I was injured and missed the last two weeks of my electricity and magnetism class, and I have been trying to learn the material I missed on my own by reading the textbook. After probably two hours of reading, I still couldn't get it, but after five minutes of you explaining a t-shirt this finally makes sense. Thank you!
This is one of the funniest, most enlightening explanation of a fundamental tenet of physics. The fact that it has only 22K views (vs 2000K for Kardashian's latest), and 2 dislikes speaks volumes for the state of our society today.
People who don't like videos or explanations like this, don't like it because they don't understand it. I see it all the time. They have no curiosity and they are irrelevant.
It's also worth pointing out that the equation says nothing about the frame of reference so all observers will see light moving the same speed and off we go into special relativity!
I feel like you appreciate this video more after you get to learn each equation separately , cause this video is so good in bringing it all together to help you get the big picture , thank you.
What isn't clear in this video is that before Maxwell, people had already got a moderately accurate value for the speed of light even tho they didn't have a good theory for what light was (Google; Jupiter's moons speed of light). So in fact Maxwell recognized the value for the velocity of his electromagnetic wave and surmised that light was also an electromagnetic wave.
Just saw that clip and loved it. BUT is it not really important to mention(id say to keep it nice and short without digressions). That Jupiter moon clip says that the 17th century dude came PRETTY CLOSE considered the crude tools (and guesses he had to make). He was "only" off by half (he though 200.000.000km/s). Anciebt civilisations also could do things with light in temples that demonstrated they had grasp of the idea of planetary distance, relative angles to predict the successes that i speak of. I looked up jupiter moon speed of light. Now you look up "abu simbel temple light aswan dam" and one of the first google hits must be what im talking about. Cheers
Dr. Schuster, Thank you so much! I think I have watched all (yes all ) your videos now, and I'm a senior undergraduate student. you're doing something that no ordinary person does, thank you so much.... you deserve a nobel prize. I will see you some day and thank you in person! you're great......
This is a really nice compact explanation but it would have been worth mentioning that the form of the equations presented here was the work of Oliver Heaviside after he had simplified Maxwell's original equations.
you r awesome man and you really doing good thing by teaching in here on this platform....education is lot more fun and easy access now ...god bless you ...thanks so much ...
If you've watched them all, then YOU WIN! You're my biggest fan! Thanks so much for the support. Keep studying physics, and look me up if you're in St. Louis.
You can take two electrons or protons with some equal Velocity traveling in the same direction and next to eachother at some distance "r" and set the Electric Force = Magnetic Force equal and when you shake it out, the Speed of light "C" pops out. This shows the speed of the force travels at the speed of light "C".
Awesome insight, explanation. Answer to 2: Hubble Shows Light Echo Expanding from Exploded Star Light from a supernova explosion in the nearby starburst galaxy M82 is reverberating off a huge dust cloud in interstellar space. The supernova, called SN 2014J, occurred at the upper right of M82, and is marked by an “X.” The supernova was discovered on Jan. 21, 2014. The inset images at top reveal an expanding shell of light from the stellar explosion sweeping through interstellar space, called a “light echo.” The images were taken 10 months to nearly two years after the violent event (Nov. 6, 2014 to Oct. 12, 2016). The light is bouncing off a giant dust cloud that extends 300 to 1,600 light-years from the supernova and is being reflected toward Earth.
Nice video and presentation. Is it fair to say that the prerequisites for light propagation are e0 and u0? Also that e0, u0 are attributes of light medium, Aether? Also that c isn’t a constant, instead is dependent of u0 and e0? Also that radiating solar wind increases the permittivity and caused a permittivity gradient around solar responsible for a velocity gradient of a passing light and hence bends it? That gravity bends light is out of ignorance in Aether ?
Great explanation. Thanks. May I ask if this formula also says that the speed of light is constant even if it originated from an object travelling at a different velocity than the observer?
I would be happy to shake your hand as well. Thank you for your support. Keep up the hard work, but be sure to go outside to get some fresh air once in a while. Maybe run 5km?
