You are not ordinary. You are extra ordinary ! Brivity and exactness of your lectures make me jealous out of my control. You are indeed a role model to teachers of india. A big salute to you!
I'd like to believe in this explanation, but with the same principle of length contraction, from the lab point-of-view, the negative charge density should increase whenever the electrons are moving in the wire, causing non-zero net electric field around the wire.
Excellent presentation. I first heard about this idea 50 years ago but never really understood it. Now I understand it. I'll recommend this to my friends. Thanks.
You gave me my life back..... I am a 12th student knowing a bit about special relativistic theory....In class 11 it was very easy to feel the mechanical physics .. But In class 12 I was unable to find the relation between the electric field and the magnetic field..... Now this topic is also clear to me...... I get back my grip in physics again..,. Thank you so much sir🔥🔥🔥🔥
u were the ONLY one who explained the details; all other videos ( i may have seen the top 7 or 8 on youtube) they just copied from text books. They didn't understand what they were saying The key starts from 7:00 which was missing in other presentation many thx from Palestine
The only way you can teach so well is when even including you are also enjoying , sir has passion and joy to teach as clearly as possible and he said we live for this. Thanks sir
Thank you for this explanation of an old notion. I probably should not say this, but this relativistic explanation may also explain the details of the Crook radiometer action.
You turned off the fan to eliminate the noise,,,, thanks to bear this pain,,,, my friend this is the first completely explained video of this concept, Thanks Again
Nice video and presentation. The theory in this video discuss an open circuit condition with an arbitrary voltage source in order to make a point. The negative electron and positive ions density in the wire is balanced, which is defined by the generator or battery and not an arbitrary density that can be defined by TSR. TSR is not physics but a mind game, a good tool to train our problem solving skill before we face the real world.
This was the best explanation I ever saw about anything such complicated got everything clear although not in JEE advanced syllabus but still was interested to know this ….
@@jacobvandijk6525 I'm past my age as a blackboard learner, but not past my interest in physics, especially planetary motion, quantum physics and Einstein's Relativity. Standard derivation or not, it really did seem to me surprising how lucidly and naturally the lecturer paved the way to the Lorentz Force by sheer algebraic operations employing the L-F Contraction. How I wish to see Q - mechanics getting reconciled with S. & G. Relativity. But that I think is still a far cry. And, when that happens, that too will become a "standard derivation" in no time. What do you say? I won't tell you my grandfatherly age, ha, ha! '
@@soumitralahiri9393 Well, we can shake hands then. But I wouldn't call the fusion of relativity and quantumphysics 'standard'. Physics at the extremes (like the origin of the universe and fundamental particles) is quite speculative in my opinion.
Further to my own comment of about 35 minutes ago the following thought has occurred to me. : In the course of the presented derivation numerous square roots were involved and by simple but rather long and tedious algebraic work these were simplified without making approximations. Possibly in the other derivations I have seen these square roots or their reciprocals were expanded by the binomial theorem with only the first few terms retained but perhaps the neglected terms would have cancelled out anyway if they had been retained.
Sir, please make some video on crystal structure and lattice, Xray diffraction....... I am a little weak in solid state physics...... And thank you for your nuclear physics lectures.....
Einstein was far ahead of his time. I never fully grasped the concept of gravity, let alone electromagnetism. With significant effort, it's possible to prove everything from the perspective of a relative frame of reference. However, what we observe in our own frame (on Earth) is what truly matters. Consider this theorem: A cat has nine tails. Proof: No cat has eight tails. A cat has one more tail than no cat. Therefore, a cat has nine tails.😂
You might enjoy "Quantum enhanced non-interferometric quantitative phase imaging" by Giuseppe Ortolano and others. Most of the "quantum" communication methods can be adapted to gravitational and electromagnetic time of flight imaging arrays. I recommend ALL groups doing sensitive "quantum" detection run their experiments for many days then check if they can pick up the vector sun moon acceleration signal. Its is very precise, easy to measure and works underground and under the ocean as or more precisely than GPS/GNSS. Richard Collins, The Internet Foundation
That's all well and good, but what about a stream of electrons in free space with NO "conductor" to be "relative to" (as in a CRT)??? How does magnetism evolve from Special Relativity in that case?
