I am very pleased to read that. Thank you for letting me know. The reason is that I am more of a fundamental physicist (by training), my engineering side limits to materials science and solid state chemistry. I have been in a "Maxwellian" phase these past few weeks, more by curiosity, and enjoyed learning about this topic as it shed further understanding light on physical phenomena I am familiar with. With no electrical engineer training, I had never heard about saturable reactor. The fact that the content of my channel helps others specialists in their own field, fills me with joy!
I've been seeing your videos from time to time and they are the coolest physics videos I've ever seen in my life. However, some things like the live wallpaper or the sudden change in camera shots are pretty distracting for learning purposes. I really love what you're doing with all these effects and whatnot but I just wanted to point out the trade-off :) Perhaps some of the effects can be lowered/removed but not all of them?
Hello Abu, thank you very much for your remarks. I didn't think that these effects would actually distract the viewer. Could you point out some specific example so that I can visualize what you mean? And if any other viewer would like to join the discussion on that subject, that would be really helpful for future videos!
Thank you for those last two minutes, prof! On the quantum level, do you see the atom nucleus as belonging to the Higgs field and the electrons to electro“magnetic” field? Not many philosophers anymore.
Hi Johannes, Thank you so much for reaching the full end of the video. You are the first commenting on this ‘hidden’ section haha (the most interesting in my opinion) ! What do you mean by belonging to a field ? Are you referring to Quantum Field Theory (QFT). QFT can be summed up by : Particle X is a manifestation of disturbance of the X field (it’s more accurate than saying that particle X belongs to field X) Analogy : you have a pond with a water having a perfectly flat (= non-disturbed) surface: Throw a stone in the pond. When the stone hits the surface, it creates a distrubance that then spreads out. This disturbance, is the particle of the field corresponding to the pond’s surface… The atomic nucleus doesn’t « belong » to any field, but its fundamental components are manifestation of the disturbance of their respective fields. Quarks are disturbance of the quark fields, gluon of the gluon field, electrons, of the electron fields, and photons of the photon field. The forces are the consequences of the interactions between these fields. For example interactions between the photon field and all fields with charged disturbance (like electron and quark fields) is the electromagnetic force that holds electrons and atomic nuclei together, guaranteeing the stability of atoms. Interactions between gluon field and quark fields leads to the strong force that holds the nucleons and the atomic nucleus together. If you are intereted n this subject, I recommend you dig into QFT, it’s fascinating !
Thank you for taking a few minutes to reply! So since I do not have the vocabulary I appreciate you interpret my question from in-between the lines. I was visualizing the Higgs field as self repelling quantum field. If excited giving rise to what we call fermions, that in term glide towards each other by asymmetrical vibrations. For me this would explain “dark matter” as recoupling field bonds around dense objects. Could maybe be rested by spinning a dense disc and measure if light gets distorted at the disc edge. Why I am asking though, is because there should also be a transfer to countinuous (not quantized) fields. Otherwise I don’t see how photons can keep their path so consistent… Thanks for reading all the way. Nice to just release my thoughts. Regarding QFT I have tipped my toes a little, but not to much - still like to keep an open mind :) All the best!
haha Equinoxe is cool (I suppose you are referring to JMJ), but my videos can be quite dense... that's why I do not put music in the background ;-). In the end, this decision is a good thing then, because the viewers can choose their own audio background to make the most of the lesson ! thanks for your feedback
I plan this question to be answered in the next video (I still have to write a plan / script for that ). We say an electron has spin because we detect a magnetic dipole moment (MDM). If you see, an electron like a little ball containing charge distributed evenly in the volume of that ball, to get this MDM, you need the ball to spin (that will give you concentric loops of current). Of course this is a classical physics view, which at this scale, is a very very rough approximation of reality. Permanent magnets contain usually electrons that are not paired, (In a pair, the MDMs of the paired electrons cancel each other). Each unpaired electron in the magnet will therefore contribute to the full MDM of the magnet. That's why when you cut a magnet down to its most elementary particles (Electrons), you always have a north and south pole, that is, the N and S of the electron's MDM.