A recent radio wave experiment shows light propagates instantaneously in the nearfield and reduces to the speed of light in the farfield, after one wavelength is also another discovery that will radically change our understanding of science, in particular all of modern physics. In this experiment,the time delay of signals was measured between 2 dipole antennas as the antennas were separated from the nearfield to the farfield. The results showed that the radio waves (light) propagates instantaneously in the nearfield and reduces to the speed of light in the farfield after one wavelength. The matches perfectly with theoretical expectations using Maxwells equations by setting the wave equation to a source term. This corresponds to not only the phase speed and group speed, but also the information speed. These results are completely incompatible with Special Relativity, which is based on the speed of light being a constant c. Inserting c=infinity into the Lorentz transformation yields Galilean transformations, where space and time are absolute. This shows that if an inertial moving object is observed using instantaneous nearfield light, then no time dilation , length contraction, or simultaneity Relativistic effects will be observed. So if Relativistic effects are observed using farfield speed c light, then by simply flicking a switch, one can change the frequency of the light, such that instantaneous light used instead, and the effects of Relativity would go away. This shows that the effects of Relativity are just an optical illusion and that Galilean Relativity is the correct form of Relativity. Here is another very powerful argument that shows Relativity is based on a logical fallacy. According to Relativity, observers on a moving train and on a stationary train platform will disagree on the size of the ""Train"" and the passage of time on the ""Train"". This is a complete logical contradiction if the size and the passage of time of the train are real. If the size of the train is real, then the ""Train"" can not be both contracted and not contracted. The same goes for the observed passage of time on the ""Train"". If these effects are observed, then the only possible conclusion is that it is an optical illusion. Things that are real must appear to be same from all frames of reference. If not, then by definition it is an illusion. Again the argument is very simple and it is the argument Einstein used to derive Relativity, and no acceleration is used in the argument. A train with length (L) traveling at constant velocity (v) relative a stationary observer on a station platform. According to Relativity, the stationary observer will see the train contracted (L/r, where r is the Relativistic gamma), whereas an observer on the train will see it not contracted (L). So the train is both contracted (L/r) and not contracted (L) depending on the observer. This is a complete contradiction (L not equal L/r) and can not be true if length is real. The same argument applies to passage of time on the Train, where both observers will disagree on the passage of time. If time is real, it can not be both dilated and not dilated (T not equal rT). If space and time are observed to be both large and small simultaneously for one inertial reference frame, such as the ""Train"", then it must be an optical illusion. It should be noted that experiments proving Relativity can only give evidence that the theory may be true, but an experiment disproving Relativity, or a logical proof showing a logical fallacy in the theory can absolutely disprove the theory. I have provided both. Since General Relativity is based on Special Relativity, General Relativity must also be an optical illusion. Spacetime is flat and gravity must be a propagating field. Researchers have shown that in the weak field limit, which is what we only observe, General Relativity reduces to Gravitoelectromagnetism, which shows gravity can be modeled as 4 Maxwell equations similar in form to those for electromagnetic fields, yielding Electric and Magnetic components of gravity. This theory explains all gravitational effects as well as the instantaneous nearfield and speed of light farfield propagating fields. So gravity is a propagating field that can finally be quantized enabling the unification of gravity and quantum mechanics. The current interpretation of quantum mechanics makes no sense, involving particles that are not real until measured, and in a fuzzy superposition of states. On the other hand, the Pilot Wave interpretation of Quantum Mechanics makes makes much more sense, which says particles are always real with real positions and velocities. The particles also interact with an energetic quantum field that permeates all of space, forming a pilot wave that guides the particle. This simpler deterministic explanation explains all known quantum phenomena. The only problem is that the Pilot Wave is known to interact instantaneously with all other particles, and this is completely incompatible with Relativity, but is compatible with Galilean Relativity. But because of the evidence presented here, this is no longer a problem, and elevates the Pilot Interpretation to our best explanation of Quantum Mechanics. *UA-cam presentation of above argument: ua-cam.com/video/sePdJ7vSQvQ/v-deo.html *Paper it is based on: William D. Walker and Dag Stranneby, A New Interpretation of Relativity, 2023: vixra.org/abs/2309.0145
Hi, thanks for replying. I've had a look on Wikipedia and I think the relevant SI units were named 'after' Coulomb. I'd like to know (and I don't know the answer) which scientist was the first to derive any of these tiny or huge numbers from their theories which in turn lead to the figure for the speed of light and everything else..