As presented it appears that the force -quB acting on the charge q ( with B as calculated by the Biot-Savart method for an infinitely long wire carrying a current ) is EXACTLY the same as would be found using coulombic force combined with special relativity. From previous studies I was under the impression that the correspondence between the two ways of calculating this force is only strictly valid if terms involving (u/c)^2 and (v/c)^2 and higher powers were neglected, yet no approximations were explicitly pointed out. Sure, in almost all practical cases the inclusion of such terms makes a difference that would be far below measuring capability and anyway if concerned about the very small error one would need to take account of the finite radius of any real wire. Am I mistaken in the impression I expressed or was some very small amount of approximation somehow slipped in to the presented derivation?
Thank you so much sir. I am a physics teacher in higher secondary school this explanation helps me a lot to understand the most fundamental concept of the nature in detail.🙏🙏🙏
What if the charge moves at right angles to a current carrying wire? It feels a force parallel to the wire without there being a differential length contraction of the charges in the wire. Furthermore, a linear array of charges cannot apply a force on an outside charge that is purely tangential.
Thank you sir. Not sure if you can see my comment but may I ask why do we use two different velocity when do the Length contraction? Shouldn’t the velocity in the gamma factor always be the velocity between two frames which will be u?
Can you make a Video, similar to this one, to illustrate the relationship of the Kinetic Axis at 90 degrees to the Electric Axis which is at 90 degrees from the Magnetic Axis. There are also Low Frequency Kinetic Coupling of Inertial Tensor transformations to the Electric Kinetic Axis that is not well conveyed in Textbooks.
But in a typical wire, there exists a motion of electrons but no net motion of positively charged nuclei. Assuming this, for a charged particle at rest, shouldn't this same length contraction occur in the moving electrons and stationary protons creating a magnetic force on the stationary charged particle?
OK, what about a charge moving perpendicularly to a current wire? The charge will experience a force sideways, can this be predicted by Special Relativity as well?
When calculating the vector tidal gravitational acceleration at a three axis gravimeter station on Earth, it is necessary to use "time of flight" methods. The sun and moon positions from JPL ephemeris for the time when the signal began - working backwards for speed of light and gravity - must be used. Luckily JPL Horizon automatically corrects for what the observer sees. If you derive the special relativity relations, they are including a fixed speed of light constraint. So rather than "contractions" and extra visualizations, just use "time of flight". I do not like the term "retarded potential". But it means "use the field values from sources when they would have been emitted based on time of arrival and a fixed speed of propagation. And keep track of speed in the media. Now there are many analog to digital converters (ADCs ) at Mega and Giga Samples Per Second (Msps, Gsps) that allow time of flight detectors and data gathering. Many "time of flight cameras" now. The radar equation, much of interferometric and correlation methods where the detectable element is moving at the speed of light and gravity is well understood and sometimes affordable now. Gravitational correlation imaging uses natural changes in the gravitational potential that propagate at "the speed of light and gravity" and can be detected by changes in the local gradient of the potential with gravimeters and gravity gradiometers and other detectors - to look inside Earth, Sun, Moon, oceans, atmospheres and fields. Those methods are "gravitational time of flight methods" You really need to get off the blackboard and put your symbolic equations into formats that can be globally shared and verified by computer. The 5 Billion humans using the Internet now, many 10s of millions can follow your logic, but they mostly would rather use it, and let the computer step through the symbolic manipulations and calculations. There is no glory in doing things by hand. Let the computer do it and then Billions can follow and use what you create. Richard Collins, The Internet Foundation (23 Jul 2023 was the 25th Anniversary of the Internet Foundation)
If you have a wire with no current and have a charge located a distance x from the wire, there will be no force on the charge because the wire is neutral (the charge density of electrons and "holes" are equal). Now have a current flowing in the wire. From the point of view of the stationary charge, the electrons will be moving. Because of this there should be length contraction, and hence the charge density of the electrons should increase. Hence there should be a force on the stationary charge. But everyone knows this shouldn't happen. Can anyone tell me why?
Before considering length contraction consider the velocity transformations as the particle's velocity (“u”) is zero; the moving frame velocities in the plus and minus (“v+” and “v-“) are equal {note see equations at time 7:02}. As a consequence, the charge densities and length contractions will be equal with no resulting electric field or force.
