. I have learnt noting here.
@@narfwhals7843 The animation shows a steady movement of electrons thru the conducting wire. In physical reality this can only happen when the circuit is closed. You therefore need to show the return wire no matter how far it may be. The Ampere-urns will induce magnetic field inside the circuit boundary of strength B Teslas. A piece of conductor with free ends having a steady current flow is a meaningless abstract, similar to the often use of the 2-dimensional concept as it does not exist in nature. The magnetic field lines are anchored to the wire and will translate together with the circuit should the circuit itself translate in relation to itself or the laboratory. In the animation at (3:25) the magnetic field lines are stationary relative to the positive, and at (4:04) they are stationary relative the negative particles. So, which is it? The magnetic field lines are an intimate player in this ‘experiment’ as you call it, really an inadequate concept of a thought experiment, and together with re return part of the circuit are completely ignored. My comment then, had nothing to do with the fact that the magnetic field was constant, Thank you.
Following page 3:00 Remember that Electron = subatomic particle+ charge Charge flow over a conductor produce B field and not electron. Charge do not flow in vacuum, unless carried by electrons. Electron flow in vacuum yield B field. EB fields propagate in vacuum space need no electrons but Aether. Classical physics teaches us that Doppler effect happens in the wave medium, solid, liquid, gas and let me add Aether. Because SR GR and Einstein are constantly and highly celebrated this gain attention and worshiping from growing up physicists. You will grow up one day and feel sorry as I do today find out I was chasing rainbow in my most productive ages.
While it makes sense for quantities in 4D to have 4 components, that doesn't actually explain why the electromagnetic field still seems to have 6 components. The reason why what seems like it should be a 4-dimensional quantity actually appears as a 6-dimensional quantity is really interesting. One thing that you might notice if you're familiar to combinatorics, binomials, or Pascal's Triangle is that there are 6 different ways to chose 2 elements out of a set of 4. Could each component of the electromagnetic field really be between 2 of the 4 dimensions? We might also note that the timelike dimension behaves noticeably differently from the spacelike dimensions, and those 6 can be split into two groups: those that have a timelike component, and those that don't. Knowing Pascal's Triangle, it should be apparent that the 6 could be derived from each pair of dimensions in 3D along with an extra component for each of the single dimensions, which would now be raised up to have a timelike part. The components with a timelike part are the electric field, and the components without a timelike part are the magnetic field. Lorentz boosts can cause one to rotate into the other, keeping them tied together even if they are still separable in a given frame of reference.
Most of this is over my head (not a math guy) , but I was visualizing something similar to explain "spin ½" as if angular momentum was pointing as a combination of two directions, but only one of them being in our conventional 3 and another orthogonal, making it seem more like a precessional flip . Does that make any sense to you?
@@petevenuti7355 Spin 1/2 doesn't actually need a 4th dimension at all. (or at least a 4th spatial dimension.) Quaternions on their own are entirely 3-dimensional objects, even if they have 4 components, and they're already spin 1/2.
I have a hard time accepting the concept of a "moving observer"... Any "observation" has a stationary "observer" unless involving a third point of reference - like "Big Bang" at the coordinates 0,0,0 or the Northpole... The observer is at the center of an observation, but a "moving observer" rotates around another point of reference... It's like contributing "speed" to be a quality of an object on it's own - but nothing can "move", unless relative to something else... An observer can state "the object moves from left to right" - but that observation is useless to anyone else, unless in reference to the 4 Cardinalpoints (North, South, East and West)... The only way, the statement could be used for several individual observers would be, if they faced the same "direction" - which btw is the fundamental quality of "magnetism" (several individual entities facing the same direction, so they share the same axis of rotation and thus the same "time")... Any "observation" is a fixed point in "time" based on "here and now" - but any "distance" affects "now", so a fundamental (stationary) point of reference is needed, before an observation is valid to anyone else, but the observer... So how can a "moving observer" be possible, unless observed from a 3rd point of reference...? Isn't this the cause of all the confusion and inconsistancies in the equations - that you can't compare an "observation" with an "explanation" - because they have different points of reference, at the center of the definition...?
The physical laws must be independent on who is watching therefore the force must be the same. I just picket two specific observers to show inconsistency of Maxwell's equations with Galilean relativity. One observer in the rest frame of the protons and one observer in the rest frame on the electrons.
@@lukasrafajpps My confusion doesn't come from "who" is watching, but from the "position" (perspective) of the observation... The ie right/left-axis is valid for an individual observation - but when defined for someone else to understand, a common frame of reference is needed - like a World-map with the Northpole in the center (like the UN-flag)... I actually believe, that's the function of "c squared" in Einsteins equation for Relativity - to establish the "position", from where the observation is made... And our individual "here and now" differes from everyone elses (since we are at the center of our own experience), so we need a set of common references, to combine the different perspectives from different positions... Comparing two different coordinatesystems 1:1 doesn't work, until an alignment has been made, relative to eachother... I wonder if "magnetism" is an emergent property of the alignment of two individual perspectives ("facing the same direction")... Well, it's just a thought, I have been puzzeled by... But thanks for the inspirational video (and answer) - as you can see, it's a subject of great interest to me...
The "c squared" part might be easier to understand, if you imagine a bunch of bar-magnets.... They can be connected in a long row, if they face the same direction... But if you put them parrallel to eachother, they repel eachother, when facing the same direction... If a bunch of parallel magnets are attracted to the same point in space, they can form a "sphere" of magnets, pointing towards the same point in space, but by repelling eachother none of them will be able to reach the point of attraction... That way, each would represent a perspective of it's own, relative to the common point of reference - sharing the same up/down-axis and thus the same time-frame...
hi! nice video. can u include links to references in description? also, like others have said, i would also love a video dedicated to the part at: 9:39 > _"4 independent quantities [of EM Force]"_
it's less confusing if you understand in terms of phasors and complex-valued fields and forces. studying electrical engineering is a great way to understand physics better
you might also appreciate Peter Rowlands work on the nilpotent Dirac algebra which is a very elegant way of building up towards the complete physics of the relativistic wave equation for fermions with bosonic fields
Great job at the explanation! Its all very fascinating to think about. Just a quick aside, those are Heaviside equations, maxwell had 23 equations using quaternions. Heaviside put them in the forms we have today. Poor Heaviside never gets any credit these days hehe.
Yes Heaviside was credited by Einstein at making Maxwell's equations in a form that were easily to comprehend. Maxwell actually had something like 21 separate equations and it was Heaviside who was able to make sense of the symmetry that existed and based on this reduced all of Maxwell's equations to the four integral or four differential equations that we are all so familiar with
The density of electrons is not the same as protons, because electrons are moving. In the directions of its movement spacetime is compressed causing the density of electrons to be bigger.
The wire is electrically neutral in its rest frame. So the electron density is equal to the proton density after taking their length contraction into account. When you turn on a current in the wire the electrons will rearrange to accommodate this.
@@narfwhals7843 If there is no current, the wire is neutral. But if there is a current, the wire is not neutral. The moving electrons contract their spacetime in the direction of its movement. If the electron mass is the same, but the spacetime is smaller the density has to be bigger in the direction of its movement (relative to the proton frame of reference). A nearby charge is attracted/repelled BECAUSE of this change in density that causes the resultant "electric field" to change. This change in the "electric field" we call "magnetic field", but they are the same. If the density did not change, there were be no reason for any of this happen. The magnetic field appears BECAUSE the change of density.
@@tongolembiouski702 A nearby charge that is stationary relative to the wire is _not_ attracted or repelled. A charge that is moving along the wire is. That charge sees length contraction on the charges in the wire and in its own frame that is why it is repelled. In the rest frame of the wire it is electrically neutral. This is easy to measure. The moving charges are contracted and rearranged to achieve this when the current turns on.
Well, Maxwell eqs are macroscopic, not microscopic, and they are not Galileo transformation invariant. Not they do not a correct answer, they are not suitable for this type of experiment. A single electron is not a current. See Landau &n Lifschitz fields volume.
wired electricity and wireless electricity behave weirdly . My advice ??read nichola tesla ignition coil patent and play with that . Nichola tesla knew the ideal distance between wire in theory but in practice required a 3d printer because wire required to be bare as often as possible for nonsensor application
I'm told there is evidence of earlier mathematicians arriving at the conclusion of length contraction, time dilation, and the interconnection of space and time, namely Clifford in 1876
There are several ways to arrive at this conclusion. But earlier attempts generally were working in the context of an electromagnetic "aether" to provide a notion of "relative to light". And the Lorentz Transformations were put in to explain why that aether was undetectable. What is interesting about Einstein's version is that he started with the proposal that the speed of light is a constant (aka that the Maxwell Equations were frame independent) and _derived_ the same transformation rules from that.