Hey there! You are amazing! Thank you very much for making me understand these equations. All I have is one question. What's the first symbol you're using in front of every equation?
Einstein had a portrait of this man on his wall!! Pity most of his countrymen and women today think Maxwell's Equations is an assortment of chocolates!!!
I think that the fact that magnetic fields are the effect of the relativity theory applied to electric fields is a good way to understand why is impossible to have magnetic monopoles, would be like loose one direction
I don't understand this but I would love to begin to learn. anyone have suggestions on where to start? I'm a fast learner and haven't got to these equations but I just need to begin to understand this.
+TwoTacosForPaco if you really want to learn this, i recommend start with learning circuits. Because it teaches how electrons behave, then go with electro magnetism. He has a playlist in his channel.
I know your comment is from last year, but... here's my two cents: Start by learning/looking up wave equations and oscillations. After that, get to know the basics of Einstein's Special Theory of Relativity. These are some basics you'll need later. Then look up electric and magnetic fields (as well as electric circuits). As you do your research, you will automatically come across the Maxwell equations (the ones from the video). In the end, you can combine these equations to get something similar you learned from wave theory and there you go. (That's basically a whole semestre of Physics II, so you could also just decide to visit some lectures in a nearby uni) Have fun!
Learn the math behind it, including a bit of calculus. Then read the pertinent chapters in a university physics textbook, building what you need to know first, and work as many homework problems as you can. What to do next will become obvious. This gets really deep, so don’t expect to understand it that well in a matter of days or even weeks studying daily. But it’s totally worth the time.
FWIW, Einstein put Maxwell's work as one of the most significant underpinnings of his special theory of relativity.. He says that he may not have been aware of the results of the Michelson-Morley experiment that found that the speed of light was the same regardless of your frame of reference. when he developed special relativity. He also says that he would have been very surprised that the speed of light was not independent of the frame of reference because of Maxwell's work and that the Michelson-Morley results were what he expected.
Fair enough, I like this video. you explained the equations briefly however I still don't understand them for one. two I don't understand what the symbols stand for and three, What are the units for all these symbols and equations? I'll try find out on my own.
If magnetic monopoles were ever found, the Faraday Maxwell equation would need an extra "current" term for the flow of magnetic "charge" and the E and B fields would become exact mirror opposites.
What about the fourth equation ? It says that changing electric flux is inducting magnetic field, but what about constant electric flux? Electromagnet is inducting magnetic field, although it is connected to DC.
Thanks. Math is beautiful isn't it. But now I have three questions for you; 1) In the early days, when universe entropy was low, do you think the speed of light was the same and was it also the maximum speed at that time? 2) Suppose the sun explode it this very moment and immediate disapears in fractions that no longer can count for beeing a gravity object, will we still be in orbit during the time it takes for us here on earth to understand what's happend? If yes, what (natural) force does then keep us in the orbit since we actually hang there freely without a good reason for about 8 min (I think its the time between sun and earth). And if no, then that information (sun exploded) surely has travelled faster than light and that's a violation of the law as we know it. Your thoughts? 3) How come all planets in our solar system orbits our sun in the same plane. To me that's strange. If I told you it's because the sun produces a 'field' we (yet) don't know much about, what's your response to that? Thanks for explaining what I oversee :-)
+Göran Krantz These questions are all great! Wow! 1) this is the best one, because I don't feel at all qualified to answer it. Superb question. Find someone smarter. 2) Even if the sun were in atomic pieces, the spherical symmetry of the explosion would still cause the same force of gravity on us at Earf's orbit. But I'll humor you and say that the Sun is somehow actually annihilated - totally gone suddenly. In that case, there would still be a gravitational field at Earf's orbit for 8 minutes because grav field info does travel at the speed of light, as you hint. 3) I know someone has an explanation of this on youtube. If you don't find it today and still can't solve this riddle, ask me again tomorrow and I'll just have to make the video myself. It's a neat explanation you may be able to solve on your own!
I tried understanding this by attending a lecture at Yale where the professor dwelled off for 30 minutes about wavelength finally reaching the first equation by the end when all I had to do is watch this 5 minute video to understand the basics
Light has a constant speed in vacuum of space, and a different constant speed in water etc. So, a light coming from a car standing still is same speed as light from a car that is moving, because also in the atmosphere light-speed is a constant?
