You got my sub because you got my attention. This is what makes you a good teacher: Most of my teachers in school would teach the equation and explain how it works, but when you physically show what the equation is actually doing and physically show the relationship of the equations, it gives me a better understanding.
That's the problem I had in technical college, it was all maths and equations and no description of underlying mechanisms. Ask a question and get told "you don't need that for the exam, just remember the equation".
In _Principles of electrodynamics_ by Melvin Schwartz, Maxwell's equations are derived via the Lorentz invariance. "We will assume that the force on a charged particle in its own rest frame is given by the electric field as the particle sees it. Furthermore, we will assume that if the charge and current distributions that it sees in its own rest frame are not changing with time, then the electric field it sees will be determined, just as in the case of simple electrostatics, by [Gauss' law]. The consequences of these innocent-sounding assumptions are absolutely fantastic. We will now show that the electric field cannot provide a complete description of the long-range forces resulting from charges and currents, but that there must in addition be other field quantities at each point in space which exert a velocity-dependent force on a moving charged particle. Thus we will deduce that there must be a magnetic type of force. Later we shall see how to express this force in terms of magnetic field."
By the way, that might also explain why gravity acceleration does not cause a charged particle to radiate. That is, the particle and its field have the same rest frame as gravity "pulls" _everything_ at the same rate. On the other hand, electrostatic force affects only the particle, not its field, and that causes "friction" and radiation.
Splendid and lucid narration. To me, some points are not understandable ĺike those of ds curve etc and the mathematical notations like line / circular integrals. Adding a simple note on this would be of immense use to persons like me
@@xjuhox i strongly suspect that time for changes in the electric field need to be accounted, rather than to jump to the magnetic fields within a charges frame of reference, because a magnetic field in a lab reference is nothing but an electric field in a charge's frame of reference. For Example, suppose you have two neutral wires in the lab reference frame adjacent to each other, with current flowing in both, in opposite directions. Now, Lets take a single electron in one wire and use it's reference frame. It doesn't see magnetic fields period, It can only see electric fields. It sees electric fields near by and electric fields in the other wire. Given the relative velocity of electrons and protons in the other wire as seen by our electron and factoring einstein's relativity length contraction (L=L'sqrt(1-v²tc²)), results in a greater electron length contraction and a greater negative electric field in the other wire, so our electron is repulsed by the negative electric field coming from the ther wire as seen by our electron's reference frame. In short, Einstein's relativity and different reference frames binds electric and magnetic fields into electromagnetism. Yes I know the average drift velocity of electrons in a 22 guage wire with 10 amos is low about 0.056 mililimeters per second more or less, but force between the two wires only testifies to the strength of the electric field and the great number of electrons involved.
@@xjuhoxwhen a charged particle is perturbed, it "irradia"tes the information of its field to its sourrondings, that is the definition of "radia"tion (action on the radial direction). The "radia"l field lines are "irradia"ted (not radial anymore) ...as Responsable - Ir-responsable. So, in the case of a charged partcile falling due to gravity nearby the surface of the earth, that irradiated rectilinear pulse (not a wave) is felt "instantly" or within a second of delay by charged particles located less than 300000 km away (Having the frame on the surface of the earth) If the particle bounces, then irradiates a wavelet pulse (geometrically speaking) until it rests. P.D: When the charged particle is not at rest anymore in some frame, the it is not electrostatic anymore, it is electrodynamic... P.D.2: Friction is an electrostatic phenomenon between "material surfaces"
Apart from a few too many jumpcuts this is a good history lesson. You can see here that people share passion for physics too and that this topic isn't always as boring as presented in school. Very well done.
It's been years since I was a physics major. I didn't graduate but I do remember things like Amperes' Law, Lenze's Law, and the Maxwell equations. That link between the two fields you mentioned, namely the mathematics establishing a link between the electric and the magnetic fields was the key and was interesting. And I believe that Einstein, observing that the same voltage was induced whether he moved a magnet relative to a wire loop or if you moved the wire loop relative to the magnetic in the lab, was nature whispering to him that no experiment could ever be performed that would betray absolute motion. That observation led to one of Einstein's postulates of special relativity, namely that: " Absolute uniform motion cannot be detected ". Put another way, there's no place in space upon which an origin of coordinates can be fixed.