It's a very good video, but there's an explanatory problem that I think should have been avoided. You say at 8:00 onwards that the distance between protons decreases in terms of the external particle, while the distance between electrons in the wire does not. But this is not true. Think about it! Suppose we have a SEMICONDUCTOR, not a plain wire. In it, the electrons move by jumping from atom to atom - hole to hole. Let's say there is a additional electron on every second atom, and a hole on every second atom (electron deficiency), so it is electrically neutral. So every second atom has a - charge, every second atom has a + charge. There will indeed be Lorentz contraction in terms of the outer particle, but the whole system will shrink. So the atoms will shrink AND ALSO the distance between the electrons! Because that is fixed at an average of two atoms. So the set of electrons will also undergo the SAME contraction as the set of protons. After all, the whole problem could be described as having a piece of moving heavy positive charge and a small test particle moving with it. Seen from the first inertial frame (the one they are moving in), there is a magnetic field of the positive charge that displaces/attracts the test particle (Lorentz force) + to this is added the Coulomb force between the two charges. And in the second inertial frame (where they are stationary) there is no magnetic field for the large positive charge, only a Coulomb force between them. Again, the two are not equal according to Maxwell's law, just as in the wire case. But if you calculate with the four-vectors and electromagnetic four-potential, everything should be fine. Anyway, this is a known issue. In the wire example, this "positive atoms contract and electrons don't" is a known flawed explanation. It should not be shared, yet it is all over the internet. I don't know where it came from, but it has entered the public consciousness, even though it is a completely incorrect explanation. The correct explanation is the one you share at the end of the video about four-vectors and electromagnetic four-potential.
if you put isolated wire too close you get false signal(sensor), too far and you can no longer use the wireless electricity potential .(tesla coil electric motor , generator , 1970 ignition coil . And if you hold 1970 ignition coil with a metal loop ? Its no longer a condensator as defined by nichola tesla ..same for distributor condensor . A 1970 car does not require a distributor condensator if ignition coil holder is not metal
Your talk seemed very carefully thought through. But unfortunately, although you showed some formulas and stated your conclusions, you did not derive any formulas which would prove any of your conclusions. It's most important to prove your conclusions by deriving all the formulas which imply your conclusions.
@@lukasrafajpps Thank you for your kind reply. I really enjoyed your video. What you explained, you explained very well. Instead of full derivations then, it could have been helpful to me if I could have seen, listed on 1 page, side by side, an ordered summary of all the derived relativistic formulas used in each of the 2 reference frames. Then I could follow the logic through to understand how all the variables transform to cause what we observe. I've invented a unifying physics theory, matter theory, and although I've tried to understand this problem before, I've yet to see a full solution that I thought was logical. In case you might be interested, I have invented what I think is a unique and the only logical explanation for the surprising results of many particle 2 slit experiments. I'm curious what you might think about my explanation in my video, "Particle 2 Slit Experiments Explained By Paul Marostica".
Hmm, I think that this thing is explained in other videos. Basically in the reference frame of the positive particle, electrons stay, but protons move. Due to these movement, they experience space contraction due to Einstein theory, thus there a little more moving protons, than stationary electrons. Thus net charge of the wire is slightly positive, thus positive particle is repeled by the wire.
3:50 but it turns the wire is not neutral when there is a current.... You mised completely the role of surface charges which makes the current in the wire flow
If you enjoyed this video you can buy me a coffee here www.buymeacoffee.com/pprobnsol Much appreciated :)
@Crime Master gogo No because the definition we use is that the direction of current is where the positive charge travels. It means that if electrons travel a certain distance the current is gonna be in the opposite direction but if protons travel in a certain direction the current is in the direction of the protons. Since the current in both frames is the same, then the magnetic field is the same.
This is a commonly known and the confusing fact that when you have + and - on the battery, it means that + is a positively charged deck and - is a negatively charged deck and if you connect them with a wire the electrons from - will travel to + but we say the current is from + to -.
@Crime Master gogo Sorry it took so long to reply. The direction of the magnetic field was meant to be as you say. It is just a weird perspective that sometimes it appears other way around. I even made mistake in 10:50 since it should have different orientation there but I realized it too late :D
Here's the problem with the contracting protons theory, you have to say "wire of infinite length", which obviously dos not exist. What would happen in the real world, where wires have finite length? If the protons and the distances between them contracted then the wire itself would also contract, because it is also in the same relative motion as the protons, and if the wire contracted then the spaces between the electrons would also contract, because if they didn't then it would be the same as the electrons suddenly spreading apart from each other just because a particle was moving outside the wire, and if they spread apart then fewer electrons could fit inside the wire, so where would the extra ones go? This is how we know that length contraction is pure fantasy.
@@VortekStarling If you want to solve it for a finite wire you have to use the relativity of simultaneity as it is the actual cause of the length contraction. I would need to create animation to explain this but maybe I will when I record the video about what the length contraction really is.
@@lukasrafajpps Okay, but also record a video about a square moving vehicle with both a horizontal light beam going from the lower left corner to the lower right corner and a diagonal beam going from the upper left corner to the same lower right corner. You'll find that it's impossible to make both beams work using the same desynchronization of the clocks at the back and front of the square. Why? Because the diagonal beam is only moving toward the front of the square at half the speed of the horizontal beam, because its velocity is split half horizontal and half vertical, because its on a 45 degree angle. So it moves forward at half the velocity and therefore requires a different desynchronization, it breaks special relativity and proves it is flawed.
One of the best explanation of the Magnetic Force being a relativistic effect of the Electric field. And finally introducing the electric 4-Vector ! (which of course would deserve some more in-depth considering)
Thanks! I agree the full covariant description of electromagnetism deserves its own video :)
electric monopole connected to 4 dimension. Magnetic dipole do not connected to 4 dimension and appears in 3D in the moment when
'+' and '-' electric monopoles ,2 halves of magnetic dipole, in 4 dimension compose magnetic dipole and annihilate themselves.
When created in 4D magnetic dipole can live long in 3D. It can be broken if begins to move.
In that case some thing encountered and break it to peaces , again in "+" and "-' electric monopoles
wich immediately connect themselves to 4D and process repeat. time elapsed is proportional to distance between poles.
Constant frequency of electromagnetic wave is evidence then vacuum is a crystal and magnetic dipole breaks when encounter
units of crystal .
It is not a relativistic effect of the electric field though. The 4-vector literally has magnetic field components. this is just a stupid explanation that doesn't really explain anything, and this seems to be a common trend in physics; take something and explain it within something wrong, but claim it is true.
A single moving charge causes a magnetic field, and there is no 'difference in positive and negative' to cause an 'electric field that looks like a magnetic field.' The fact you can transform to a frame of which a magnetic does not exist doesn't mean the magnetic field is a relativistic effect of the electric field
Magnetic field is not a relativistic effect of the electric field. Light is a self-propagating electromagnetic wave, with magnetic and electric field components orthogonal to one another. There is no frame you can transform into that removes the magnetic field. If you could do this, you'd be in a frame where light has a speed of 0.
So, SR directly proves that magnetic fields are not a relativistic effect. Ironic, no?
the equations do explain the experiment correctly, it’s the incorrect assumption that the reference frames follow galilean transforms that’s incorrect
Yes it is kinda clickbait but not entirely because at that time there were only galilean transforms and therefore Maxwell's equations could not explain this. This means that at that time people would say there is something odd about maxwell's equations. So this title can be taken as from historical point of view.
This is correct but it all follows GALILEI's _principles._
However, magnets DO exist - rocks from Magnesia or Magnetic Island are magnets with a North & South Pole. The Force of Attraction (Repulsion) between protons & electrons is extremely strong . Even if velocity v of proton is relatively small so that contraction of the wire is quite small, the resultant Force is still significant.
If we stood next to someone at arm’s length, & we had 1% more electrons, then the Force of Repulsion would equal the ‘weight’ of the entire Earth.
@@dnickaroo3574 "1% more electrons" is a boatload of electrons ... on the order of 10^27. Add in the fact that the electromagnetic force is about 10^37 times stronger than gravity, and ... well, let's hope you don't suddenly acquire such a charge.
@@jpdemer5 this could be the principle that aliens use to propel their craft.
Duuuude, this was an awwwwesome video.
Electrical engineer here giving you high praise and gracious thanks for making this content.
Wow, thanks!
@@lukasrafajpps but you know that the m m experiment did find some fringeshift
This is a great explanation of this and I've just finished my first semester taking electricity and magnetism and soon going into my second semester of electricty and magnetism and these explanations really help. The connection between electricity, magnetism, and relativity is one of the most eye opening and mind blowing things I've learned about in my entire life.