If I understand “Kathy loves physics and history” correctly, these are not actually Maxwell’s equations, but a combination/ reduction of Maxwell’s numerous equations contributed by Heaviside.
Thank YOU sir for making amazing videos. I am currently taking physics 2 in college. My professor is brilliant but sometimes I have a hard time conceptualizing the physics part because he mostly spends time doing the math part and less on concepts. You cover most of the topics with amazing drawings and concepts.
Doc Schuster Also 2 weeks ago we did electromagnetic equation for light. thats why i came here seeking where the derivation came from because my professor went over real quick. And i didnt understand partial derivatives. So sir, when you make a new video, can you spend brief time explaining what partial derivatives are and why they are used in deriving light.
yashfernandojain I felt the same way in university. They are so pressed for time, so something has to give. Unfortunately, that's often an understanding of what all the maff means.
For a while after the Big Bang (about half a billion years if I remember rightly) the speed of expansion of space and the temperature of everything were too great to allow light to exist. Can you manipulate Maxwell's equations to explain what was going on in the pre-light age? I can't, but I'd love to see someone else do it.
I was injured and missed the last two weeks of my electricity and magnetism class, and I have been trying to learn the material I missed on my own by reading the textbook. After probably two hours of reading, I still couldn't get it, but after five minutes of you explaining a t-shirt this finally makes sense. Thank you!
i'm 34 and i can't wait till i grow up,so i can understand this.
Shortcut 12 eventually we'll both understand
speed of light (lightyear) is distance light traveled in 1 year.
Relax, dude! Arthur Ashkin won his nobel at age 96. We still have a chance...
@@valmormn I like that misguided optimism :D
it's better to watch Richard Feynman videos. they are teaching us an interface,
not the meaning, as in, what is actually happening physically
This is one of the funniest, most enlightening explanation of a fundamental tenet of physics. The fact that it has only 22K views (vs 2000K for Kardashian's latest), and 2 dislikes speaks volumes for the state of our society today.
David Sica That's really nice of you to say! You've really got to hand it to society, though - my butt is a lot less interesting.
perhaps this too
I think because people watch UA-cam for entertainment and not science.
@@DocSchuster I doubt that! HAHA!
200k now
Brilliant explanation! Love the little touches of humor
Whoever disliked this found the magnetic monopole. otherwise there is no reason to dislike this video.
Hahahahaa.... you're so funny mehn....
People who don't like videos or explanations like this, don't like it because they don't understand it. I see it all the time. They have no curiosity and they are irrelevant.
He speaks too quickly. -_-
😂😂yup...lol
This might be the greatest video on UA-cam.
You make physics so interesting. Why am i only finding you now.. the day before my final.
Anna Marie Dimapasok Shoot! I'll be around next semester, anyway... You'll just have to take more physics!
awesome! found my passion for science, physics, math and chemistry a couple days ago. learning as much as I can in my spare time. wow, so awesome
It's also worth pointing out that the equation says nothing about the frame of reference so all observers will see light moving the same speed and off we go into special relativity!
That is a VERY nice observation! Thanks, Will.
OK, then. But if it did say something about a FofR, just how would it be represented? If it did. Or was.
I feel like you appreciate this video more after you get to learn each equation separately , cause this video is so good in bringing it all together to help you get the big picture , thank you.
mind=blown. physics is awesome
What isn't clear in this video is that before Maxwell, people had already got a moderately accurate value for the speed of light even tho they didn't have a good theory for what light was (Google; Jupiter's moons speed of light). So in fact Maxwell recognized the value for the velocity of his electromagnetic wave and surmised that light was also an electromagnetic wave.
Just saw that clip and loved it. BUT is it not really important to mention(id say to keep it nice and short without digressions).
That Jupiter moon clip says that the 17th century dude came PRETTY CLOSE considered the crude tools (and guesses he had to make). He was "only" off by half (he though 200.000.000km/s).
Anciebt civilisations also could do things with light in temples that demonstrated they had grasp of the idea of planetary distance, relative angles to predict the successes that i speak of.
I looked up jupiter moon speed of light. Now you look up "abu simbel temple light aswan dam" and one of the first google hits must be what im talking about.