Fantastic production. I've always said if their is a fairy tale in physicsit is precisely the eureka moment Maxwell discovered that light was indeed an EM wave. This is the only unfied theory to have been achieved to this date. Maxwell was imo the greatest physicist of all time.
Such a great channel for deep discussions about physics! As a student it helps to lock in all the crucial information with cherries AND sprinkles - love it.
Also do remember that u0 and e0 are measurable attributes of vacuum. That suggests that vacuum is filled with u0, e0 and hence a medium some call it Aether. From the start we were under an impression that Aether exists as wind that blows through all matter. And the M&M design of experiment was based on such assumption. It is also important to appreciate that no medium for no seismic wave, no air for no sound, no strings vibration for no music. Likewise no e0, u0, or Aether for no E,B radiation or no light.
The luminiferous aether was thought to be a fixed frame of reference relative to which light traveled at a constant velocity. This was disproven first by Michelson and Morley and by many other experiments and has been ruled out to 1 part in 10^18. ε_0 & μ_0 are not fixed reference frames.
@@lafenelson3212 “The luminiferous aether was thought to be a fixed frame of reference relative to which light traveled at a constant velocity.” - by mistake. “This was disproven first by Michelson and Morley and by many other experiments and has been ruled out to 1 part in 10^18.” - because Albert Einstein said, “You cannot solve a problem with the same mind that created it.” That Aether wind is a wrong mind set. Aether is a fluid that attached to matter and drag at equal speed. The M&M’s experiment set out looking for Aether wind have failed because It only drift in the far field at its own pace in deep space within the universe. “ε_0 & μ_0 are not fixed reference frames.” Because it attach and drag with matter in the near field.
The line breaking for induction, Visualizing the above and the maxwells equations both integration and differentiation made me understand it all completely snd intuitively! That coulumbs law visualozation did wonders too! Thank you!!
Excellent video. I like the historical approach and I think science video makers (and also teachers) should put more history in their content so that people manage to fully grasp the state-of-the-art knowledge humanity has reached after centuries of effort.
I have watch through many videos on Maxwell equations and the relationship with Light and I must say This Video is the Best in term of explaining electricity and magnetism together to see how Maxwell links Light as electromagnetic. Of course you will need to understand first all the 4 Maxwell equations to understand this video! Thanks
Time varying E doesn’t create B - nor is the inverse true. The equations state an equivalence but not causation. All of the fields and their time delayed manifestations are caused by charge motion. It is a subtle point, and nearly everyone teaches this incorrectly.
@@mehuldangar6660 And that charge motion establishes both the propagating E and B fields period. They don’t keep giving rise to each other; that’s the mistaken causation interpretation.
Maxwell: discovered the physics of (special) relativity. Einstein: invented the paradigm of relativity. It is interesting to notice how Maxwell's equations alone give all the phenomena of relativity, like time dilation and length contraction. But the few physicists who discovered those phenomena (although mostly in a non-constructive way), and came up with the right coordinate transformations to get the frame adopted by a moving device, still considered those coordinates to be less "real" than the coordinates of a frame at absolute rest. And although this rest frame could not be detected they kept giving explanations describing how this frame conspires to remain undetectable. It took Einstein to recognise that it was pointless to keep talking about an absolute frame in physics. With this regard I consider him more influential than Maxwell, since he founded the paradigm for theoretical physics, while Maxwell was still thinking in a classical paradigm of absolute space and time. But yes, apparently Maxwell was the first one to give a complete theory of non-gravitational physics. Another interesting notice is that classical mechanics is completely compatible with relativity, as long as all the forces are local, and fundamentally described by electromagnetism, despite common pedagogy erroneously tends to talk about a contrast in the description of the phenomena rather than paradigm. On this topic there is an interesting paper by John Bell, "how to teach special relativity", on stressing the importance for a "Lorentzian pedagogy".
Nice video and presentation. Page 19:30 Please remember that these equations describes (near field to near field) induction and not (near field to far field) radiation. Some sharp shooters mistaken about that ends up calling Maxwell a liar.