@@jkbrennan1586 I don't think you answered his question. He is considering the real case where only the electrons move. In this case their density should increase while the positive charge density does not. So why is there not a force on the stationary charge?
Dear Sir, I wonder why, from the lab point of view, the negative charge density does not increase since the electrons are moving with respect to the viewer.
I was wondering the same... Then I realized that he used the expression of λ = λ°/√(1- v²/c²) written in the center of board. The λtotal term before coming back to board had λ° in it. Hope it helps. 😀
Even though energy transfer in a wire takes place at a very high speed ( near the speed of light ) the actual speed of electrons will be very low ( drift speed of electrons ). The speed of +ve ions which move in the opposite direction will also be still lesser. So, now for an observer moving in the rest frame of the +ve charge, his relative speed with the electrons will also be very low. Hence at these low speeds how can we apply the relativity principle for getting length contraction between the electrons? If such is the situation how can we say that magnetism arises out of Relativity? This question has been bothering me since long time. Please clarify. Thanks. ..... You are a wonderful teacher and your teaching is marvelous.
I agree with you. Moreover, with the same length contraction principle, why doesn't negative charge density increase while the electrons are moving, from the lab point of view?
Although the electron drift velocity is very much less than c so that gamma differs only by an extremely small amount from unity there are, nevertheless, very many electrons involved so the overall effect of the motion of the electrons is not negligibly small.
This effect has nothing to do with Relativistic length contraction. If a positive charge moves parallel to the wire at the same speed as the electrons flowing due to current in the wire, then the current creates a magnetic field that generates a force on the moving positive charge, causing it to move away from the wire according to the Lorentz force law. From the perspective of the moving positive charge, it thinks it is standing still, and that the wire generating a magnetic field is moving. According to Maxwells equation's, a moving magnetic field creates an electric field that creates a force on the charge causing it to move away from the wire. Relativistic length contraction and time dilation are optical illusions and are not real. This is proved in the following way. The speed of light is not a constant as once thought, and this has now been proved by Electrodynamic theory and by Experiments done by many independent researchers. The results clearly show that light propagates instantaneously when it is created by a source, and reduces to approximately the speed of light in the farfield, about one wavelength from the source, and never becomes equal to exactly c. This corresponds to the phase speed, group speed, and information speed. Any theory assuming the speed of light is a constant, such as Special Relativity and General Relativity are wrong, and it has implications to Quantum theories as well. So this fact about the speed of light affects all of Modern Physics. Often it is stated that Relativity has been verified by so many experiments, how can it be wrong. Well no experiment can prove a theory, and can only provide evidence that a theory is correct. But one experiment can absolutely disprove a theory, and the new speed of light experiments proving the speed of light is not a constant is such a proof. So what does it mean? Well a derivation of Relativity using instantaneous nearfield light yields Galilean Relativity. This can easily seen by inserting c=infinity into the Lorentz Transform, yielding the GalileanTransform, where time is the same in all inertial frames. So a moving object observed with instantaneous nearfield light will yield no Relativistic effects, whereas by changing the frequency of the light such that farfield light is used will observe Relativistic effects. But since time and space are real and independent of the frequency of light used to measure its effects, then one must conclude the effects of Relativity are just an optical illusion. Since General Relativity is based on Special Relativity, then it has the same problem. A better theory of Gravity is Gravitoelectromagnetism which assumes gravity can be mathematically described by 4 Maxwell equations, similar to to those of electromagnetic theory. It is well known that General Relativity reduces to Gravitoelectromagnetism for weak fields, which is all that we observe. Using this theory, analysis of an oscillating mass yields a wave equation set equal to a source term. Analysis of this equation shows that the phase speed, group speed, and information speed are instantaneous in the nearfield and reduce to the speed of light in the farfield. This theory then accounts for all the observed gravitational effects including instantaneous nearfield and the speed of light farfield. The main difference is that this theory is a field theory, and not a geometrical theory like General Relativity. Because it is a field