Cheers
Dr. Schuster, Thank you so much! I think I have watched all (yes all ) your videos now, and I'm a senior undergraduate student.
you're doing something that no ordinary person does, thank you so much.... you deserve a nobel prize. I will see you some day and thank you in person! you're great......
"Dangggg, thats a really high speed!"
-Mr. Maxwell
Lolll I love it
Gauss (x2), Ampere, and Faraday laid out the premises; Maxwell completed the expression and connected the dots. Absolute impressive genius.
This is a really nice compact explanation but it would have been worth mentioning that the form of the equations presented here was the work of Oliver Heaviside after he had simplified Maxwell's original equations.
OMG you rock! Crammed so much information in so little time I don't know how you managed to do it and still make me understand it!!!!!
Thanks! Those are closed integrals, indicating that the integral starts and ends at the same place.
you r awesome man and you really doing good thing by teaching in here on this platform....education is lot more fun and easy access now ...god bless you ...thanks so much ...
Amazingly explained,i just need to do some revision and that helps ,thank's. We need geek guys like u.
That's the most fun I have ever had listening to Maxwell's equations even as a postgrad student.
Yay! That made me smile, sir!
You're very kind. Thank you!
Love this explanation. The equations are so elegant!
Lovely explanation! Elegant and funny at the same time.
awesomely explained you are one of my favourite lecturer in video teaching
Cutee....physics.😄..really loved it😍
From.india😻
Thanks for your excellent explanation. I understand it better now than after I took the emag class years ago.
I found a monopole, it’s called marriage where no opposites attract
If you've watched them all, then YOU WIN! You're my biggest fan! Thanks so much for the support. Keep studying physics, and look me up if you're in St. Louis.
Brilliant video 👍
Hey, you directly jumped to saying mu * epsilon = 1 / sqrt(v), how did you get there?
All if your videos helped me a lot! Thanks so much, sir!
OMG! I gifted my brother a T shirt that had the same thing written on it!!
you sound so passionate, reminds me again why i love being a nerd: science is (sorta) fun yay!
You can take two electrons or protons with some equal Velocity traveling in the same direction and next to eachother at some distance "r" and set the Electric Force = Magnetic Force equal and when you shake it out, the Speed of light "C" pops out. This shows the speed of the force travels at the speed of light "C".
The monopoly guy's cane is a monopole. Nobel prize plz.
Hahahahahahaa
Great great video dude!
this is beautiful!!! Really helped my understanding, thanks
Awesome insight, explanation. Answer to 2: Hubble Shows Light Echo Expanding from Exploded Star Light from a supernova explosion in the nearby starburst galaxy M82 is reverberating off a huge dust cloud in interstellar space.
The supernova, called SN 2014J, occurred at the upper right of M82, and is marked by an “X.” The supernova was discovered on Jan. 21, 2014.
The inset images at top reveal an expanding shell of light from the stellar explosion sweeping through interstellar space, called a “light echo.” The images were taken 10 months to nearly two years after the violent event (Nov. 6, 2014 to Oct. 12, 2016). The light is bouncing off a giant dust cloud that extends 300 to 1,600 light-years from the supernova and is being reflected toward Earth.
Wow....That's awesome !!!
Nice video and presentation.
Is it fair to say that the prerequisites for light propagation are e0 and u0?
Also that e0, u0 are attributes of light medium, Aether?
Also that c isn’t a constant, instead is dependent of u0 and e0?
Also that radiating solar wind increases the permittivity and caused a permittivity gradient around solar responsible for a velocity gradient of a passing light and hence bends it? That gravity bends light is out of ignorance in Aether ?
That was a really great explanation!
Sono Sal Thanks! Those are really great sunglasses!
Great explanation. Thanks. May I ask if this formula also says that the speed of light is constant even if it originated from an object travelling at a different velocity than the observer?
"...and you KNOW what he was talking about right?" I got so excited I said "hell yeah I do"
I would be happy to shake your hand as well. Thank you for your support. Keep up the hard work, but be sure to go outside to get some fresh air once in a while. Maybe run 5km?
nice presentation(s) :)
so that is what the sparks are , when we join a wire on a working circuit !