Let me get this straight. Since we detect magnetic dipole moment to electrons, we assume there must be a spin (perhaps from Stern-Gerlach experiment); after all, magnetic dipole exists and electron revolution is a current. However, because electrons aren't teensy-weensy balls rampaging the nucleus, this notion becomes fuzzy and electromagnetism teacher or professor says "Well, having a permanent magnet is purely quantum mechanics, which is beyond the scope of this lecture. For now, just embrace the fact." Right, Mr. Edouard?
I think the analogy fails because of Faraday's paradox. I believe you should see loops of wire as lenses. Concentrating the ever present magnetic fields around us. Not creating them. Then it makes sense that the field is fixed in a coil, even if you rotate it along its axis. It also explains gravity of giant objects and why superconductors block magnetism.
Hi emanuel, thank you for your comment. What you are suggesting with this interesting idea of seeing loops of currents as magnetic lenses makes me think about gravitational lenses, here you would change the "curvature" of a magnetic field, like a G lense curves space time. I think that if such a unified theory had been validated, we would know about it (If I remember well, Einstein worked on attempting to unify EM and G for most of the end of its life without success). I am not an electrical engineer, just someone that enjoys stepping out of his comfort zone by learning a little out of his field (and sharing what he learns), so take my opinion on Faraday's paradox with a grain of salt: imho, the paradox comes essentially from neglecting the voltage measurement system connected to the rotating disc. I found a recent paper that carried out experimental work on this and discusses it. It leans towards that conclusion. Check it out here: sciencex.com/news/2022-10-faraday-paradox-experimental-evidence-circuit.html Please note that I have no data about the reliability of this work, so if what is written in that paper intrigues you, you should look for more info about the authors.
@PhysicsMadeEasy Thank you :) Not even Einstein could explain the paradox. As late as 1987 Keene made use of this paradox though. As the field lines seem to be stationary in a rotating coil it is more likely that they are just compressed already magnetic lines existing all around us. The Keene patent made "gyros" so much cheaper and enabled inertial navigation down to microlevel ships. ruclips.net/video/c5wgmTGi5pU/видео.html I know as my profession used to be a captain on intercontinental airtravel. Laser gyros were really large and expensive. I Made a DC homopolar motor that makes use of this principle. ruclips.net/video/YzVEeG4mt9s/видео.html The next step now is to make a generator that is more practical. The amazing thing is that the motor seems to produce no feedback torque, as it is pushing against the field lines that are stationary and independent of the magnet/coil!? So it might be used for steering satellites in space without the need for ejecting matter, just grabbing hold of the ever-present field lines in space and swinging it around :)
I just now found your channel...can't wait to see the other videos. And extra thanks for the last part and the concept of "electrons spinning on themselves" !!! One question: At about timestamp 5:45 when you show the Biot-Savart equation, should not that be a UNIT vector, r, in the numerator?? If it is as shown, wouldn't the denominator contain r-magnitude cubed ? Since r-vector = r-unit-vector times r-magnitude. I ask since it would be GREAT help with what I am working on now using Biot-Savart. THUMBS UP ans a SUBSCRIBE!!
Absolutely correct Dalen. That part of my video can be confusing, because according to the graphic, the vector r in the numerator has a magnitude. Thus, the denominator should be r^3. Ooops, mistake... Unfortunately I can't change it in the video, but will add a little note about that in the description. Well spotted!
If I remember well, jee in physics is a demanding program. If you are having trouble with following physics class, I recommend you try a different approach: Pick up a good textbook (Cambridge Tsokos, physics for the IB ,for example). Learn notions inside it independently from class, and then when you have a goo grasp of the basics, try to apply what you have learned to the exercises your teacher has worked on in class. Sometimes, taking another angle, biased by a different culture, then coming back to the original can help!
Thanks professor This will help me a lot to get core understanding of physics but I am confused that when I read compulsory theory but I don't feel like that I read theory but to do many miscellaneous problems from practice point of view thenHow can I troubleshoot this issue .??
@@user-py5ms3xd9j Well, take a jee past paper and try to answer questions on subjects you already reviewed in class. Check those you did not get correct, and for which you do not understand perfectly the answer. These are the topics you should focus on by studying other sources that deal with these subjects. It allows you to approach the problem via another angle... and offers you another opportunity of understanding the concept. Then, you go back to your class teacher's approach and try to make sense of it based on what you learned 🙂
Thanks sir But I have a doubt that Like rotational mechanics gives tremendous fill but Its questions are too dangerous but Fluid mechanics is very boring not much interesting but indeed in jee syllabus I have to learn and also its questions are quite troubling means we dont know what we have to do in particular problem so How I can i clear this riddle ??