theory, Gravity can be then be quantized as the Graviton. Lastly it should be mentioned that this research shows that the Pilot Wave interpretation of Quantum Mechanics can no longer be criticized for requiring instantaneous interaction of the pilot wave, thereby violating Relativity. It should also be noted that nearfield electromagnetic fields can be explained by quantum mechanics using the Pilot Wave interpretation of quantum mechanics and the Heisenberg uncertainty principle (HUP), where Δx and Δp are interpreted as averages, and not the uncertainty in the values as in other interpretations of quantum mechanics. So in HUP: Δx Δp = h, where Δp=mΔv, and m is an effective mass due to momentum, thus HUP becomes: Δx Δv = h/m. In the nearfield where the field is created, Δx=0, therefore Δv=infinity. In the farfield, HUP: Δx Δp = h, where p = h/λ. HUP then becomes: Δx h/λ = h, or Δx=λ. Also in the farfield HUP becomes: λmΔv=h, thus Δv=h/(mλ). Since p=h/λ, then Δv=p/m. Also since p=mc, then Δv=c. So in summary, in the nearfield Δv=infinity, and in the farfield Δv=c, where Δv is the average velocity of the photon according to Pilot Wave theory. Consequently the Pilot wave interpretation should become the preferred interpretation of Quantum Mechanics. It should also be noted that this argument can be applied to all fields, including the graviton. Hence all fields should exhibit instantaneous nearfield and speed c farfield behavior, and this can explain the non-local effects observed in quantum entangled particles. *RUclips presentation of above arguments: ruclips.net/video/sePdJ7vSQvQ/видео.html *More extensive paper for the above arguments: William D. Walker and Dag Stranneby, A New Interpretation of Relativity, 2023: vixra.org/abs/2309.0145 *Electromagnetic pulse experiment paper: www.techrxiv.org/doi/full/10.36227/techrxiv.170862178.82175798/v1 Dr. William Walker - PhD in physics from ETH Zurich, 1997
We know that charge is invariant quantity but here we see that in the 1st case total charge density is zero but 2nd case some amount of negative charge density is present..then how this condition is preserved ?
You are not ordinary. You are extra ordinary ! Brivity and exactness of your lectures make me jealous out of my control. You are indeed a role model to teachers of india. A big salute to you!
This is what i was searching for 2 years and now finally you have shown it. I am super happy.
2 years...!!!
You should have studied feynman lectures on physics
@@somanathpanigrahi9988 I was in class 11 2 years ago
And Veritasium also made a video on this topic if u want u can also watch that
@@shivangigaureichandra2136 yes i know but that one was having no formulation
There are several 1960s textbooks on this very topic,
This video is needed for the world!
This was simply fantastic. What a great work...
Thank you so much.
Regards from Spain 🇪🇸!
Ola Como Estas
One of the best and most detailed explanation I have seen anywhere on this topic.
Finally a complete explanation of why the magnetic field is in fact the electric field seen from a different frame of refference.. !!!
I'd like to believe in this explanation, but with the same principle of length contraction, from the lab point-of-view, the negative charge density should increase whenever the electrons are moving in the wire, causing non-zero net electric field around the wire.
Excellent presentation. I first heard about this idea 50 years ago but never really understood it. Now I understand it. I'll recommend this to my friends. Thanks.
You gave me my life back..... I am a 12th student knowing a bit about special relativistic theory....In class 11 it was very easy to feel the mechanical physics .. But In class 12 I was unable to find the relation between the electric field and the magnetic field..... Now this topic is also clear to me...... I get back my grip in physics again..,. Thank you so much sir🔥🔥🔥🔥
u were the ONLY one who explained the details; all other videos ( i may have seen the top 7 or 8 on youtube) they just copied from text books. They didn't understand what they were saying
The key starts from 7:00 which was missing in other presentation
many thx from Palestine
Can you do your next video on gravitational lensing
Tbh, it was one of the most beautiful thing I saw today ❤️
And ofc the conclusion literally amazed me 🎉🎉
Thank you, sir,
This will help me to prepare my research paper.
And
You are a very good teacher!
The only way you can teach so well is when even including you are also enjoying , sir has passion and joy to teach as clearly as possible and he said we live for this. Thanks sir
Thank you so much for this explaination!!!! i used this to pass my physics exam! my dad showed me this video
Thank you very much for this video. Probably If this channel had existed when I was younger I would have studied physics instead of engineering
Beautifully explained. Thanks a lot.
Your teaching style is very unique. Great sir
Thank you for this explanation of an old notion.
I probably should not say this, but this relativistic explanation may also explain the details of the Crook radiometer action.
Wow, you are such a great teacher. I could follow your logic very easily, even the more complicated math stuff.