20:01 - wow, now it makes senese how he discovered light is an Electro-Magnetic Wave and derived his equation. Great explanation and important topic in physics. Is it possible maybe someday you can do an explanation to similar manner on how Roger Penrose gave the foundations of calculating black hole formation which he got the Noble Prize for?
I have a question, what is photon if we talking about waves. Light is the same as what antena of AM transmitter for example radiate. Right? Then one photon si part of height of this wave(like smallest possible part)? One slice of this wave like a one sample? We can show signal on oscliloscope, but its many phototos, what part of triggered sampled wave on screen is one emmited photon? I see many videos, but still have a big confusion about this. And second question, photon energy is depend directly on wavelength, but it can be lowered or incresed by relative motion - doopler effect, universe expansion - where energy loss goes? Because energy must be conservated.... 🙂
Maxwell was just such an astounding genius. One of the last true Renaissance Men whose genius was applied in so many different realms. Besides electromagnetism, he investigated kinetic theory and thermodynamics, the psychology of color perception (he made the first durable color photo!), and control theory (which at the time was related to governors on steam engines, which was as close as you could get to automation and cybernetics in the 1800s, lol) He wrote poetry and played the guitar. In another age, he might have been a rock and roll star, lol He was witheringly intelligent and socially awkward: the protonerd. lol sometimes i feel Maxwell only studied electromagnetism was because he was tired of being surrounded by people saying “f-king magnets, how do they work?” 😅
As I understand it waves are perturbations in a medium, like ocean waves are perturbations in water. Then what are electromagnetic waves perturbations in? Is there a static electromagnetic field permeating the entire Universe in which waves can be produced by an alternating electric current? Are electric fields local and limited to an area around electrons which interact with and produce perturbations in the electromagnetic field when the electrons move?
@@lukasrafajpps I think so If I misunderstood or simply had a false view or information, I'm willing to give it up for truth When I last checked this topic, I remember stumbling upon a paper where it is showed that ibn Sahl drew a simple diagram with a Mathematical formulation next to it.
@@cringotopia8850 I am also not quite sure of it because the law of refraction was studied in very far history by many philosophers but I believe the exact mathematical formulation was now known only approximate one.
In antenna the field intensity are at 90° what are right and easy verifiable. But then Maxwell become with the theory that in space those field change to be at same phase in intensity . That are against of energy conservation, since at each semi cycle both fields vanishes. But if the both fields intensity were at 90° the energy never vanishes and mantain a constant intensity. This have more implication relative at if the wave has a medium of propagation or not. At 90° no necessary any medium. At in phase of EM field you need a medium were storage the energy when the fields passed trough cero energy.
it is the second part of the exuation for Ampere's law. They represent the current density that is passing through an infinitesimally small surface dS. Think of them as infinitely many red lines and each give a small contribution to the total current that is passing through the surface S.
@@lukasrafajpps But you should mention Hertz who proved experimentally EM fields propagate. He also specifically theoretically calculated the nonlinear phase vs distance curve for propagating EM fields and correctly noted that the minima near the source corresponds to instantaneous field speed, and where the curve becomes approximately linear corresponds to the approximately speed c propagation: *Heinrich Hertz, Electric Waves, London: Macmillan & Co., 1893, p. 151 and 152 We recently repeated Hertz experiment in the nearfield using a modern oscilloscope, and the results confirms that an EM pulse propagates in the nearfield with no propagation delay, showing the front speed, or the speed of information is instantaneous in the nearfield. This absolutely disproves the 2nd postulate in Relativity, leaving only the 2nd postulate: Galilean Relativity, where space and time are absolute. The paper has been peer reviewed and accepted for publication by the Journal IRECAP and will be publish ~Oct. See the my post for a link to this paper. *Superluminal Maxwell Displacement Current measured in the near-field of a spherical capacitor, 2024
Electromagnetism is a two-dimensional abstract of a three-dimensional spiral consisting of virtual photons reacting with Casimir effect energy consisting of quantum foam.
This is pretty much what I think but I think that aether/quantum foam is a repulsive force for matter which is what gravity actually is. I have been trying to wrap my brain around what is happening when light is going through a polarized glass if light is a spiral
@@patrickday4206 Yes, Bells inequality three polarizer experiment may be indicative that twisted light enters a higher dimension and then reappears in this dimension as it was originally polarized due to its momentum.