I think there's also a connection EM-hydrodynamics.
Two semesters of E&M? I am so damn jealous! I start Thermodynamics next semester, but I am still excite! I feel like I've have learned an incredible amount, yet I have only scratched the surface. I F'in LOVE IT, and this is why I'm going to keep going once I am done w/ my B.S..
@@chrispycryptic that’s really awesome! I might do statistical mechanics in my senior year but I wanna do as much as I can with quantum stuff since I wanna go into particle physics for graduate
@@chrispycryptic Live your dream.
@@sirawesomehat8814
Hell yeah!!
Have you ever checked out Andrew Dotson's youtube? Following the journey through his PhD has been a huge inspiration for me when the going gets tough. He is in on the theoretical side of particle physics, and currently has been trying to get caught up on QFT so he can do some work in string theory (lol I know.). He is a really good dude, so when you mentioned particle phys I knew I had to give him a shout out.
I wish you success in your academic pursuits, it is a hella long road, but we got this!!
You have to transform all the fields to the new reference frame. E, B, J all change if you change your velocity.
He did that in the video around 4:20 . When you transform into the frame of the moving charge J changes from negative particles moving to the right to positive particles moving to the left. That is the same current so you get the same magnetic field.
Good to see somebody treating this physics as open. Keep going. It wasn't just one man's work though. The number of people who tried to decode emag is large. You are ready for polysign numbers and emergent spacetime. Structured spacetime rather than isotropic spacetime.
The purpose of science is not solely to provide a complete and definitive explanation of a phenomenon. It is often impossible to fully explain something, as there are always deeper layers that unexplained.
Instead, the primary goals of science are to offer predictions and to apply the effects discovered.
This isn't the first time I've seen a video regarding the link between electromagnetism and special relativity, yet I was mind blown none the less.
Your explanation was intuitive and had many valuable insights like the link between algebra and the redundant quantities, or even the of chain of discoveries which feels feels like a natural motivation for each succeeding theory.
Goes to show fancy graphics don't substitute for clarity and reasoned presentation. Bravo
Length contraction because of speed leads to a result
I first came across a similiar derivation in "Electromagnetic Fields and Waves" (2nd Edition) by Paul Lorrain & Dale R. Corson as an Undergrad.
Well put together and yes this blew my mind when I came to understand this many decades ago, but the clarity once you understand will never leave you.
Excellent analysis. I hope you can make some more of these videos. Very thought-provoking.
Thanks, will do!
If your perspective is that all of the positive charges are stationary, then shouldn't the positive charge be pulled toward the wire regardless of the direction the negative charges are moving, since any movement of the negative charge causes length contraction? But this isn't what happens. Also, I'm pretty sure Maxwell's equations hold if your velocity is just the velocity between the moving charges and the positive reference charge.
I think for this video to make more sense it should explain/show how when negative charges flow in one direction positive charges also flow in the opposite direction. It's hard for me to make sense of it when one of the charges is perfectly stationary. It makes it appear as if a charge stationary relative to the wire will have a force on it when a current is induced, which I'm pretty sure it does not (but I could be wrong?)
I do really love this topic, and I remember when Veritasium explained it and I had the same confusions. Good video and I'd love another one going even more in depth!
This is very idealized situation of what is happening inside the wire. Usually positive charges are making the metal that the wire is made of and since the metal is conductor, there is very little resistance for electrons to move from atom to atom. Therefore we can interpret the conductor as fixed set of positive charges and moving electrons but the fact they are fixed to the metal itself has nothing to do with the relativity of this problem.
The fact that the conductor is neutral when the electrons are moving is my initial assumption. In reality, if you have a conductor without current it is also neutral and when you start the current then the wire becomes charged but it will eventually neutralize itself relative to average velocity of nearby charges.
it's fascinating to consider that at the same time this was being figured out people like Peano and Russell were in the process of destroying mathematics with absurd notions like mathematics is about operations over numbers, and numbers can be defined correctly via a successor operation.
the problems here are numerous, and ultimately yield Incompleteness, thus defeating the purpose of Logicism. for instance, if 1 is the successor to 0, then how is 1/2 considered a number? and, if mathematical operations operate over numbers then how does division render unit conversion possible by handling pure units? and if numbers are sequential, as the successor operation insists, then how can 1+1=2 and 1+1=48 at the same time, given that 1 frog + 1 frog = 2 frogs, but 1 foot + 1 yard = 48 inches? and if each number is unique, then how can it be that I just showed you that 2 = 48?
these are literally problems that toddlers notice, and yet they're just ignored by mainstream mathematics, even after more than 90 years with knowledge of the Incompleteness they induce despite the fact that they only exist in the first place because of a misguided movement to yield completeness.
and beyond this, it's still popularly believed that Whitehead and Russell proved 1+1=2, despite the fact that they never made that claim, and the book which alluded to it was the very thing being criticized by Godel in his proofs of Incompleteness.
tldr, as physics got smarter, math got way, way dumber... and that's amazing.
1/2 is not a number... 1 and 2 are numbers...
👏👏👏👏Yes! I experienced the same fascination as you mention at the end of the video, many years ago, when I realized what you perfectly describe in this video.🤯 😁
The path of reasoning I learned about what happened historically is equivalent but slightly different though. Maxwell, when analyzing the findings of Coulomb, Faraday, Ampere, and together with the mathematical insight of Gauss, realized that a correction was to be made to the formula derived by Ampere. The derivative of the electric field multiplied by the electric permittivity and the magnetic permeativity had to be added. The product of these two constants is very small, so it was understandable that Ampere didn’t observe this flaw, and it took the genius of Maxwell to realize that without this term the equations yield a mathematical contradiction.
By adding this term the equation of a wave function is immediately derived, a wave moving at a speed equal to the inverse of the square root of the product of the mentioned constants. This speed happened to be numerically equal to the speed of light! So this finding settled the debate about light being a wave, and the success of this finding was immense!
But then, a new apparent inconsistency showed up. The electric permittivity and the magnetic permeativity are plain dimensional constants, it makes no sense for them to be different as measured in different moving reference frames. It took the genius of Einstein to solve this apparent contradiction by daring to say that, well, there it is, in front of our eyes. The speed of light is a constant with the same value in any frame of reference. 😎
Actually the speed of light is not exactly a constant, but rather it is a dimensional relativity limit of the force of time. Time (not clock time) is a force in it's own right, that is what is wrong with these equations. Light slows down when change mediums and its speed in matter is slower than in a free space vacuum.
Do you speak German?
@@raycar1165 Yes. Why do you ask?🙂
@@enricolucarelli816 well I have a theory that the English language is backward.
It’s use by people who don’t understand this, is resulting in the entropy of intelligence.
No offense intended.
You have the advantage to read the original papers of the giants we really stand upon. That’s all. Many great papers have not been translated.
There is a paradigm shift happening.
GR, SR, Minkowski space etc. are the reason why there is a crisis in cosmology, in all of science really.
Everyone is going to know soon and Einstein and Hawking will be reduced to the status of Ptolemy and The four humours.
Carbon dating is going to be questioned.
Antigravity is going to be revealed.
Christians are learning about the god they’ve been worshipping
The big bang theory is being challenged by new information every two months…
The whole world is going crazy.
We may want to clear the table and start over where Mach and Whitehead and Tesla left off.
If we’re not distracted by a word war… again.
But I could be wrong.
3:15 - This definitely holds when the wire is not charged and current is not flowing, because we won't observe external electric field.
Comparing to it, at 7:56 length contraction will produce external (repulsive) electric field (on the moving test particle).
By the symmetry, at 7:45 the stationary observer should observe length contraction of moving electron chain, right? Length contraction should produce excess negative charge density on the wire, so we should observe measurable external electric field (i.e. stationary test particle should be attracted towards the wire). But we do not observe measurable electric field, correct? What am I missing?
My assumptions were that the wire is neutral already with the current inside. You can make assumptions as you like when you want to demonstrate some physical phenomena. If I assumed the wire being neutral without current, then after I turn ON the current then the wire becomes charged as you said.
In labolatory though, after you switch ON the current the wire would neutralize itself relative to the frame in which the mean velocity of nearby charges is zero. Therefore it the wire in a labolatory without current is neutral, when you switch ON the current the charge of the wire spike up and then decay to zero.
@@lukasrafajpps (What you describe at the end is transient, but until now we only have had comparisons between steady states, so transients should be irrelevant to this problem.)
The sentence *"the wire would neutralize itself relative to the frame in which the mean velocity of nearby charges is zero"* could be an explanation, but I don't understand what _"mean velocity of nearby charges is zero"_ is suppose to mean. _Mean velocity_ from whose perspective (relative to what)?