You turned off the fan to eliminate the noise,,,, thanks to bear this pain,,,, my friend this is the first completely explained video of this concept, Thanks Again
This is super awesome, thank you
Thanks Sir for coming back
i miss you alot ❤️❤️❤️
Nice video and presentation.
The theory in this video discuss an open circuit condition with an arbitrary voltage source in order to make a point.
The negative electron and positive ions density in the wire is balanced, which is defined by the generator or battery and not an arbitrary density that can be defined by TSR.
TSR is not physics but a mind game, a good tool to train our problem solving skill before we face the real world.
Thankyou❤❤❤❤ awesome explanation
Sir pls upload NET/GATE related concepts. This lecture is extraordinary
Brilliant. Bravo
Thank you sir....
Impressive
Amazing explanation .keep it up. now my concept is clear. please upload video lecture on the field tensor and how the field transforms.
You are really really really awesome sir
Very good thanks mind blowing
Fantabulous
This was the best explanation I ever saw about anything such complicated got everything clear although not in JEE advanced syllabus but still was interested to know this ….
So helpful! I have seen different versions of this before but this is by far the easiest to follow. Thank you.
A lot of thanks... Sir... ❤
You, my friend, are an awesome teacher. Thank so much for this astonishing explanation
Excellent💯👍👏
AWESOME!
This is a REVELATION! Thank you.
Haha, for you, yes.
@@jacobvandijk6525
And for you --------- NO?
@@soumitralahiri9393 I'm "a bit" older than you, I think. This is a standard derivation.
@@jacobvandijk6525
I'm past my age as a blackboard learner, but not past my interest in physics, especially planetary motion, quantum physics and Einstein's Relativity.
Standard derivation or not, it really did seem to me surprising how lucidly and naturally the lecturer paved the way to the Lorentz Force by sheer algebraic operations employing the L-F Contraction.
How I wish to see Q - mechanics getting reconciled with S. & G. Relativity. But that I think is still a far cry. And, when that happens, that too will become a "standard derivation" in no time. What do you say?
I won't tell you my grandfatherly age, ha, ha!
'
@@soumitralahiri9393 Well, we can shake hands then. But I wouldn't call the fusion of relativity and quantumphysics 'standard'. Physics at the extremes (like the origin of the universe and fundamental particles) is quite speculative in my opinion.
Very smart teacher
Very very good👍👍👍
Further to my own comment of about 35 minutes ago the following thought has occurred to me. : In the course of the presented derivation numerous square roots were involved and by simple but rather long and tedious algebraic work these were simplified without making approximations. Possibly in the other derivations I have seen these square roots or their reciprocals were expanded by the binomial theorem with only the first few terms retained but perhaps the neglected terms would have cancelled out anyway if they had been retained.
Thank you ,sir
What happened to the term 1/sqrt{1-v^2/c^2} in the minute 22:28? Nice explanation, kind regards!
It's correct
lamda zero/sqrt[1-v^2/c^2] = lamda
This is best channel about Physics! Thank you very much! Amazing!
Thanks a lot...
What a beautiful things explained by you,sir....
Can you describe permanent magnate ?
Sir, please make some video on crystal structure and lattice, Xray diffraction....... I am a little weak in solid state physics......
And thank you for your nuclear physics lectures.....
Einstein was far ahead of his time. I never fully grasped the concept of gravity, let alone electromagnetism. With significant effort, it's possible to prove everything from the perspective of a relative frame of reference. However, what we observe in our own frame (on Earth) is what truly matters.
Consider this theorem: A cat has nine tails.
Proof: No cat has eight tails. A cat has one more tail than no cat. Therefore, a cat has nine tails.😂
You might enjoy "Quantum enhanced non-interferometric quantitative phase imaging" by Giuseppe Ortolano and others. Most of the "quantum" communication methods can be adapted to gravitational and electromagnetic time of flight imaging arrays. I recommend ALL groups doing sensitive "quantum" detection run their experiments for many days then check if they can pick up the vector sun moon acceleration signal. Its is very precise, easy to measure and works underground and under the ocean as or more precisely than GPS/GNSS. Richard Collins, The Internet Foundation
Great lecture. You're a blessing
From where did u get that eqn for lambda??.. Btw ur cls is awesome 🥰💜
Amazing work! Precise and clear.
thank you, beautiful explaining
Very good
Excellent presentation! You got me as viewer!