A recent radio wave experiment shows light propagates instantaneously in the nearfield and reduces to the speed of light in the farfield, after one wavelength is also another discovery that will radically change our understanding of science, in particular all of modern physics. In this experiment,the time delay of signals was measured between 2 dipole antennas as the antennas were separated from the nearfield to the farfield. The results showed that the radio waves (light) propagates instantaneously in the nearfield and reduces to the speed of light in the farfield after one wavelength. The matches perfectly with theoretical expectations using Maxwells equations by setting the wave equation to a source term. This corresponds to not only the phase speed and group speed, but also the information speed. These results are completely incompatible with Special Relativity, which is based on the speed of light being a constant c. Inserting c=infinity into the Lorentz transformation yields Galilean transformations, where space and time are absolute. This shows that if an inertial moving object is observed using instantaneous nearfield light, then no time dilation , length contraction, or simultaneity Relativistic effects will be observed. So if Relativistic effects are observed using farfield speed c light, then by simply flicking a switch, one can change the frequency of the light, such that instantaneous light used instead, and the effects of Relativity would go away. This shows that the effects of Relativity are just an optical illusion and that Galilean Relativity is the correct form of Relativity.
Here is another very powerful argument that shows Relativity is based on a logical fallacy. According to Relativity, observers on a moving train and on a stationary train platform will disagree on the size of the ""Train"" and the passage of time on the ""Train"". This is a complete logical contradiction if the size and the passage of time of the train are real. If the size of the train is real, then the ""Train"" can not be both contracted and not contracted. The same goes for the observed passage of time on the ""Train"". If these effects are observed, then the only possible conclusion is that it is an optical illusion. Things that are real must appear to be same from all frames of reference. If not, then by definition it is an illusion.
Again the argument is very simple and it is the argument Einstein used to derive Relativity, and no acceleration is used in the argument. A train with length (L) traveling at constant velocity (v) relative a stationary observer on a station platform. According to Relativity, the stationary observer will see the train contracted (L/r, where r is the Relativistic gamma), whereas an observer on the train will see it not contracted (L). So the train is both contracted (L/r) and not contracted (L) depending on the observer. This is a complete contradiction (L not equal L/r) and can not be true if length is real. The same argument applies to passage of time on the Train, where both observers will disagree on the passage of time. If time is real, it can not be both dilated and not dilated (T not equal rT). If space and time are observed to be both large and small simultaneously for one inertial reference frame, such as the ""Train"", then it must be an optical illusion.
It should be noted that experiments proving Relativity can only give evidence that the theory may be true, but an experiment disproving Relativity, or a logical proof showing a logical fallacy in the theory can absolutely disprove the theory. I have provided both.
Since General Relativity is based on Special Relativity, General Relativity must also be an optical illusion. Spacetime is flat and gravity must be a propagating field. Researchers have shown that in the weak field limit, which is what we only observe, General Relativity reduces to Gravitoelectromagnetism, which shows gravity can be modeled as 4 Maxwell equations similar in form to those for electromagnetic fields, yielding Electric and Magnetic components of gravity. This theory explains all gravitational effects as well as the instantaneous nearfield and speed of light farfield propagating fields. So gravity is a propagating field that can finally be quantized enabling the unification of gravity and quantum mechanics.
The current interpretation of quantum mechanics makes no sense, involving particles that are not real until measured, and in a fuzzy superposition of states. On the other hand, the Pilot Wave interpretation of Quantum Mechanics makes makes much more sense, which says particles are always real with real positions and velocities. The particles also interact with an energetic quantum field that permeates all of space, forming a pilot wave that guides the particle. This simpler deterministic explanation explains all known quantum phenomena. The only problem is that the Pilot Wave is known to interact instantaneously with all other particles, and this is completely incompatible with Relativity, but is compatible with Galilean Relativity. But because of the evidence presented here, this is no longer a problem, and elevates the Pilot Interpretation to our best explanation of Quantum Mechanics.
*UA-cam presentation of above argument: ua-cam.com/video/sePdJ7vSQvQ/v-deo.html
*Paper it is based on: William D. Walker and Dag Stranneby, A New Interpretation of Relativity, 2023: vixra.org/abs/2309.0145
Awesomely explained, engaging video!