If magnetism is a relativistic by-product of electric charge then how should we re-define or re-imagine a photon, given that the usual description is along the lines of "an electric field oscillating at right angles to a magnetic field"?
Well, using Galilean transformations for the electromagnetic potentials, assuming that the scalar potential transforms like a coordinate and a component of the vector potential transforms like time, one could come to a conclusion that the electric field is not zero in the electron's reference frame. Thus, the probing electron would fly away from the wire. Right?
You so right. Im happy at least one person in here mentions it geez...
The original Maxwell's equations were 9 in total if I'm not mistaken and Heaviside reduced them to four
true :) or maybe even more?
who is responsible for d*F = J?...the single eq differential forms version.
Try to read the paper written by Stephan J. G. Gift, that's " Light speed invariance is a remarkable illusion". This imply that the ether theory might be true and in this way, since the Maxwell's equations aren't based on this particular reference of frame, what can be done? We know for sure that in some ways these equations works so there should be a way to explain this and we need to go back to the basis.
What can be done? Read Mach and Bohm, lest we end up repeating the same mistakes again.
A mechanical elites was asked what vacuum means. In his reply - vacuum is empty of matter.
An electrical engineer was given the same question - he replies, vacuum is empty of matter but Aether.
Aether is a fluid that has no physical but electrical property, with a permittivity measuring 8.8541817128*10-12 Farad per meter.
Therefore Aether is a component necessary to enable e field and displacement charge q into the vacuum-Aether for light propagation inside.
Furthermore, Aether, a fluid, always attaches to matter, from subatomic particles to atoms to molecules to ions to solid to liquid to gas and to plasma. When gas, liquid, solid moves Aether drag along with it, also together with the MMX apparatus.
On the other hand, from a macrocosm scale, Aether as a fluid continue and remotely drag with everything but drift at an averages velocity defined by the nearest and most dominant body in the 3D space.
With that shall we rewrite SR.
The bandaid for (holes in) special relativity is general relativity. There were two subsequent bandaids from 1905 to 1915.
Just thank you for your work. Outstanding quality all across the board.
Excellent vivid explanation of utmost clarity. Please keep it up!
It is the internal inconsistency in a theory that drove progress in science. Good job that you pointed out the problem in Maxwell's equation. I don't know if Maxwell or his contemporaries had noticed the problem and followed up. Or they noticed the problem but failed to come up with a resolution. Today we have the dark matter and dark energy problems that cannot be explained by existing theories. We are waiting for the next Einstein to be born to come up with a resolution. This coming breakthrough will be huge as it will uncover secrets of spacetime or how the universe works in large scale. The new understanding could allow us to build wormhole and wrap-drive. It could come next year or in the coming centuries.
That is very true. Have you heard of the entropic gravity by Verlinde? He explains gravity as entropic force and it is possible to make dark matter and dark energy work.
@@lukasrafajpps Justin Khouri also solved the dark matter.
@@frun lots of theoretical solutions out there... problem is we have yet to design a sensitive enough apparatus to detect gravity at quantum scales
Maxwell had nothing to do with the 4 equations that bear his name. Nothing at all. They are a coup by the Germans who considered themselves the masters of electricity and yet failed to grasp almost all of the theory Maxwell and Tait worked on, or is in his book.
They did not understand him, and made an empty vacuous claim that those particular equations which keep their experiments and add enough to make radio waves is all that was of value in Maxwell's treatise.
The whole history of physics we have been handed down is more heavily influenced by propaganda of the time than by anything to do with experiments or other historical events in the canonical fairytale.
I have almost all the original books, what we are told is written in them simply is not what is written in them. Hard as that is to believe, it is the truth and anyone willing to look will find the same.
@@tinkeringtim7999 All off Amperes, Faradays, and Gauss laws can be tested with a common hardware store multimeter, some copper wire, a battery and a magnet.
Thank you so much ,I've always wondered how the lorentz transformation came before relativity.
wonderful video
the technical origin, at least when I was with NASA, would be called "rectus pluckus", and if it were from a team: "a group grope".
Those are actually Heaviside's equations. Maxwell origionally published 20 equations and 20 unknowns in Quaternion style math.
Heaviside looked at those and said "These poor electricians will never be able to build circuits with these equations", so he truncated them down to the 4 equations we have today. Heaviside was right, but what they called electricians back then were more like lineman of today, they didn't have years of advanced mathematical training. They needed something simple they could use to figure out the easiest way to build electric circuits for a economy that strongly desired to have modern (of the day) electric environment.
What Heaviside actually did was strip off the 4th quaternion dimension and built 4 simplified equations that work in our 3 dimensional mind. Those equations forced electricians to build symmetrically regaged circuits. Or, input will always be equal and opposite to output. Vector and Tensor analysis was born out of Heaviside's equations, or similar very similar math. Useful but limiting.
Terry Berrett looked at Maxwell's original 20 equation paper - a higher order math, and came up with Resonance and Aspect Matched Adaptive Radar. This would not have been possible with the worlds best Vector and Tensor analysis, because these equations ignore that integrated 4th dimension.
Don't crap on Maxwell's equations so much. Yes they are missing some esoteric components, but then again, they aren't really his equations. They are Heaviside's truncated interpretations of Maxwell's original 20.
On page 8:20 when -ve charged electrons moving right produces B field downward. It will then produce B field point up moving left. If we reverse the polarity from -ve to +ve for ions, ions moving left SHOULD produce B field downward and not upwards.
I am in class 12 and do u know how much I researched for this answer🙂...My teacher told me remember this as a property that moving charge creates Magnetic field but I wasn't satisfied...I searched too much and I am happy that I finally found it now,!!❣️
Thank you so much for your pronunciation, I am not english speaker but your video is so clear
Really? I am also not a native speaker an I feel bad for my pronunciation. Thanks!
@@lukasrafajpps well, I *am* a native speaker and you did very well. I don't mind sleight grammatical errors or pronunciation errors especially given the clarity of pronunciation. I had professors and other mentors who were very lax with their strictness and it made it challenging. For microeconomics I had an instructor who I never managed to understand more than 20% of words, so I taught myself out of the textbook.
@@mltonsorangestapler Thanks! It is very nice to know people can understand me clearly :)
@@lukasrafajpps articulate with a pleasant accent. 👌
Most video made by english speaking indians are exactly opposite, hard to understand, and I worked with people from India for 20 years of my life and it hasn't helped.
Loved hearing your understanding of the phenomenon. Good video. You can make more of things you found interesting.
Good, clean, thought provoking explanation, I look forward to more videos
(comment on what is said at 4:50 min)
There is a 4th possibility: the velocity v is the velocity between the two frames of frames of reference. In two dimensions you can think of each frame of reference as a massless sheet that slide through each other. This _relational_ velocity is frame independent.
It seems to me that this explanation does not stand for at least 3 reasons :
- the length contraction effect depends only on the modulus of the speed, so the effect would not depend on the direction of the current.
- the contraction effect play a symmetrical role also for the electrons when the reference frame of the atoms is used.
- you could consider a free electron beam, i. e. suppress all the positive charges, and the magnetic effect would be the same (not considering the electrostatic force)
It is the EM field itself that is viewed differently from each reference frame, it doesn't depends on the way it is produced.
1: It depends on the relative motion of the observers. If the observer is moving _with_ the current the effect will be different than when the observe is moving against it. That is why the direction matters.
2: Correct.The single charge moving relative to the wire would be length contracted from the point of view of the positive charges in the wire. What do you think this would change?
3: If you ignore the electrostatic force between two parallel electron beams the effect would be the same. But the electrostatic force completely dominates this experiment! There will never be a net magnetic attraction.
The magnetic effect in this scenario would be to effectively weaken the electrostatic repulsion. This is an effect of _time dilation_ . The force seen on moving particles produces less acceleration than we expect.
This video by Eugene Khutoryansky explains this effect in some detail ruclips.net/video/rKFzV8sVDsA/видео.html
"It is the EM field itself that is viewed differently from each reference frame, it doesn't depends on the way it is produced." Correct. But if you don't know what produces it you don't know how to transform it because the transformation depends on your motion relative to the source.
These effects show why it makes so much sense to view E and M as a single field in the first place.
@@narfwhals7843 Thank you for your response. On point 1 I see that you are right, because the movement of the particle is also inverted.
On the point 2 it would lead to a global increase of the negative charge density, and thus an electrostatic force that would be seen on non moving particles.
On the point 3 I know that it is a little trickier, and I am not sure that I am right...
@@christianthom5148 Charge density is a relative property when we consider length contraction. The total charge is conserved.
Do you mean that the moving charge should see an electrostatic effect on a charge that is not moving relative to the wire?
