Lec 14: Biot-Savart Law | 8.02 Electricity and Magnetism, Spring 2002 (Walter Lewin)

Поділитися
Вставка
  • Опубліковано 12 гру 2014
  • Biot-Savart Law - Gauss' Law for Magnetic Fields -
    Revisit the "Leyden Jar" - High-Voltage Power Lines
    This lecture is part of 8.02 Physics II: Electricity and Magnetism, as taught in Spring 2002 by Dr. Walter Lewin at MIT.
    This video was formerly hosted on the UA-cam channel MIT OpenCourseWare.
    This version was downloaded from the Internet Archive, at archive.org/details/MIT8.02S02/.
    Attribution: MIT OpenCourseWare
    License: Creative Commons BY-NC-SA 3.0 US
    To view a copy of this license, visit creativecommons.org/licenses/b....
    More information at ocw.mit.edu/terms/.
    This UA-cam channel is independently operated. It is neither affiliated with nor endorsed by MIT, MIT OpenCourseWare, the Internet Archive, or Dr. Lewin.

КОМЕНТАРІ • 31

  • @lokenderdutt6805
    @lokenderdutt6805 6 років тому +3

    it helped me making my seminar best.

  • @jsings256
    @jsings256 3 роки тому +2

    This lecture was a very interesting. Physics seems to be more interesting if experiments/ practicals are shown.

  • @YORGS.ONERIZM
    @YORGS.ONERIZM 8 років тому

    THANK YOU

  • @AndreSonsOfSamael
    @AndreSonsOfSamael 8 років тому +3

    My text book uses the vector magnetic potential (A) and surface current density (J) to derive the magnetic flux density (B) and in the countless derivations you lose all intuition. Walter Lewin makes the math very intuitive and I doubt I would have figured out what's really going on just by using my text book :)

  • @isaiahelias2280
    @isaiahelias2280 9 років тому

    Why, if the glass holds the charge so well, is there a spark when he reassembles it? wouldn't the charge need to leak off onto the conducting cups when he shorts it?

  • @PrajjwalMehta
    @PrajjwalMehta 9 років тому

    What about the work done in assembling back the Leyden's Jar ? Couldn't it be the cause of that energy.

  • @aeroscience9834
    @aeroscience9834 8 років тому +2

    Correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't the relativistic form of electromagnetism rule out magnetic monopoles?

    • @BLUFFIRL
      @BLUFFIRL 8 років тому +2

      There aren't fundamental physical laws that forbid the existence of magnetic monopoles; it's just we haven't found any yet. So it isn't wrong to say that we don't know why there aren't any magnetic monopoles!.
      There are laws in quantum mechanics that suggest magnetic monopoles should exist. Everything points in that direction which is why there is a lot of interest in searching for them. We may never find one but the laws of physics do not say that it is impossible to find them in nature.

  • @FrancoMateus
    @FrancoMateus 9 років тому

    Does anyone happen to have the lecture notes?

  • @victorvikramodouard7594
    @victorvikramodouard7594 8 років тому +7

    how does he make those dotted lines so fast? 6:01

  • @SandeepJatav-xd4iw
    @SandeepJatav-xd4iw 3 роки тому

    Sir ham aap se bat karna chahte ha

  • @scottcarpenter9993
    @scottcarpenter9993 5 місяців тому

    Wait a second, I thought that all magnetic sources lead to B/r^3. What is this B/r stuff?

  • @mrgehring2
    @mrgehring2 6 років тому

    Gold actually has a higher resistivity than copper, he should have said silver.

  • @natjimoEU
    @natjimoEU 9 років тому

    it IS impossible to have a magnetic monopole, shame that a physics professor at a university like MIT doesn't know why

    • @LizhouSha
      @LizhouSha 9 років тому

      A true magnetic monopole that violates Gauss's law for magnetism (∇⋅B = 0) has definitely not been discovered (i.e. experimentally verified). There are analogous systems in condensed matter physics that are said to be "magnetic" monopoles, but they are not referring to *the* magnetic B-field that one studies in an introductory E&M class. See this section of the Wikipedia article on magnetic monopoles for a more detailed explanation: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magnetic_monopole#.22Monopoles.22_in_condensed-matter_systems .

    • @natjimoEU
      @natjimoEU 9 років тому

      This wikipedia page is corresponding to what i'm saying. Magnetism is a consequence of the behavior of electrons and electrons are (essentially) tiny magnets on their own, with a north and south pole. So in order to have a magnetic monopole you would need an entirely different fundamental particle and that is just non-sense. It's like saying that there are planets in the shape of banana's but that we just haven't found them yet and that we need a new physical law if they did exist. Of course this is theoretically possible but it is so unlikely that looking for it and thinking about it is just an absurd thing to do. What i'm trying to say is that the odds of 99% of the planets in our universe having the shape of a banana is about as likely as the concept of a undiscovered 'magnetic monopole particle' existing in our reality.

    • @LizhouSha
      @LizhouSha 9 років тому +1

      I must have misread your comment then. However, there aren't fundamental physical laws that forbid the existence of magnetic monopoles; it's just we haven't found any yet. So it isn't wrong to say that we don't know why there aren't any magnetic monopoles!

    • @loganpatrick9307
      @loganpatrick9307 9 років тому +8

      natjimo ownage There are laws in quantum mechanics that suggest magnetic monopoles should exist. Everything points in that direction which is why there is a lot of interest in searching for them. We may never find one but the laws of physics do not say that it is impossible to find them in nature.

    • @RockOfGreece
      @RockOfGreece 6 років тому

      @Hersens stating that something is an absurd thing to do I think is subjective. Since you cannot prove they do not exist then shouldn't rule out any possibility