Thank you sir!such a clear cut session👏👏👏❤❤❤
Good one
Excellent video ! Bravo !
That's all well and good, but what about a stream of electrons in free space with NO "conductor" to be "relative to" (as in a CRT)??? How does magnetism evolve from Special Relativity in that case?
As presented it appears that the force -quB acting on the charge q ( with B as calculated by the Biot-Savart method for an infinitely long wire carrying a current ) is EXACTLY the same as would be found using coulombic force combined with special relativity. From previous studies I was under the impression that the correspondence between the two ways of calculating this force is only strictly valid if terms involving (u/c)^2 and (v/c)^2 and higher powers were neglected, yet no approximations were explicitly pointed out. Sure, in almost all practical cases the inclusion of such terms makes a difference that would be far below measuring capability and anyway if concerned about the very small error one would need to take account of the finite radius of any real wire.
Am I mistaken in the impression I expressed or was some very small amount of approximation somehow slipped in to the presented derivation?
A gem of a video 👏
Shouldn't ∆l+ be equal to ∆l√(1+v^2/c^2). The length ∆l+ should be more than ∆l, right?
Really really good explanation.
This is extraordinary.
Fantastic lecture..loved it
why threre still is a force when particle is moving perpendicular to the wire?????
Thank you sir for this video
Thank you so much sir.
I am a physics teacher in higher secondary school this explanation helps me a lot to understand the most fundamental concept of the nature in detail.🙏🙏🙏
What if the charge moves at right angles to a current carrying wire? It feels a force parallel to the wire without there being a differential length contraction of the charges in the wire. Furthermore, a linear array of charges cannot apply a force on an outside charge that is purely tangential.
I really enjoyed this.
Thank you sir. Not sure if you can see my comment but may I ask why do we use two different velocity when do the Length contraction? Shouldn’t the velocity in the gamma factor always be the velocity between two frames which will be u?
What about effect of current on bar magnets placed near to the wire? How can we explain that?
Amazing sir
Can you make a Video, similar to this one, to illustrate the relationship of the Kinetic Axis at 90 degrees to the Electric Axis which is at 90 degrees from the Magnetic Axis. There are also Low Frequency Kinetic Coupling of Inertial Tensor transformations to the Electric Kinetic Axis that is not well conveyed in Textbooks.
But in a typical wire, there exists a motion of electrons but no net motion of positively charged nuclei. Assuming this, for a charged particle at rest, shouldn't this same length contraction occur in the moving electrons and stationary protons creating a magnetic force on the stationary charged particle?
Excellent
OK, what about a charge moving perpendicularly to a current wire? The charge will experience a force sideways, can this be predicted by Special Relativity as well?
When calculating the vector tidal gravitational acceleration at a three axis gravimeter station on Earth, it is necessary to use "time of flight" methods. The sun and moon positions from JPL ephemeris for the time when the signal began - working backwards for speed of light and gravity - must be used. Luckily JPL Horizon automatically corrects for what the observer sees. If you derive the special relativity relations, they are including a fixed speed of light constraint. So rather than "contractions" and extra visualizations, just use "time of flight". I do not like the term "retarded potential". But it means "use the field values from sources when they would have been emitted based on time of arrival and a fixed speed of propagation. And keep track of speed in the media. Now there are many analog to digital converters (ADCs ) at Mega and Giga Samples Per Second (Msps, Gsps) that allow time of flight detectors and data gathering. Many "time of flight cameras" now. The radar equation, much of interferometric and correlation methods where the detectable element is moving at the speed of light and gravity is well understood and sometimes affordable now.
Gravitational correlation imaging uses natural changes in the gravitational potential that propagate at "the speed of light and gravity" and can be detected by changes in the local gradient of the potential with gravimeters and gravity gradiometers and other detectors - to look inside Earth, Sun, Moon, oceans, atmospheres and fields. Those methods are "gravitational time of flight methods"
You really need to get off the blackboard and put your symbolic equations into formats that can be globally shared and verified by computer. The 5 Billion humans using the Internet now, many 10s of millions can follow your logic, but they mostly would rather use it, and let the computer step through the symbolic manipulations and calculations. There is no glory in doing things by hand. Let the computer do it and then Billions can follow and use what you create.