It does! Since the wire is electrically charged in this reference frame.
But it also sees that charge move through a magnetic field. And the magnetic and electric effects cancel out to no net force.
@@narfwhals7843 It is just that, as the moving particle sees a positively charged wire due to the length contraction of the ions, a fixed charge will see a negatively charged wire due to le length contraction of the moving electrons. It should induce a force on this non moving particle. Maybe it is the case, but I was not aware of this phenomenon.
@@christianthom5148 the fixed(relative to the wire) charge does not set a negatively charged wire when the current is steady. The wire is neutral in its own rest frame.
The moving electrons are length contracted, but for a steady current the effects balance out.
What happens in detail when you turn the current on is pretty complicated, though.
This was fantastic!
The beauty of the theory of relativity can blow my mind over and over again.
For those who are still confused....you need to watch a RUclips video about why we are moving through Space-Time at exactly the speed of light no matter how we measure our velocity through space.
Your video is on the top of all videos I’ve looked at on this subject, and it is very simple for a non math student to comprehend. I am going to show this video to my Ham Radio club this coming Monday 9/25/23. My topic is, “What are Radio Waves…..Really?” Thanks again for making this video.
that's awesome! thanks!
Something (amongst all the other stuff I don't understand about all this): How can we talk about positive charges in the wire, when most of the electrons in the (assumed metallic) wire are still bound to their respective nuclei, and hence 'shield' most of the charge on the nucleus. When a current flows in a wire, are there indeed 'extra' electrons in that wire compared to a non-connected wire? Otherwise it would seem that as you increase the voltage in the wire, you are more and more ionising the wire, as extra electrons are freed from their orbitals. Where am I going wrong?
Since the metal is conductor the electrons are almost free and can easily travel from atom to atom. Otherwire the wire would not be able to conduct electricity. About the extra electrons, when you have a neutral conductor without a current and then you apply current then the wire becomes temporaly charged but it will neutralise itself relative to the reference frame in which the average velocity of nearby charges is zero.
@@lukasrafajpps Thanks for your speedy reply. Somehow I thought that only 'valence' electrons were free to drift in a metal. I had thought that the innermost ones were too tightly bound to become free.
Imagine space as non motion holding its position. Imagine thermal energy singularity frequencies being repelled by cold resistance throughout space as space. Maximum momentum velocity in resistance. Thermal energy singularity frequencies and cold stationary negative fabric of space itself. Imagine that these thermal energy singularity frequencies harmonize their flow in unidirectional forward maximum momentum velocity in resistance. Increasing their overall level of harmonics, and interweaving their spiraling frequencies and resistance towards forward maximum momentum velocity in resistance, increases in amplification, to the harmonics harmonization of flow, redirecting forward momentum into cycling circulation patterns, holding mass together in equalization of resistance. Occupational space vibrating in forward momentum reducing distance from entanglement of redirected trajectories cycling in magnetic fields, of clockwise, and counterclockwise, at the same value of maximum momentum velocity in resistance. Resistance is a constant value throughout space and mass. In mass it is outward force of pressure known as weight contained in mass. Maximum momentum velocity is constant, in and out of entanglement. Fluidity to illusionary solidity cycling patterns. Space vibrates itself as dark energy passing through mass. This is the reason for aging or decay. We are space itself in occupation. We are a wave pattern that travels through it as it. Thermal energy singularity frequencies rebounding in mass as weight. Resistance is a repellant. Thermal energy singularity frequencies are propelled towards mass, as mass, is the weakest point of resistance, which is mass. Mass surrounding areas of space neutralizes resistance in it as outward force of pressure known as weight, contained within. Trajectories of mass are repelled towards mass as the weakest point of resistance. The star close to proximity massive mass is losing its equalization to the greater mass of weaker resistance. So the stars outermost layers are pushing their thermal energy singularity frequencies towards the weakest point of resistance which is greater occupation in resistance, producing the star to lose its outer pressure towards the weakest point of resistance. The equalization of resistance has to be maintained for cycling patterns. Only thermal energy singularity frequencies can disrupt cycling patterns. Thermodynamics variations affecting elements. Hydrogen absorbs thermal energy singularity frequencies and expands into helium. Helium occupies more area than hydrogen. Helium has more outward force of pressure known as weight contained within. Occupational space. Proximity mass weakens resistance. The moon is neutralized resistance of space. Trajectories are repelled to occupational areas of space by resistance. The water rises because resistance is weaker by proximity mass neutralized resistance. Thermodynamics is outward pressure. Space is cold fabric. Temperature is dependent on accumulated thermal energy singularity frequencies. Thermal energy makes or breaks mass. Equalization of resistance to thermal energy is key.
If magnetic charges exist the magnetic force can be "real", without them we can see magnetic force is only a side effect of the electric force as it is electric charge that creates the whole phenomenon
I don't think this disproves the existence of magnetic charges.
Great video! Just a a criticism the video edit flip is kinda disruptive. Again love the video!
Thanks for the feedback I thought it might be too much :D
Quite confusingly, E and B are merely pseudovectors. There is an electromagnetic 4-tensor, but no separate E and B 4-vectors. There is an electromagnetic 4-potential.
Well, the electric field itself is not a pseudovector if we are considering vectors in 3D. The problem is that E and B are not tensors under Lorentz transformations and therefore are not transforming covariantly which creates problems when our equations are written in terms of these E and B.
@@lukasrafajpps Then strictly speaking we should draft Maxwell's equations in terms of a 4-tensor of the second rank. It is condescending to the reader to draft them in terms of apparent vectors when actually corresponding 4-vectors do not exist. I have been amusing myself with writing a little computer program in Excel VBA which does a numerical solution of the one-dimensional Maxwell's equations starting with a bare patch of magnetic field. It is written in 3-vector form, but I remark in the comments that this is a 3-pseudovector. Since the program is spreadsheet-based, I would distribute it if I could find a system which allowed that.
@@david_porthouse the 4-potential is just a combination of a scalar and a 3-vector(and c). The electric potential and the magnetic vector potential. There is nothing misleading about using these, or derived quantities which are more familiar.
The EM tensor also just includes the E field and the B field, it only has 6 independent components, which are basically the two 3-vectors.
But you absolutely can write Maxwell's equation in 4-vector form, once you've introduced all these 4-vectors. They simply become []Aα=4pi/cJα, where []is the d'Alambertian, Aα is the EM 4-potential, and Jα the 4-current.
But how many viewers would have recognized that form?
@@narfwhals7843 Personally I am a fluid dynamics man to begin with, so I am happy with div and curl. I am setting out to teach myself a bit of electromagnetic theory by the method of writing computer simulations. What happens if we start with a bare patch of pure magnetic field? Now I know. In one dimension it splits into a left-going and a right-going magnetic field. These are accompanied by electric fields which are created as if ex nihilo. This is obvious with hindsight, but seeing it actually happen is interesting. We can put in repetitive boundary conditions to make the electromagnetic waves go round the clock and meet up again. Briefly we will see the electric fields cancelling and vanishing.
In Excel VBA my calculation of Poynting's vector uses a line like
Set P = Vcross (E,B)
The vector is defined in a class module, but Vcross is defined in a separate ordinary module. I could of course define a 4-tensor as the working data type instead.
I don't understand why the electrons spread out in their frame. They start moving so length contracts in their direction. Meaning that they are closer to other electrons leading to increased electron density but the protons contract too leading to increased proton density. I've been wracking my head on this problem for a while now. I have no idea why the electrons spreadout.
this is an initial conditions problem. I tackle this issue in one of my videos about 5 common mistakes in relativity.
Great video ! There is something I still don't catch. I understand how length contraction creates this charge imbalance when in the frame of reference of the moving charge. However, why is length contraction not considered when in the frame of reference of the positive charge lattice ? Surely, the electrons are moving relative to the positive ions right ? Why is there length contraction in one case and not the other ? Thanks
Hi, this question is actually very common. The answer is simple, the neutrality of the wire before the transformation was my initial assumption. When solving problems in physics you always start with your initial assumptions but I think you probably need something practical.
Imagine you are in your experimental room and you have a wire there without a current. In the frame of the room, the average velocity of nearby charges is zero and there is no reason for the wire to be charged therefore is neutral.
now if you start current in the wire it becomes electrically charged relative to the room as you say. but since the average velocities of nearby charges relative to the wire is zero, it is no longer true relative to the electrons inside the wire. This means that positively charged particles nearby the wire start fall onto the wire and negatively charged particles would be reppeled until the wire neutralise itself relative to the room.
This way, you can have a neutral wire with a current because there is always a frame in which the wire is neutral.
hope this helps :)
@@lukasrafajpps ok I now understand better how you get to having a neutral wire, and you take that situation as the initial conditions for your demonstration.