@@user-py5ms3xd9j Hi, in order to clear the riddle that poses exercises and test questions, for a typical student, there are two requirements : 1/ Understand and know the subject 2/ Train on questions You need requirement number 1 to be able to succeed at requirement No 2. So before you rush head foirst in jee test questions, evaluate your understanding. When you do not understand a concept presented in class, you have to look at other sources which may present the notion in a different way allowing you to connect the dots. While you study, review the worked-out examples in the text book, try to repeat them. Then, look at the exercises, and when you succeeded by yourself doing a few and getting them correct, it’s time to take up the game, and work on past paper, where questions can be a little different. And because you have a good understanding thanks to all the prior work, that difference in the qustions can be overcome quite easily just by a little thinking. For rotational mechanics, the IB Physics Text Book, Tsokos is a good introduction to the fundamentals (the chapter is called Rigid Body Mechanics). For fluid mechanics, this text book doesn’t go iun enough detail on that subject. An A-Level program text book, or eventually an AP program text book provides also a more thorough introduction. I hope this helps, and I wish you courage with your studies!
Excellent as always! Thanks for your work!
Wow, thank you so much Spencer! I really appreciate your superthanks, it encourages me grandly!
Really appreciating your valuable effort prof., Thanks a lot.
My pleasure Khaled, I am glad you appreciate my work!
You are making difficult topics very easy to understand
Thanks so much for your kind feedback: It shows that I am reaching my goal to make Physics Easy (while remaining rigorous)
after watching this, I now understand how a saturable reactor (electric component) works
I am very pleased to read that. Thank you for letting me know. The reason is that I am more of a fundamental physicist (by training), my engineering side limits to materials science and solid state chemistry. I have been in a "Maxwellian" phase these past few weeks, more by curiosity, and enjoyed learning about this topic as it shed further understanding light on physical phenomena I am familiar with. With no electrical engineer training, I had never heard about saturable reactor. The fact that the content of my channel helps others specialists in their own field, fills me with joy!
this channel always amazed me
It's Physics that is amazing! Thank you Kenny for your kind words :-)
I've been seeing your videos from time to time and they are the coolest physics videos I've ever seen in my life. However, some things like the live wallpaper or the sudden change in camera shots are pretty distracting for learning purposes.
I really love what you're doing with all these effects and whatnot but I just wanted to point out the trade-off :)
Perhaps some of the effects can be lowered/removed but not all of them?
Hello Abu, thank you very much for your remarks.
I didn't think that these effects would actually distract the viewer. Could you point out some specific example so that I can visualize what you mean?
And if any other viewer would like to join the discussion on that subject, that would be really helpful for future videos!
Thank you for those last two minutes, prof! On the quantum level, do you see the atom nucleus as belonging to the Higgs field and the electrons to electro“magnetic” field? Not many philosophers anymore.
Hi Johannes,
Thank you so much for reaching the full end of the video. You are the first commenting on this ‘hidden’ section haha (the most interesting in my opinion) !
What do you mean by belonging to a field ? Are you referring to Quantum Field Theory (QFT). QFT can be summed up by : Particle X is a manifestation of disturbance of the X field (it’s more accurate than saying that particle X belongs to field X)
Analogy : you have a pond with a water having a perfectly flat (= non-disturbed) surface: Throw a stone in the pond. When the stone hits the surface, it creates a distrubance that then spreads out. This disturbance, is the particle of the field corresponding to the pond’s surface…
The atomic nucleus doesn’t « belong » to any field, but its fundamental components are manifestation of the disturbance of their respective fields. Quarks are disturbance of the quark fields, gluon of the gluon field, electrons, of the electron fields, and photons of the photon field.
The forces are the consequences of the interactions between these fields.
For example interactions between the photon field and all fields with charged disturbance (like electron and quark fields) is the electromagnetic force that holds electrons and atomic nuclei together, guaranteeing the stability of atoms. Interactions between gluon field and quark fields leads to the strong force that holds the nucleons and the atomic nucleus together.