Richard Collins, The Internet Foundation (23 Jul 2023 was the 25th Anniversary of the Internet Foundation)
So when's the quantum physics discussions coming. Very excited.
why at 14:18 the λtot is (λ+) - (λ-)? shouldn't it be (λ+) + (λ-) instead?
As far as I understood, the λ+ and λ- here are absolute values. The algebraic density of negative charge should be -(λ-).
Fantastic
Tq sir
Mind blown
don't forget the ground magnetic field of yuor lab ( on earth [ in the universe ] ) .. it's like gravety - a cut in your boat .
Wow just beautiful
If you have a wire with no current and have a charge located a distance x from the wire, there will be no force on the charge because the wire is neutral (the charge density of electrons and "holes" are equal). Now have a current flowing in the wire. From the point of view of the stationary charge, the electrons will be moving. Because of this there should be length contraction, and hence the charge density of the electrons should increase. Hence there should be a force on the stationary charge. But everyone knows this shouldn't happen. Can anyone tell me why?
Before considering length contraction consider the velocity transformations as the particle's velocity (“u”) is zero; the moving frame velocities in the plus and minus (“v+” and “v-“) are equal {note see equations at time 7:02}. As a consequence, the charge densities and length contractions will be equal with no resulting electric field or force.
@@jkbrennan1586 I don't think you answered his question. He is considering the real case where only the electrons move. In this case their density should increase while the positive charge density does not. So why is there not a force on the stationary charge?
Dear Sir, I wonder why, from the lab point of view, the negative charge density does not increase since the electrons are moving with respect to the viewer.
understood....thnx sir❤️....
Can u also pls start INPHO solution series (especially 2008 to 2015) .... it will be very useful 🙏
Thanks sir 😊🙏🙏
Wt happened to a term on the denominator of expression for lambda total.. It is not there when u went back to the board . Pls reply...
I was wondering the same...
Then I realized that he used the expression of λ = λ°/√(1- v²/c²) written in the center of board.
The λtotal term before coming back to board had λ° in it.
Hope it helps. 😀
@@_Dinesh_Rathod ooh.. Thanks❤️
Few people noticed. I was looking for this coment to see if there was an answer.
Awesome
Even though energy transfer in a wire takes place at a very high speed ( near the speed of light ) the actual speed of electrons will be very low ( drift speed of electrons ). The speed of +ve ions which move in the opposite direction will also be still lesser. So, now for an observer moving in the rest frame of the +ve charge, his relative speed with the electrons will also be very low. Hence at these low speeds how can we apply the relativity principle for getting length contraction between the electrons? If such is the situation how can we say that magnetism arises out of Relativity? This question has been bothering me since long time. Please clarify. Thanks. ..... You are a wonderful teacher and your teaching is marvelous.
I agree with you. Moreover, with the same length contraction principle, why doesn't negative charge density increase while the electrons are moving, from the lab point of view?
Although the electron drift velocity is very much less than c so that gamma differs only by an extremely small amount from unity there are, nevertheless, very many electrons involved so the overall effect of the motion of the electrons is not negligibly small.
Please give me some insight into the kind of lighting setup that you have used, it helps me a lot in incorporating in my channel. Thank you
Op sir""""""
How can say that speed increase of -ve charge means length contraction ?
Excellent. I have a doubt in 23:27 .
How does the E' field comes from lambda/2 pi eps0 x ?
Ok. I got it. It comes from the E field due to a linear charge distribution.
You are an amazing teacher!
This effect has nothing to do with Relativistic length contraction. If a positive charge moves parallel to the wire at the same speed as the electrons flowing due to current in the wire, then the current creates a magnetic field that generates a force on the moving positive charge, causing it to move away from the wire according to the Lorentz force law. From the perspective of the moving positive charge, it thinks it is standing still, and that the wire generating a magnetic field is moving. According to Maxwells equation's, a moving magnetic field creates an electric field that creates a force on the charge causing it to move away from the wire.