Hi, thanks for replying. I've had a look on Wikipedia and I think the relevant SI units were named 'after' Coulomb. I'd like to know (and I don't know the answer) which scientist was the first to derive any of these tiny or huge numbers from their theories which in turn lead to the figure for the speed of light and everything else..
Well Presented. Subscribed
Ditto
I love your videos! really helpful for gen physics 2 in college!
Hey there! You are amazing! Thank you very much for making me understand these equations. All I have is one question. What's the first symbol you're using in front of every equation?
7 years?
Where were you ?
11 years? Where were you?
This channel is so great
What does the circle on the integral sign mean?
So how were permativity and permability measured experimentally?
Fun question! I'm guessing Oersted and Coulomb because they both determine the strength of forces. Check me, though. I'd like to know the answer!
this guy is amazing
Dude you are awesome!
Thanks, Will! So are you!
Awesome! Do you have anything explaining how this fact leads to Einstein developing the relativity theory?
I love the way you tell things. However here the last equation's left hand side is amperian loop not the second last equation's.
What does d in the first equation stands for??
My particle physics professor suggested that there may be magnetic monopoles in condensed matter physics
Einstein had a portrait of this man on his wall!!
Pity most of his countrymen and women today think Maxwell's Equations is an assortment of chocolates!!!
Who discovered the values for 'mu not' and 'epsilon not' and how did they do it?
Measured constants.
Derive an equation ,speed of light
I think that the fact that magnetic fields are the effect of the relativity theory applied to electric fields is a good way to understand why is impossible to have magnetic monopoles, would be like loose one direction
I don't understand this but I would love to begin to learn. anyone have suggestions on where to start? I'm a fast learner and haven't got to these equations but I just need to begin to understand this.
+TwoTacosForPaco
if you really want to learn this, i recommend start with learning circuits. Because it teaches how electrons behave, then go with electro magnetism. He has a playlist in his channel.
I know your comment is from last year, but... here's my two cents:
Start by learning/looking up wave equations and oscillations. After that, get to know the basics of Einstein's Special Theory of Relativity.
These are some basics you'll need later. Then look up electric and magnetic fields (as well as electric circuits).
As you do your research, you will automatically come across the Maxwell equations (the ones from the video).
In the end, you can combine these equations to get something similar you learned from wave theory and there you go.
(That's basically a whole semestre of Physics II, so you could also just decide to visit some lectures in a nearby uni)
Have fun!
i get late, but here even someone who does not understand math can learn c: ua-cam.com/video/XtMmeAjQTXc/v-deo.html
physics. I was forced to learn this in school. 2nd year uni. So jump to that
Learn the math behind it, including a bit of calculus. Then read the pertinent chapters in a university physics textbook, building what you need to know first, and work as many homework problems as you can. What to do next will become obvious. This gets really deep, so don’t expect to understand it that well in a matter of days or even weeks studying daily. But it’s totally worth the time.
love this video thank you
Where can I buy this t-shirt...
FWIW, Einstein put Maxwell's work as one of the most significant underpinnings of his special theory of relativity.. He says that he may not have been aware of the results of the Michelson-Morley experiment that found that the speed of light was the same regardless of your frame of reference. when he developed special relativity. He also says that he would have been very surprised that the speed of light was not independent of the frame of reference because of Maxwell's work and that the Michelson-Morley results were what he expected.
Fair enough, I like this video. you explained the equations briefly however I still don't understand them for one. two I don't understand what the symbols stand for and three, What are the units for all these symbols and equations? I'll try find out on my own.
If magnetic monopoles were ever found, the Faraday Maxwell equation would need an extra "current" term for the flow of magnetic "charge" and the E and B fields would become exact mirror opposites.
What about the fourth equation ? It says that changing electric flux is inducting magnetic field, but what about constant electric flux? Electromagnet is inducting magnetic field, although it is connected to DC.