Hello Sir are you preparing to response Dialect cause his arguments are getting more and more Problamatic day by day it is getting worser he is now attacking Einstein personally and somehow thinks he is disproving Relativity
It is not what you're saying. It is only a perturbation in the energetic level of the so-called "EM" field. There's no real isolated "photon". It is just the specific energetic level that's disturbed.
There are those, including me, who say that there is no such thing as magnetism and hence, electromagnetism. What people have been experiencing as "magnetism" is just a result of electric charge and special relativity.
How does your special relativity explains emergence of magnetic field around one moving proton? Let's assume Maxwell equations are right. Please, explain. One moving proton. Not an electric current because then you will use that rubish explanation about length contraction. I think most physicists don't get what lenght contraction is about. Actual elelectric density doesn't change. You have a moving object which is longer in its rest frame but only in units. Units that are contracted comparing to original non moving frame of reference. Real density doesn't change.
he simply listed start time and end time of the eclipses throught the year, calculation based on same duration of each eclipse but as the months were passing, the time difference was there and at one point it was 22 min time difference from his predicted time in the list thus he concluded when earth is opposite side, farthest from jupiter, light takes time to reach there.
The speed of light is not a constant speed 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 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 Galilean Transform, 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. *UA-cam presentation of above arguments: ua-cam.com/video/sePdJ7vSQvQ/v-deo.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
@@martinstubs6203 The data from GPS clock frequency data shows that ALL of the components of Planck's constant, in the realm or the General Theory, are unaffected by gravity. Since we know that the electron transition energy is the only component in the realm of the General Theory that changes with altitude, and none of the components of Planck's Constant are affected by gravity, this implies that the speed of light, the only untested component in regard to General Relativity, must change with altitude. The Shapiro microwave experiment of the 1960s also implies that the speed of light changes with magnetic flux density, AKA distance from the Sun, per the implied flux density gradient of Gauss's Law for Gravity. I.E. the speed of light must increase with altitude, in the magnetic field where the satellites are, and there can be no such thing as gravitational redshift; redshift is a function of magnetic flux density, changing with altitude and velocity wrt the Earth's magnetic field.
@@martinstubs6203 The 2nd postulate of Special Relativity is also contradicted by GPS experiments in favor of the Lorentz version of relativity. On Constancy of the Speed of Light in the Global Positioning System Yang-Ho Choi
Light is a beam. A helix. Many beams Emirati g from the center source. It’s not a particle it is not a wave. It is a helix one right spiraling back to the center (south pole) and one spiraling left out from the center. (North Pole) They create a tube of light between them. Just like a magnets helix same thing. Focus on magnifying the BEAM of light and you can see each one. The South Pole is blue the North Pole is red. A perfect balance of red and blue gives you a yellow beam In The center (the sun). Any imbalance of frequency (in htz) will give you a different color. I’m not going on the five color ratios here but you should get the point. Once you can see this you realize all subatomic particles are a lie. Just like most of the bs spewed here. Why do you think your dna is a helix? Like everything in the third dimension you see, it’s light. Made of the three primary colors. A positive polarity A negative and a neutral. It’s not that difficult.
This clearly proves that truth is not something even science can define. Because everything we do in physics and math are defined according to our philosophy. We create the definitions and also the axioms based on our philosophy. Just because the value is equal to the value we think that belongs to light speed shows us that we just never found the truth rather we defined it as a good or sufficient condition and made the world think we are saying the truth. I am a mathematician who follows structuralism and when I see theoretical phycists expresses their idea as truth just because it is working make me laugh. That's why these guys don't understand math and engineering even still now and thinks we are discovering math but what we do is we create system, where there exist consistent ideas that just simply works with our system. I am happy that I understood this and pursued math not the theoretical physics who constantly fights for if one's idea is either true or false, just to become a huge hero but after some decades when people will find the idea was wrong and throw him away to ashes and would also curse him for insisting people that he was true and would never take carr of his descendants will be the saddest story of his family's life but here I can just work and be happy and have time to praise my creator all the time and don't have worry about being famous because I know what I am doing is just inventing different ideas with the help of philosophy and logic and just creating ways by creating relationships with distinguishable ideas so that people can work with in some way at least using pen and paper makes me feel confident. Philosophy and logic taught me one thing that is direct proof is the only way to say something true, whenever indirect proof arises we can't say if something is either true or false then it becomes probabilistic. Human's direct proof is his senses, not the tools or subjects humans create. Have peace in mind people. When i saw the youtuber being emotionally driven towards the scientists he was talking about, I felt sad because that is how you become biased and lose the peace of your mind. Pride is not what we humans should search for rather, we should always be grateful towards our creator all the time because he is the one who can distinguish truth and false without any doubt. This distinguishable power wasn't given to us.