In a similar situation, the person in the moving frame of reference relative to the wire could argue that their wire is neutral so the Lorentz force would be of magnetic origin. So from our point of view, in the frame of reference of the wire, the wire would indeed be charged and an electric field would arise. The important message if I understand correctly is that we agree on the total force acting on the moving charge. Thank you for your answer
Yes, the total force is the only thing observers have to agree on. Whether they conclude if it is electric or magnetic field responsible for the force that depends on the observer because the definitions of those fields are simple.
You have a stationary charged particle and there is some misterious force acting on it? It is electric force.
is the particle moving and the force acts in perpendicular direction to that movement? It is magnetic field.
But the movement is relative so if one conclude it is electric field, other would conclude it is magnetic field or both.
Maxwell's equation are here to teach us that electric charge is the source of electric field and then they teach us how electric and magnetic fields are coupled.
In future I am planning to make a video that goes in depth into this issue with electric and magnetic field because those are just 3D representations of something more fundamental as I said in this video :)
hi buddy ! I had done my graduation in Physics and even then these concepts are a kind of problem to me. Watched many videos but nothing made much sense, you are the one person which just blew my mind with this clearance of the topics..... Thanks buddy ... Make more such content.. and try to make on the standard model in this manner chronologically . Thanks once again.
Hi, thank you. Particle physics in general is comming but I have very little time to do these videos so it is gonna take a while but I am glad you enjoyed this video :)
Ok no probelm... but I'm waiting for these concepts thanks
Sir, please explain Alternating current frame of reference that is special relativity or general relativity.
The miclelson-morley experiment wasn't measuring the speed of light in all directions, it was an attempt to discover the medium in which light propagates.
By measuring the speed of light in different directions right?
@@lukasrafajpps yes, but it wasn't the point of the experiment like you said in the video
@Kay "tried to find the global inertial frame of reference for electromagnetism" is literally what he said in the video...
@@KayC352 It was the point of the experiment. Aether is exactly a global inertial frame of reference for electromagnetism
Have you ever considered that the only way to sense both the electric field force and the magnetic field force simultaneously, is by utilizing matter e.g., sensors created out of matter. I like the idea that the electric field and the magnetic field are really just two manifestations of the same force.
probably the best overview on this topic
excellent, best explanation ive seen yet. thank you!
I take that the v on page 5:00 is relative to Aether and only Aether, so as all E,B activities. In any case, Aether is drag with matter on earth.
Congratulation. You just have discovered the consequences of relativity. You know, moving objects and observer and so. It's taught at universities.
This great! Thank you. Can you make videos that talk about General Relativity?
Thanks! later I certainly will but don't know when yet.
@@lukasrafajpps cool, yeah no problem! Whenever you can is cool. Just glad you are willing to do them.
Very good explanation & nice videos..... Soon you will be famous U tuber
Thank you very much :)
Unit of 3D crystal is only place where can be located electric monopole and only place where magnetic dipole can't be located .
That's why speed of light is constant. When (1D)magnetic dipole begins moving with arbitrary speed, it inevitably encounter unit of crystal and will be broken in two peaces, '+' and '-' (0D)elictric monopoles, wich immediately will be located in nearest units and connected to 4D.
In 4D time to meet '+' and '-' is proportional to distance between units, and time
of reincarnation of dipole in 3D also constant.
So at next collision dipole will have speed of light independently
wich speed it have before first collision.
I personally refute QFT and the space-time bending of SR and GR.
The stationary charge in the diagram is made into a dipole by the magnetic field and being a small particle aligns itself with the magnetic field of the live wire so that virtual photons are entering at the south pole and leaving from the charges north pole.
When the charge has a velocity it gains more virtual photons by virtue of its velocity and spews them out at its equator via the particles spin which forces it away from the wire by the Magnus effect.
The one force is the strong nuclear force which is repulsive and is caused by the kinetic energy of superluminal fundamental particles emanating and entering the core of all long lived elementary particles and bosons including photons
There is no QFT here and no spacetime bending in SR.
Virtual photons are a feature of QFT, I thought your point was to refute that?
The strong nuclear force is a feature of the Standard Model of Particle Physics, which is based on QFT as well.
@@narfwhals7843 Those are just circular arguments. In place of virtual photons put superluminal fundamental particle of extremely low mass that comprise the mass and charge of elementary particles and bosons including photons. Mass by virtue of their quantised number in the region of the particle and charge by the quantised difference in emanation or absorption of the fundamental particles.
Short lived elementary particles, mesons and bosons are sprays of fundamental particles caused by collisions between elementary particles. These can coalesce back into fundamental particles.
It is just my own little layman's TOE to compensate for limited maths skills and I can use certain facts in QFT or the standard model without accepting the whole package. All I meant was that I believe the aether theory was right and fields should be interpreted as streams of elementary particles such as solar winds or cosmic rays as well as the ubiquitous superluminal fp that cannot be detected individually.
Thank you . Great Explanation. I have always been thinking how it could be possible to visualize electricity and magnetism as a unique force.
“The Final Theory: Rethinking Our Scientific Legacy”, Mark McCutcheon for proper physics.
Twistors in spacetime is the next mindblowing stuff coming from relativity. Writing the complex argand plane as the Riemann projection of the celestial sphere and showing the SU(3,1) can be written as holomorphic maps is almost magic stuff
Thanks for the suggestion. Will definitely look into it!! :)
Excellent video and explanation. I agree that referring to the electromagnetic force seems like making a concession to the fact that a magnetic force does actually exist - it is somehow mixed in there with the electrical force.
A magnetic force is no more real than a gravitational force.
Nice explanation.
Totally unrelated: this is the 2nd time in my life I saw someone with gray eyes, first time was when child and I end by thinking it was just a mistakenly registered memory, but now I could confim myself it is possible to find them.
Hi, thank you for your explanation. What I do not understand is what will happen to stationary charge near current carrying wire? Will it feel any force or will it remain stationary?
Hi. Well, this really depends only on what you measure. If you see the cahrge drifting away, you know the wire is electrically charged. This is the definiton of electric field. If it remains stationary, then you know the wire is electrically neutral. This is the whole point. The electric charge of the wire depends on the reference frame of the observer. If you have a wire with a non zero current inside, there is only one frame of reference in which the wire is neutral and in all other it appears charged. I hope it is clear enough now.
@@lukasrafajpps Thank you for your answer, I understand conceptually that if it remains stationary that wire is neutral and if charge drifts away that wire is electrically charged. My question is what will happen? Will it remain stationary or will it move? There must be one true behavior of the stationary charge near current carrying wire. The frame of reference is just the way we observe these things. I couldn't find anywhere what will happen to a stationary charge near a wire and how that makes sense from relativistic point of view? Thank you.
Ok so first of all we need to clarify what maxwell's equations tell us. If we measure a certain value of let's say electric field and how it changes in time, we can calculate how the magnetic field will behave. Maxwell's equations have no predicting power for what will happen to a charged particle near a wire with non zero current without proper initial conditions. You have to put some information into the equations (like the measured charge of the wire in certain frame of reference) and then you can make predictions. Let's assume couple of different situations.
scenario 1) We have a charged particle near a wire and we know the current in the wire is non zero. We measure no force acted on the charged particle therefore we conclude the wire is neutral. Now we can use the information about the current inside the wire and calculate what force would act on the charged particle if it started moving with certain velocity and we would conclude it is due to magnetic field of the wire.
But from the particles point of view, we just pushed the particle into a frame where the wire is electrically charged.
Scenario 2) We have a wire with the same current but now we measure a force acting on our stationary charged particle. We conclude that the wire is electrically charged, then we can calculate for example how fast should the particle move in the opposite direction so the magnetic field compensate the measured electric field and there would be no force on the particle.
But from the particles point of view, we just pushed it into a frame where the wire is neutral.
This video is just about the fact that different observers would conclude that the force is due to different effect but the strength of the force must remain the same.
@@lukasrafajpps ruclips.net/video/1TKSfAkWWN0/видео.html this is the link to the video of Veritasium. Please look at 1:24 where he claims that stationary electric charge will feel NO force near a current carrying wire. For me this makes no sense. Do you know is this true or no? Do you know maybe, did someone made some experiments about this topic and what was their conclusion? Thanks
@@markoula7211 in 1:20 he made an assumption that the overall electric charge of the wire is zero. This assumption is just to make things clear. So before doing any experiment, we must measure the electric charge of the wire by measuring the force acting on a stationary charged particle. Usually, if you are in a lab, the wire is neutral in your frame of reference because statistically, all particles inside the laboratory have zero velocity on average (considering velocities in all directions). Therefore the wire will neutralize itself relative to the frame in which the average velocity of charges around is zero.