Thanks. Math is beautiful isn't it. But now I have three questions for you; 1) In the early days, when universe entropy was low, do you think the speed of light was the same and was it also the maximum speed at that time? 2) Suppose the sun explode it this very moment and immediate disapears in fractions that no longer can count for beeing a gravity object, will we still be in orbit during the time it takes for us here on earth to understand what's happend? If yes, what (natural) force does then keep us in the orbit since we actually hang there freely without a good reason for about 8 min (I think its the time between sun and earth). And if no, then that information (sun exploded) surely has travelled faster than light and that's a violation of the law as we know it. Your thoughts? 3) How come all planets in our solar system orbits our sun in the same plane. To me that's strange. If I told you it's because the sun produces a 'field' we (yet) don't know much about, what's your response to that? Thanks for explaining what I oversee :-)
+Göran Krantz These questions are all great! Wow!
1) this is the best one, because I don't feel at all qualified to answer it. Superb question. Find someone smarter.
2) Even if the sun were in atomic pieces, the spherical symmetry of the explosion would still cause the same force of gravity on us at Earf's orbit. But I'll humor you and say that the Sun is somehow actually annihilated - totally gone suddenly. In that case, there would still be a gravitational field at Earf's orbit for 8 minutes because grav field info does travel at the speed of light, as you hint.
3) I know someone has an explanation of this on youtube. If you don't find it today and still can't solve this riddle, ask me again tomorrow and I'll just have to make the video myself. It's a neat explanation you may be able to solve on your own!
+Doc Schuster Minutephysics' video.
GR8 Review/ Fantastic video
I tried understanding this by attending a lecture at Yale where the professor dwelled off for 30 minutes about wavelength finally reaching the first equation by the end when all I had to do is watch this 5 minute video to understand the basics
best explaination thank you
What is flux? And E.dA and E×dA what does it mean
you voice is similar to neil patrick harris ..
Light has a constant speed in vacuum of space, and a different constant speed in water etc.
So, a light coming from a car standing still is same speed as light from a car that is moving,
because also in the atmosphere light-speed is a constant?
That was nice.
Could a monopole be in a torus shape?
Did you mean "atom" instead of "electron" at around 4:30?
Juxtaroberto I didn't catch either one around there. Hmmm...
Sorry, 2:23 I meant. I must've waited too long before looking down at the time stamp.Doc Schuster
Oh, and those are the British "naught" for zero. Not not nor knot.
In a nutshell Well Done, luckily your video ran 2x speed. So it was entertaining too.
You really are amazing !
My man said he will share the nobel prize if you find it, lol...
So Cool!
4:33 So, when something is squared he says "squrr," but he can say "square root" just fine?
+Frank Guyman Ever since the operation. The docs said it would improve, but it hasn't.
Nope, he says sqroot these days... I like it better that way...
How to derieve this equation of velocity of light from 4 equations??
he didn't put(the additional term in the fourth equation) by there by symmetry but by charge conservation!
Incredible
5:29 tshuu tshuu tshuu
thx for the video man =)
How do we conclude from gauss's law for magnetism that magnetic monopoles don't exist?
Kunal Kulkarni I've got two videos on magnetic monopoles. Good question.
If I understand “Kathy loves physics and history” correctly, these are not actually Maxwell’s equations, but a combination/ reduction of Maxwell’s numerous equations contributed by Heaviside.
How are the constans measured? Is it really measured irrelevant of speed of light?
Good video, but I did not understand how you got that E0*M0=1/V^2
u didnt explain how it is a wave equation, and why u do 1/velocity? can you derive it clearer and tell us where everything is coming from?
yashfernandojain That is a great idea. Thanks for the suggestion!
Thank YOU sir for making amazing videos. I am currently taking physics 2 in college. My professor is brilliant but sometimes I have a hard time conceptualizing the physics part because he mostly spends time doing the math part and less on concepts. You cover most of the topics with amazing drawings and concepts.
Doc Schuster Also 2 weeks ago we did electromagnetic equation for light. thats why i came here seeking where the derivation came from because my professor went over real quick. And i didnt understand partial derivatives. So sir, when you make a new video, can you spend brief time explaining what partial derivatives are and why they are used in deriving light.
yashfernandojain Great idea!
yashfernandojain I felt the same way in university. They are so pressed for time, so something has to give. Unfortunately, that's often an understanding of what all the maff means.
Love this video
For a while after the Big Bang (about half a billion years if I remember rightly) the speed of expansion of space and the temperature of everything were too great to allow light to exist. Can you manipulate Maxwell's equations to explain what was going on in the pre-light age? I can't, but I'd love to see someone else do it.