If you are intereted n this subject, I recommend you dig into QFT, it’s fascinating !
Thank you for taking a few minutes to reply!
So since I do not have the vocabulary I appreciate you interpret my question from in-between the lines.
I was visualizing the Higgs field as self repelling quantum field. If excited giving rise to what we call fermions, that in term glide towards each other by asymmetrical vibrations. For me this would explain “dark matter” as recoupling field bonds around dense objects. Could maybe be rested by spinning a dense disc and measure if light gets distorted at the disc edge.
Why I am asking though, is because there should also be a transfer to countinuous (not quantized) fields. Otherwise I don’t see how photons can keep their path so consistent…
Thanks for reading all the way. Nice to just release my thoughts. Regarding QFT I have tipped my toes a little, but not to much - still like to keep an open mind :)
All the best!
Your explanation is excellent When I visit America, I will visit you ❤❤
Thank you for your compliment Marwa.
Well, you might have trouble finding me there since I live in France (I am French).
amazing😁😁😁😁😁😁
yes
Thank you
Viewing this while listening to Equinoxe is awesome
haha Equinoxe is cool (I suppose you are referring to JMJ), but my videos can be quite dense... that's why I do not put music in the background ;-).
In the end, this decision is a good thing then, because the viewers can choose their own audio background to make the most of the lesson !
thanks for your feedback
How magnetic dipoles occur in permanent magnet materials? Is it because of spin ? If yes how spin can create current?
I plan this question to be answered in the next video (I still have to write a plan / script for that ). We say an electron has spin because we detect a magnetic dipole moment (MDM). If you see, an electron like a little ball containing charge distributed evenly in the volume of that ball, to get this MDM, you need the ball to spin (that will give you concentric loops of current). Of course this is a classical physics view, which at this scale, is a very very rough approximation of reality.
Permanent magnets contain usually electrons that are not paired, (In a pair, the MDMs of the paired electrons cancel each other). Each unpaired electron in the magnet will therefore contribute to the full MDM of the magnet. That's why when you cut a magnet down to its most elementary particles (Electrons), you always have a north and south pole, that is, the N and S of the electron's MDM.
Let me get this straight. Since we detect magnetic dipole moment to electrons, we assume there must be a spin (perhaps from Stern-Gerlach experiment); after all, magnetic dipole exists and electron revolution is a current. However, because electrons aren't teensy-weensy balls rampaging the nucleus, this notion becomes fuzzy and electromagnetism teacher or professor says "Well, having a permanent magnet is purely quantum mechanics, which is beyond the scope of this lecture. For now, just embrace the fact." Right, Mr. Edouard?
I think the analogy fails because of Faraday's paradox. I believe you should see loops of wire as lenses. Concentrating the ever present magnetic fields around us. Not creating them. Then it makes sense that the field is fixed in a coil, even if you rotate it along its axis. It also explains gravity of giant objects and why superconductors block magnetism.
Hi emanuel, thank you for your comment. What you are suggesting with this interesting idea of seeing loops of currents as magnetic lenses makes me think about gravitational lenses, here you would change the "curvature" of a magnetic field, like a G lense curves space time.
I think that if such a unified theory had been validated, we would know about it (If I remember well, Einstein worked on attempting to unify EM and G for most of the end of its life without success).
I am not an electrical engineer, just someone that enjoys stepping out of his comfort zone by learning a little out of his field (and sharing what he learns), so take my opinion on Faraday's paradox with a grain of salt: imho, the paradox comes essentially from neglecting the voltage measurement system connected to the rotating disc. I found a recent paper that carried out experimental work on this and discusses it. It leans towards that conclusion. Check it out here:
sciencex.com/news/2022-10-faraday-paradox-experimental-evidence-circuit.html
Please note that I have no data about the reliability of this work, so if what is written in that paper intrigues you, you should look for more info about the authors.