Does light refraction slow light down?🤔? I say yes, because the distance traveled becomes farther. Just my opinion. Like electricity, the longer the cord, the more the resistance. Are not, Electromagnetic Waves a form of Gravity.?. Sabine Hausenfelder, never replies to my dumb questions.🥴. If light can be captured by a black hole 🕳️, then light has to be a form of gravity. What a quirk!🤪! Weak and strong forces wrestling around! 💪 😮 !.?. Any who, just my opinion. I learned myself, Autodidactic. Enjoyed…. Thanks… Solomon@… AHUM’M’@…
Ibn.. Alhaitam you say it correctly Ibn =son of Alhaitam =one of the names of the lion Arabs like to name their children like the strong & brave creatures
Pa zašto bi ribice išle u bazene ako su svi isti, a ako idu u krug onda su uvijek različiti. :D Ali ovi prijatelji na TV-u su sve krivo shvatili. Vidi se da su izgubljeni u vremenu i prostoru. :D
I hate the continued reference and use of field lines as it has been a great source of confusion by the less knowledged. Field intensity and dirrction are real atributes of fields but field lines exist only in our imaginations as a way to visualize field intensity and direction. That is to say, field lines do not exist in reality.
Hi! I partly agree actually. It is not possible to set up experiment that would truly detect their presence. Afterall electric and magnetic fields are just 3-dimensional cuts of a 4 dimensional quantity however electromagnetic wave can exist very far from the source. If there is no electric and magnetic field how do we explain its existence?
@@lukasrafajpps rather than field line density through a cross section to represent field strength we can map field strength like contour lines that represent altitude on a topographic map. Solid graduation lines would represent something real, the field magnitude, while dashed lines empathizing its imiginary condition would represent field direction. Solid Lines make us think of real things. A solid line for a specific magnitude may be arbitrary but it is a measurable quantity.
Weber's electrodynamics also leads to E/M waves (it's hard to derive, but possible) and explains some of simple experiments which Maxwell's theory cannot.
You are quite right about James Clark Maxwell is a good mathematician also follow Faraday’s observation close. Do we know that u0 and e0 are a must have mediums to build E and B fields in vacuum? Do we also know that the mediums must be directly coupled / attached to energize matter before E and B fields can be establish into the vacuum? Since attached, do we agree that u0 and e0 also drag with matter and move at equal velocity? If we agree up to this point shall we say that we should not expect fringe activities take place in Michelson’s interferometer? Shall we also say that E & B fields and light has a common medium?
Great video for modern physics. But, modern physicists describe what they see it do with math and then act like they understand it. Maxwell's equations use a cross product, and a cross product turns numbers perpendicular for NO REASON, so everything after that is likely wrong, because the reason that they are perpendicular is skipped completely. That's a big part to skip. Even the gyroscopic effect math uses a right-hand rule to put the numbers into a cross product, and this skips WHY it is a perpendicular effect. Look at my explanation that is based in CAUSAL accelerations. Angular momentum is an accurate analogy that has NOTHING to do with CAUSE. I don't want to affect your income here, but you removing this is the same reason modern science is so lost today. It's always ONLY forward, never question it.
@@kevconn441 There is no mechanism involved in turning those vectors perpendicular, so after you use it, you completely erase the reason they have a perpendicular relationship. Regurgitating the brainwashed jargon don't make it real, no matter how accurate and consistent you think it is. Modern science can't see anything but math, no one even knows what cause even is, because it is not math. In BASIC MECHANICS you are told angular momentum is responsible for the gyroscopic effect, and this was derived FROM math. This is physics right in your face, and everyone lets math lie to them. Angular momentum is analogous to a real cause based in accelerations. Look at my latest video that explains the creation of accelerations that have nothing to do with spinning but the rate that it creates for the cause. The cause merely steers spin velocity around from a PERPENDICULAR perspective. A cross product didn't tell you that, I did. In electromagnetism, WHY they are perpendicular is not even a goal. That is just stupid.