Have in mind that Lorenz transform was introduced by Lorenz to prove that there is a global frame of reference (the so called aether) for all observers (option 1) in order to explain why the Michelson-Morley experiment didn't produce any results... But Einstein used Lorenz transform to prove that there is not a global frame of reference for all observers (option 2). So as you can see, it is a matter of interpretation, or a philosophical position whether which is correct... and not an actual fact...
Einstein did not use the Lorentz Transforms to prove this. He _assumed_ that the speed of light is constant for all observers and used that assumption to *derive* the Lorentz transforms.
This basically shows that any aether theory which obeys the lorentz transform must have a completely undetectable aether.
Awesome video thank you. Kind Sir please make more videos on Electricity and Magnetism it’s my favorite subject in physics :)
Thanks!!! right now I am focusing on special relativity but it is linked with electrodynamics so there is certainly going to be another videos of such kind :)
@@lukasrafajpps Us that has done engineering work on any kind of transmission, know that Maxwell is never used. Euler is what is in all textbooks and we can do wonderful things like FFT (fourier). All of this math only works if there is a medium.
ruclips.net/video/gZRDSy88SN4/видео.html
Check it out and please find errors.
Awesome video! Thanks a lot for the knowledge!!
Glad you enjoyed it!
what is the geometrical size of time ? What is the geometrical size of aka space ? Its the first question peer review should ask
You forgot to mention the debunk of the concept of eter. About the moving electric charge: the old physicists imagined the eletron either as a philosophical atom (not compressible, not divisible) or as a wave like a photon (one exclusive or other). In that philosophical exclusive or situation it was difficult to imagine the conclusion of your video. Congrats about your video. I believe you are not American neither Russian but anyway you live in a cold climate.
Thank you. Good video.
Brasil
Thanks! By Aether I meant the global inertial frame of reference for electromagnetism and it was debunked by MM experiment.
@@lukasrafajppsCertainly I understood it. But your spectator probably is a naive youngster. Moreover there are lots of natural philosophy concepts applied to the apriori previous fundamentals of physics (as well as in Euclidean Maths). It is goot to explicit the old underlying ideas of the epoch to the young students.
Cheers.
Brasil
如圖所示，如果只動-負電荷，其實是因為，觀察者與正電荷一樣處於［沒在動］，但是這是假設，因為星系軌道自轉公轉的基礎主線設定
換言之，要與某個為基礎0原點，就要相關共同（振、序、效）運作
所以若隨著（同、超）光速、電流方式行進//運作，
#死亡回溯
#時間逆行
#覺醒憶起。 都是可能
精神藥物、Dmt、冥想、入定、炁功態（內核信念、目的、情緒...皆為可控之參數）
腦袋有電流運轉（（意識））
@@user-system6creaters
Much ❤ Love
🌎🌏🌍☯️⚡️
World🌞Peace
magnetic flux ring as conical in frequency rates natural encryption yes or no? as in fm graphed moduluation change rate conical dopler 3rd demension colapse
Time dilation is also a fictional science.
Lorentz transform is a bandaid to save special relativity.
It is called the aether. Sadly, Einstein virtually discounted electromagnetism. Velikovsky almost had him about to change his mind before the Professor passed away.
Discounted electromagnetism? He based the entirety of Special Relativity on electromagnetism and the negative aether detection.
I can’t imagine Maxwell the cat doing all this science 😮
Why are the lines of magnetic force stationary at (3:25) and (4:04)? So much is being parroted without any consideration to think for oneself. I have learnt noting here.
Because the magnetic field is constant around a wire with constant current.
That is what Maxwell's equations tell us.
@@narfwhals7843 The animation shows a steady movement of electrons thru the conducting wire. In physical reality this can only happen when the circuit is closed. You therefore need to show the return wire no matter how far it may be. The Ampere-urns will induce magnetic field inside the circuit boundary of strength B Teslas. A piece of conductor with free ends having a steady current flow is a meaningless abstract, similar to the often use of the 2-dimensional concept as it does not exist in nature.
The magnetic field lines are anchored to the wire and will translate together with the circuit should the circuit itself translate in relation to itself or the laboratory. In the animation at (3:25) the magnetic field lines are stationary relative to the positive, and at (4:04) they are stationary relative the negative particles.
So, which is it? The magnetic field lines are an intimate player in this ‘experiment’ as you call it, really an inadequate concept of a thought experiment, and together with re return part of the circuit are completely ignored. My comment then, had nothing to do with the fact that the magnetic field was constant, Thank you.
@@lukasrafajpps I heard that somewhere before... Oh, yes, "...the Bible says so." An invitation to believe does not offer an explanation.
Following page 3:00
Remember that
Electron = subatomic particle+ charge
Charge flow over a conductor produce B field and not electron.
Charge do not flow in vacuum, unless carried by electrons.
Electron flow in vacuum yield B field.
EB fields propagate in vacuum space need no electrons but Aether.
Classical physics teaches us that Doppler effect happens in the wave medium, solid, liquid, gas and let me add Aether.
Because SR GR and Einstein are constantly and highly celebrated this gain attention and worshiping from growing up physicists. You will grow up one day and feel sorry as I do today find out I was chasing rainbow in my most productive ages.
You are right, that displacement charge is independent with any observer so in independent with all bodies in the universe. Page 7:00.
While it makes sense for quantities in 4D to have 4 components, that doesn't actually explain why the electromagnetic field still seems to have 6 components. The reason why what seems like it should be a 4-dimensional quantity actually appears as a 6-dimensional quantity is really interesting. One thing that you might notice if you're familiar to combinatorics, binomials, or Pascal's Triangle is that there are 6 different ways to chose 2 elements out of a set of 4. Could each component of the electromagnetic field really be between 2 of the 4 dimensions? We might also note that the timelike dimension behaves noticeably differently from the spacelike dimensions, and those 6 can be split into two groups: those that have a timelike component, and those that don't. Knowing Pascal's Triangle, it should be apparent that the 6 could be derived from each pair of dimensions in 3D along with an extra component for each of the single dimensions, which would now be raised up to have a timelike part.
The components with a timelike part are the electric field, and the components without a timelike part are the magnetic field. Lorentz boosts can cause one to rotate into the other, keeping them tied together even if they are still separable in a given frame of reference.
Most of this is over my head (not a math guy) , but I was visualizing something similar to explain "spin ½" as if angular momentum was pointing as a combination of two directions, but only one of them being in our conventional 3 and another orthogonal, making it seem more like a precessional flip .
Does that make any sense to you?
@@petevenuti7355 Spin 1/2 doesn't actually need a 4th dimension at all. (or at least a 4th spatial dimension.) Quaternions on their own are entirely 3-dimensional objects, even if they have 4 components, and they're already spin 1/2.
@@angeldude101 I know that's a math thing, over my head , I'll keep watching 3blue1 brown maybe I'll get it eventually mmm
9 seed arranged spherically are likely the best way . I still do not know in what medium but its not sand
I have a hard time accepting the concept of a "moving observer"...
Any "observation" has a stationary "observer" unless involving a third point of reference - like "Big Bang" at the coordinates 0,0,0 or the Northpole...
The observer is at the center of an observation, but a "moving observer" rotates around another point of reference...
It's like contributing "speed" to be a quality of an object on it's own - but nothing can "move", unless relative to something else...
An observer can state "the object moves from left to right" - but that observation is useless to anyone else, unless in reference to the 4 Cardinalpoints (North, South, East and West)...
The only way, the statement could be used for several individual observers would be, if they faced the same "direction" - which btw is the fundamental quality of "magnetism" (several individual entities facing the same direction, so they share the same axis of rotation and thus the same "time")...
Any "observation" is a fixed point in "time" based on "here and now" - but any "distance" affects "now", so a fundamental (stationary) point of reference is needed, before an observation is valid to anyone else, but the observer...
So how can a "moving observer" be possible, unless observed from a 3rd point of reference...?
Isn't this the cause of all the confusion and inconsistancies in the equations - that you can't compare an "observation" with an "explanation" - because they have different points of reference, at the center of the definition...?
The physical laws must be independent on who is watching therefore the force must be the same. I just picket two specific observers to show inconsistency of Maxwell's equations with Galilean relativity. One observer in the rest frame of the protons and one observer in the rest frame on the electrons.
@@lukasrafajpps My confusion doesn't come from "who" is watching, but from the "position" (perspective) of the observation...
The ie right/left-axis is valid for an individual observation - but when defined for someone else to understand, a common frame of reference is needed - like a World-map with the Northpole in the center (like the UN-flag)...