@PhysicsMadeEasy Thank you :) Not even Einstein could explain the paradox. As late as 1987 Keene made use of this paradox though. As the field lines seem to be stationary in a rotating coil it is more likely that they are just compressed already magnetic lines existing all around us. The Keene patent made "gyros" so much cheaper and enabled inertial navigation down to microlevel ships. ruclips.net/video/c5wgmTGi5pU/видео.html I know as my profession used to be a captain on intercontinental airtravel. Laser gyros were really large and expensive. I Made a DC homopolar motor that makes use of this principle. ruclips.net/video/YzVEeG4mt9s/видео.html The next step now is to make a generator that is more practical. The amazing thing is that the motor seems to produce no feedback torque, as it is pushing against the field lines that are stationary and independent of the magnet/coil!? So it might be used for steering satellites in space without the need for ejecting matter, just grabbing hold of the ever-present field lines in space and swinging it around :)
Sir ur amazing
But make it little interseting or fun while explanaing so that we students will understand is more easily or convinentily
Hi, I am trying :-)
Love from Bangladesh❤sir.Sir,please give some basic video on Electromagnetism
there are quite a few on this channel Check: what is potential, what is a field, what is an EM wave, Gauss Law, what is a magnetic field etc...
Love from India ❤😅
From me too thanks sir ❤ From INDIA 🍀🌝😌
I just now found your channel...can't wait to see the other videos. And extra thanks for the last part and the concept of "electrons spinning on themselves" !!!
One question: At about timestamp 5:45 when you show the Biot-Savart equation, should not that be a UNIT vector, r, in the numerator?? If it is as shown, wouldn't the denominator contain r-magnitude cubed ? Since r-vector = r-unit-vector times r-magnitude. I ask since it would be GREAT help with what I am working on now using Biot-Savart.
THUMBS UP ans a SUBSCRIBE!!
Absolutely correct Dalen. That part of my video can be confusing, because according to the graphic, the vector r in the numerator has a magnitude. Thus, the denominator should be r^3. Ooops, mistake... Unfortunately I can't change it in the video, but will add a little note about that in the description. Well spotted!
Sir I am jee aspirant from india . I want to know how I can deal with physics.
If I remember well, jee in physics is a demanding program.
If you are having trouble with following physics class, I recommend you try a different approach: Pick up a good textbook (Cambridge Tsokos, physics for the IB ,for example). Learn notions inside it independently from class, and then when you have a goo grasp of the basics, try to apply what you have learned to the exercises your teacher has worked on in class.
Sometimes, taking another angle, biased by a different culture, then coming back to the original can help!
Thanks professor
This will help me a lot to get core understanding of physics but I am confused that when I read compulsory theory but I don't feel like that I read theory but to do many miscellaneous problems from practice point of view thenHow can I troubleshoot this issue .??
@@user-py5ms3xd9j Well, take a jee past paper and try to answer questions on subjects you already reviewed in class. Check those you did not get correct, and for which you do not understand perfectly the answer. These are the topics you should focus on by studying other sources that deal with these subjects. It allows you to approach the problem via another angle... and offers you another opportunity of understanding the concept. Then, you go back to your class teacher's approach and try to make sense of it based on what you learned 🙂
Thanks sir
But I have a doubt that Like rotational mechanics gives tremendous fill but Its questions are too dangerous but Fluid mechanics is very boring not much interesting but indeed in jee syllabus I have to learn and also its questions are quite troubling means we dont know what we have to do in particular problem so How I can i clear this riddle ??
@@user-py5ms3xd9j Hi, in order to clear the riddle that poses exercises and test questions, for a typical student, there are two requirements :
1/ Understand and know the subject
2/ Train on questions
You need requirement number 1 to be able to succeed at requirement No 2. So before you rush head foirst in jee test questions, evaluate your understanding.
When you do not understand a concept presented in class, you have to look at other sources which may present the notion in a different way allowing you to connect the dots. While you study, review the worked-out examples in the text book, try to repeat them. Then, look at the exercises, and when you succeeded by yourself doing a few and getting them correct, it’s time to take up the game, and work on past paper, where questions can be a little different. And because you have a good understanding thanks to all the prior work, that difference in the qustions can be overcome quite easily just by a little thinking.
For rotational mechanics, the IB Physics Text Book, Tsokos is a good introduction to the fundamentals (the chapter is called Rigid Body Mechanics). For fluid mechanics, this text book doesn’t go iun enough detail on that subject. An A-Level program text book, or eventually an AP program text book provides also a more thorough introduction.
I hope this helps, and I wish you courage with your studies!