@@jnhrtmn I watched one of your vids. Try looking at the integral form of Maxwell's equations and you wont have to worry about cross products that you clearly don't understand.
@@kevconn441 You are suggesting more math without telling me WHY they are perpendicular. Are you seriously that brainwashed? It's not about whether I can do the math. The variables in the math likely have NOTHING to do with what CAUSES IT! The variables in gravity math likely have NOTHING to do with what causes gravity, and gravity is clue #1 to the Universe. "The wheels on the bus go round and round." This stupid song describes EVERYTHING you see a bus do exactly like math, but it is NOT an understanding of what causes a bus. The wheels going round come after a cause, so they are incidental variables, just like in your math, and YOUR science will not see that. This is your entire math paradigm of science. Then, you watched my latest video describing the accelerations that CAUSE the gyroscopic effect, and you are not affected by that? My math don't need a right-hand rule first by describing the actual cause directly. I've written 5 or 6 papers over the past 20+ years that no one will publish, and all I can say is that I wish you would all wake up. 100% math is not the answer. Find the cause first and describe that. The Strong force was INVENTED to keep from having to question electric charge in the nucleus, and that's it's only job. Science sets constants and refuses to question the constant. They invent something new instead. If charge changes when crammed into a nucleus, this mechanism would certainly be the link between ALL forces, but modern science has that set already describing forces piecemeal in constant form. This is so huge, I could go on and on. You all just believe it and agree with each other, so that's a bandwagon, not a science. You don't ever question anything. Gamma Ray bursts ALL arrive here in order of wavelength, and if this were known in the year 1900, you would not have Relativity either. You can't show me dimensions 1 or 2, time is a function of thought, and Relativity adjusts these fake dimensions to create constant light for you ON YOUR PAPER ONLY. You don't actually see any of this, but you believe it.
the claim that quaternions and tensors yield the same result is not true. Example: (1) Start with a 4vector potential. No matter what you do, in the end you end up with a 3vector electric and a 3vector magnetic field. You lose one component. You have Gauge Freedom now. Which means your equations are underdetermined, so you have to introduce an auxiliary condition, called the gauge, completely at your disposal. Yes, I do know it's a Faraday Tensor, but if you keep time intact, it behaves as a 3vector, since the tensor components at hand are the i0 and 0i ones. (2) Start with a quaternion potential. Similar to the 4vector potential, the quaternion potential has 4 components as well. Now, no matter what you do to this quaternion potential, you end up with another quaternion. You still end up with a 4D solution. If you want a 3D solution, you have to forcibly declare the time component of the quaternion potential to be zero. This is artificial of course and will transform under a coordinate transformation back to a proper 4 component quaternion. So no matter what you do, you end up with another quaternion, not with a terzion. So you see, there is a difference between the tensor and the quaternion formalism. Yes, we are all taught that quaternions and vectors can be transformed one into another, just that quaternions are more complicated. But clearly there is something else at play. This is the basis of Tesla's work on Scalar Waves. These do not exists in the Helmholtz tensor electromagnetism. I have seen a CIA document "explaining" Tesla's work by assuming there is a longitudinal wave, and then transforming it back to no longitudinal wave, concluding that Tesla was wrong. The CIA guy did it all in the tensor formalism. Not realising that whatever you do with tensors, you end up in 3D. Instead, he should have done it with quaternions, but that is not being taught any more. Also, the transformations we use between tensors and quaternions is probably flawed somewhere: we do prove that tensors and quaternions yield the same results. Which is false by doing the entire thing with quaternions only. No one touches this for the past century and more. Except Tesla, who was cut off completely. Tunguska in 1908 was probably his doing... which means there is something to it. He probably created standing electrowaves between Earth and the Ionosphere: probably an oscillating circle, with ionosphere and Earth acting as conducting plates, the lightning path being zig-zag, hence like a solenoid connecting Ionosphere and Earth, with current running from low to a lot and back to low, bouncing between Earth and Ionosphere "plates", and there you have it. I have also seen a more complicated attempts at explaining what Tesla wanted to do with Earth and Ionosphere. But it doesn't get any simpler than the oscillating circuit I guess. So he was cut off probably for this. It is free energy for everyone. Finally, all our solutions and equations depend on the mathematics we have invented so far. General Relativity would be impossible without Riemann spaces. Quantum theory without Hilbert spaces and Fourier transforms. And so on. We blindly believe we have all mathematics there is. Which is not true. We need new mathematical tools next. Oh, and your electric field video that cannot reach the conclusion: yes, there is the problem with the tensor description of electromagnetism. Tensors don't work well with vector products. Tensors do not vanish under coordinate transformation, ever. There are no ghosts with tensors. And yet, there are coordinate systems where any vector product vanishes: just stop the rotation. And magnetism comes from the vector product... Laterz! Keep posting please!