I actually believe, that's the function of "c squared" in Einsteins equation for Relativity - to establish the "position", from where the observation is made...
And our individual "here and now" differes from everyone elses (since we are at the center of our own experience), so we need a set of common references, to combine the different perspectives from different positions...
Comparing two different coordinatesystems 1:1 doesn't work, until an alignment has been made, relative to eachother...
I wonder if "magnetism" is an emergent property of the alignment of two individual perspectives ("facing the same direction")...
Well, it's just a thought, I have been puzzeled by...
But thanks for the inspirational video (and answer) - as you can see, it's a subject of great interest to me...
The "c squared" part might be easier to understand, if you imagine a bunch of bar-magnets....
They can be connected in a long row, if they face the same direction...
But if you put them parrallel to eachother, they repel eachother, when facing the same direction...
If a bunch of parallel magnets are attracted to the same point in space, they can form a "sphere" of magnets, pointing towards the same point in space, but by repelling eachother none of them will be able to reach the point of attraction...
That way, each would represent a perspective of it's own, relative to the common point of reference - sharing the same up/down-axis and thus the same time-frame...
want a modern predition? I'll give you one . If you bring incoherent magnetism near dc current ? This should be a huge upgrade
hi! nice video. can u include links to references in description?
also, like others have said, i would also love a video dedicated to the part at:
9:39 > _"4 independent quantities [of EM Force]"_
8:04 we do not even know if its coherent magnetism or if it could be incoherent magnetism
it's less confusing if you understand in terms of phasors and complex-valued fields and forces. studying electrical engineering is a great way to understand physics better
you might also appreciate Peter Rowlands work on the nilpotent Dirac algebra which is a very elegant way of building up towards the complete physics of the relativistic wave equation for fermions with bosonic fields
Great job at the explanation! Its all very fascinating to think about. Just a quick aside, those are Heaviside equations, maxwell had 23 equations using quaternions. Heaviside put them in the forms we have today. Poor Heaviside never gets any credit these days hehe.
Yes quaternions were a hot topic those days but there is a too much of history for one short video :)
@@lukasrafajpps i thought you did great so no worries!
Actually, Maxwell's equations were derived in the form we know them today by Heaviside.
Yes true :)
I think Maxwell did it using quaternions
Yes Heaviside was credited by Einstein at making Maxwell's equations in a form that were easily to comprehend. Maxwell actually had something like 21 separate equations and it was Heaviside who was able to make sense of the symmetry that existed and based on this reduced all of Maxwell's equations to the four integral or four differential equations that we are all so familiar with
This is an excellent video. More please!
Thanks I am kinda limited by the amount of free time but I'll do my best :)
Read Griffiths 2nd edition p489. 10.3.1 Magnetism as a Relativistic Phenomenon
thanks for suggestion
5:42 Ampere's law? 😕
Weber's Electrodynamics? 😕
The density of electrons is not the same as protons, because electrons are moving. In the directions of its movement spacetime is compressed causing the density of electrons to be bigger.
The wire is electrically neutral in its rest frame. So the electron density is equal to the proton density after taking their length contraction into account.
When you turn on a current in the wire the electrons will rearrange to accommodate this.
@@narfwhals7843 If there is no current, the wire is neutral. But if there is a current, the wire is not neutral. The moving electrons contract their spacetime in the direction of its movement. If the electron mass is the same, but the spacetime is smaller the density has to be bigger in the direction of its movement (relative to the proton frame of reference).
A nearby charge is attracted/repelled BECAUSE of this change in density that causes the resultant "electric field" to change. This change in the "electric field" we call "magnetic field", but they are the same.
If the density did not change, there were be no reason for any of this happen. The magnetic field appears BECAUSE the change of density.
@@tongolembiouski702 A nearby charge that is stationary relative to the wire is _not_ attracted or repelled. A charge that is moving along the wire is. That charge sees length contraction on the charges in the wire and in its own frame that is why it is repelled.
In the rest frame of the wire it is electrically neutral. This is easy to measure. The moving charges are contracted and rearranged to achieve this when the current turns on.
Well, Maxwell eqs are macroscopic, not microscopic, and they are not Galileo transformation invariant. Not they do not a correct answer, they are not suitable for this type of experiment. A single electron is not a current. See Landau &n Lifschitz fields volume.
This is a very good explanation! Thanks 😊
wired electricity and wireless electricity behave weirdly . My advice ??read nichola tesla ignition coil patent and play with that . Nichola tesla knew the ideal distance between wire in theory but in practice required a 3d printer because wire required to be bare as often as possible for nonsensor application
I'm told there is evidence of earlier mathematicians arriving at the conclusion of length contraction, time dilation, and the interconnection of space and time, namely Clifford in 1876
There are several ways to arrive at this conclusion. But earlier attempts generally were working in the context of an electromagnetic "aether" to provide a notion of "relative to light". And the Lorentz Transformations were put in to explain why that aether was undetectable.
What is interesting about Einstein's version is that he started with the proposal that the speed of light is a constant (aka that the Maxwell Equations were frame independent) and _derived_ the same transformation rules from that.
It's a very good video, but there's an explanatory problem that I think should have been avoided. You say at 8:00 onwards that the distance between protons decreases in terms of the external particle, while the distance between electrons in the wire does not.
But this is not true.
Think about it! Suppose we have a SEMICONDUCTOR, not a plain wire. In it, the electrons move by jumping from atom to atom - hole to hole. Let's say there is a additional electron on every second atom, and a hole on every second atom (electron deficiency), so it is electrically neutral. So every second atom has a - charge, every second atom has a + charge. There will indeed be Lorentz contraction in terms of the outer particle, but the whole system will shrink. So the atoms will shrink AND ALSO the distance between the electrons! Because that is fixed at an average of two atoms. So the set of electrons will also undergo the SAME contraction as the set of protons.
After all, the whole problem could be described as having a piece of moving heavy positive charge and a small test particle moving with it. Seen from the first inertial frame (the one they are moving in), there is a magnetic field of the positive charge that displaces/attracts the test particle (Lorentz force) + to this is added the Coulomb force between the two charges. And in the second inertial frame (where they are stationary) there is no magnetic field for the large positive charge, only a Coulomb force between them. Again, the two are not equal according to Maxwell's law, just as in the wire case. But if you calculate with the four-vectors and electromagnetic four-potential, everything should be fine.
Anyway, this is a known issue. In the wire example, this "positive atoms contract and electrons don't" is a known flawed explanation. It should not be shared, yet it is all over the internet. I don't know where it came from, but it has entered the public consciousness, even though it is a completely incorrect explanation.
The correct explanation is the one you share at the end of the video about four-vectors and electromagnetic four-potential.
This was very good! Thank you
if you put isolated wire too close you get false signal(sensor), too far and you can no longer use the wireless electricity potential .(tesla coil electric motor , generator , 1970 ignition coil . And if you hold 1970 ignition coil with a metal loop ? Its no longer a condensator as defined by nichola tesla ..same for distributor condensor . A 1970 car does not require a distributor condensator if ignition coil holder is not metal
Your talk seemed very carefully thought through. But unfortunately, although you showed some formulas and stated your conclusions, you did not derive any formulas which would prove any of your conclusions. It's most important to prove your conclusions by deriving all the formulas which imply your conclusions.
Those formulas are already derived and I just present them. This videos are not supposed to be 2 hour lectures.
@@lukasrafajpps Thank you for your kind reply. I really enjoyed your video. What you explained, you explained very well. Instead of full derivations then, it could have been helpful to me if I could have seen, listed on 1 page, side by side, an ordered summary of all the derived relativistic formulas used in each of the 2 reference frames. Then I could follow the logic through to understand how all the variables transform to cause what we observe. I've invented a unifying physics theory, matter theory, and although I've tried to understand this problem before, I've yet to see a full solution that I thought was logical. In case you might be interested, I have invented what I think is a unique and the only logical explanation for the surprising results of many particle 2 slit experiments. I'm curious what you might think about my explanation in my video, "Particle 2 Slit Experiments Explained By Paul Marostica".
"On a sheep in the middle of the ocean, it is impossible to determine emotion" 🤔
:D
Yes ... keep on making these type of videos
Hmm, I think that this thing is explained in other videos. Basically in the reference frame of the positive particle, electrons stay, but protons move. Due to these movement, they experience space contraction due to Einstein theory, thus there a little more moving protons, than stationary electrons. Thus net charge of the wire is slightly positive, thus positive particle is repeled by the wire.
Yes, that is said in the video :)
3:50 but it turns the wire is not neutral when there is a current.... You mised completely the role of surface charges which makes the current in the wire flow
That is just initial assumption to demonstrate a phenomena.