Relativistic length contraction and time dilation are optical illusions and are not real. This is proved in the following way. The speed of light is not a constant as once thought, and this has now been proved by Electrodynamic theory and by Experiments done by many independent researchers. The results clearly show that light propagates instantaneously when it is created by a source, and reduces to approximately the speed of light in the farfield, about one wavelength from the source, and never becomes equal to exactly c. This corresponds to the phase speed, group speed, and information speed. Any theory assuming the speed of light is a constant, such as Special Relativity and General Relativity are wrong, and it has implications to Quantum theories as well. So this fact about the speed of light affects all of Modern Physics. Often it is stated that Relativity has been verified by so many experiments, how can it be wrong. Well no experiment can prove a theory, and can only provide evidence that a theory is correct. But one experiment can absolutely disprove a theory, and the new speed of light experiments proving the speed of light is not a constant is such a proof. So what does it mean? Well a derivation of Relativity using instantaneous nearfield light yields Galilean Relativity. This can easily seen by inserting c=infinity into the Lorentz Transform, yielding the GalileanTransform, where time is the same in all inertial frames. So a moving object observed with instantaneous nearfield light will yield no Relativistic effects, whereas by changing the frequency of the light such that farfield light is used will observe Relativistic effects. But since time and space are real and independent of the frequency of light used to measure its effects, then one must conclude the effects of Relativity are just an optical illusion.
Since General Relativity is based on Special Relativity, then it has the same problem. A better theory of Gravity is Gravitoelectromagnetism which assumes gravity can be mathematically described by 4 Maxwell equations, similar to to those of electromagnetic theory. It is well known that General Relativity reduces to Gravitoelectromagnetism for weak fields, which is all that we observe. Using this theory, analysis of an oscillating mass yields a wave equation set equal to a source term. Analysis of this equation shows that the phase speed, group speed, and information speed are instantaneous in the nearfield and reduce to the speed of light in the farfield. This theory then accounts for all the observed gravitational effects including instantaneous nearfield and the speed of light farfield. The main difference is that this theory is a field theory, and not a geometrical theory like General Relativity. Because it is a field theory, Gravity can be then be quantized as the Graviton.
Lastly it should be mentioned that this research shows that the Pilot Wave interpretation of Quantum Mechanics can no longer be criticized for requiring instantaneous interaction of the pilot wave, thereby violating Relativity. It should also be noted that nearfield electromagnetic fields can be explained by quantum mechanics using the Pilot Wave interpretation of quantum mechanics and the Heisenberg uncertainty principle (HUP), where Δx and Δp are interpreted as averages, and not the uncertainty in the values as in other interpretations of quantum mechanics. So in HUP: Δx Δp = h, where Δp=mΔv, and m is an effective mass due to momentum, thus HUP becomes: Δx Δv = h/m. In the nearfield where the field is created, Δx=0, therefore Δv=infinity. In the farfield, HUP: Δx Δp = h, where p = h/λ. HUP then becomes: Δx h/λ = h, or Δx=λ. Also in the farfield HUP becomes: λmΔv=h, thus Δv=h/(mλ). Since p=h/λ, then Δv=p/m. Also since p=mc, then Δv=c. So in summary, in the nearfield Δv=infinity, and in the farfield Δv=c, where Δv is the average velocity of the photon according to Pilot Wave theory. Consequently the Pilot wave interpretation should become the preferred interpretation of Quantum Mechanics. It should also be noted that this argument can be applied to all fields, including the graviton. Hence all fields should exhibit instantaneous nearfield and speed c farfield behavior, and this can explain the non-local effects observed in quantum entangled particles.
*RUclips presentation of above arguments: ruclips.net/video/sePdJ7vSQvQ/видео.html
*More extensive paper for the above arguments: William D. Walker and Dag Stranneby, A New Interpretation of Relativity, 2023: vixra.org/abs/2309.0145
*Electromagnetic pulse experiment paper: www.techrxiv.org/doi/full/10.36227/techrxiv.170862178.82175798/v1
Dr. William Walker - PhD in physics from ETH Zurich, 1997
Sir make a video on space time geometry,
We know that charge is invariant quantity but here we see that in the 1st case total charge density is zero but 2nd case some amount of negative charge density is present..then how this condition is preserved ?
It arises not due to increase in charge, but due to length contraction the "density" changes
@@FortheLoveofPhysics Hi,why at 14:18 the λtot is (λ+) - (λ-)? shouldn't it be (λ+) + (λ-) instead?
How in the lab frame, there could be a magnetic force if the total current perceived is zero?
Sir explain gravity waves