Maxwell unified electricity and magnetism but his equations do not describe light. Einstein borrowed speed of light from Maxwell but he couldn't unify electromagnetism with gravity, which suggests you can't just borrow speed of light from electromagnetism and apply it to light.
Maxwells equations among other applications also describe electomagnetic waves. And these match behaviour of light in many ways: radiation pressure, energy flow, speed of propagation, polarisation behaviour, interference patterns, diffraction, refraction. Sure it's not the full picture, quantum view is needed to explain blackbody radiation, photoelectric effect, spin. Ripples of massless fields propagate with speed of light in theory of relativity. EM waves are well described in relativity theory, both classical and quantum views. The fact that gravity hasn't been meaningfully quantised is not saying much about lack of understanding of light. Light is demonstrably identifiable with electromagnetic waves, of course Maxwell's equations are useful for describing light
@@whataboutthis10 Light definitely obeys causality but causality and speed of light are two different concepts. Causality suggests two way speed of light is constant while Einstein's speed of light suggest one way speed of light is constant. One way speed of light was never measured so we know for certain only constancy of two way speed of light.
@@chadkline4268 Electromagnetism is compatible with special relativity but it is not compatible with general relativity. That is why Einstein's unified field theory failed.
I am an PhD physicist and the analysis presented in this video is wrong! EM fields are created by sources and they cannot be set to zero when sources are present. Setting the sources to zero is only valid at infinite distance from the source which does not exist in this universe. Including the source terms yields a wave equation equal to a source term and solving this inhomogeneous PDE is much more difficult, but it has been done by many researchers. Extracting the phase vs distance relation for an oscillating source and applying phase speed and group speed operators (inversely proportional to the slope of the curve), shows that the speed of the fields are instantaneous in the nearfield and reduces to about speed c after propagating 1 wavelength from the source. As they continue to propagate, the speed continues to get closer to speed c, but never becomes exactly speed c, even at astronautical distance from the source, confirming my initial statement. So the speed of light is not a constant and this disproves the 2nd postulate of Relativity, and what remains is only the 1st postulate: Galilean Relativity, where time and space are absolute and not flexible as Relativity suggests. So Relativity is wrong, and this also disproves GR which is based on it, and it has consequences for all of modern physics, see my comment below. The last paper linked in my comment below shows a recent experiment where an EM pulse propagated in a lab without any observed propagation delay. This shows that the front speed, or the speed of information is instantaneous in the nearfield, and absolutely disproves Relativity. This paper has been peer reviewed and will be published ~October in the EM Journal IRECAP. Dr. William Walker, PhD Physics ETH Zurich, 1997
The statement was never "light = wave", the statement is that "light can be seen as a wave, and the calculations to prove it are just tools", to make it easier to calculate as you may have wondered. I don't really like the quantum field theory but they use the same logic applied to bosons as well. They are not literally waves, but they behave almost the same. Yeah I still don't like it very much.
The information is definitely valuable, but what's the point of making these videos with such a thick English accent spoken at .78 speed? There are a million videos on the same topic out there already with young smiling and ambitious science men, this piece of content hardly sheds light on anything new or in a novel manner.
There is a great 3blue 1brown video explaining this phenomenon I think it’s in his optics puzzles series. In short the light, though of as a sin wave traveled at speed c when it enters a medium the electromagnetic waves cause the particles of the medium to oscillate creating their own electromagnetic field which interferes deconstructive the resulting sine wave of the initial electromagnetic field is the same but with an incredibly small negative phase shift, this happens for every particle in the medium. The resulting sine wave has a shorter period and to maintain its frequency it slows down. when it exits the medium it’s still the same sine wave just with a slightly shifted phase
Heaviside reduced it to 4 when Einstein was around 5 years old. Light never travels slower than c. The effective velocity in a medium is due to interference of the incident wave and the waves emitted by the medium. See group velocity and phase velocity. When the light exits the medium there is no more waves emitted from the medium and the interference stops, so the phase velocity and group velocity are equal.
You got my sub because you got my attention. This is what makes you a good teacher: Most of my teachers in school would teach the equation and explain how it works, but when you physically show what the equation is actually doing and physically show the relationship of the equations, it gives me a better understanding.
That's the problem I had in technical college, it was all maths and equations and no description of underlying mechanisms. Ask a question and get told "you don't need that for the exam, just remember the equation".
Excellent production and excellent information, thank you!
In _Principles of electrodynamics_ by Melvin Schwartz, Maxwell's equations are derived via the Lorentz invariance. "We will assume that the force on a charged particle in its own rest frame is given by the electric field as the particle sees it. Furthermore, we will assume that if the charge and current distributions that it sees in its own rest frame are not changing with time, then the electric field it sees will be determined, just as in the case of simple electrostatics, by [Gauss' law]. The consequences of these innocent-sounding assumptions are absolutely fantastic. We will now show that the electric field cannot provide a complete description of the long-range forces resulting from charges and currents, but that there must in addition be other field quantities at each point in space which exert a velocity-dependent force on a moving charged particle. Thus we will deduce that there must be a magnetic type of force. Later we shall see how to express this force in terms of magnetic field."
By the way, that might also explain why gravity acceleration does not cause a charged particle to radiate. That is, the particle and its field have the same rest frame as gravity "pulls" _everything_ at the same rate. On the other hand, electrostatic force affects only the particle, not its field, and that causes "friction" and radiation.
Splendid and lucid narration. To me, some points are not understandable ĺike those of ds curve etc and the mathematical notations like line / circular integrals. Adding a simple note on this would be of immense use to persons like me
@@xjuhox i strongly suspect that time for changes in the electric field need to be accounted, rather than to jump to the magnetic fields within a charges frame of reference, because a magnetic field in a lab reference is nothing but an electric field in a charge's frame of reference.
For Example, suppose you have two neutral wires in the lab reference frame adjacent to each other, with current flowing in both, in opposite directions. Now, Lets take a single electron in one wire and use it's reference frame. It doesn't see magnetic fields period, It can only see electric fields. It sees electric fields near by and electric fields in the other wire. Given the relative velocity of electrons and protons in the other wire as seen by our electron and factoring einstein's relativity length contraction (L=L'sqrt(1-v²tc²)), results in a greater electron length contraction and a greater negative electric field in the other wire, so our electron is repulsed by the negative electric field coming from the ther wire as seen by our electron's reference frame.
In short, Einstein's relativity and different reference frames binds electric and magnetic fields into electromagnetism.
Yes I know the average drift velocity of electrons in a 22 guage wire with 10 amos is low about 0.056 mililimeters per second more or less, but force between the two wires only testifies to the strength of the electric field and the great number of electrons involved.
@@xjuhoxwhen a charged particle is perturbed, it "irradia"tes the information of its field to its sourrondings, that is the definition of "radia"tion (action on the radial direction). The "radia"l field lines are "irradia"ted (not radial anymore) ...as Responsable - Ir-responsable.
So, in the case of a charged partcile falling due to gravity nearby the surface of the earth, that irradiated rectilinear pulse (not a wave) is felt "instantly" or within a second of delay by charged particles located less than 300000 km away (Having the frame on the surface of the earth)
If the particle bounces, then irradiates a wavelet pulse (geometrically speaking) until it rests.
P.D: When the charged particle is not at rest anymore in some frame, the it is not electrostatic anymore, it is electrodynamic...
P.D.2: Friction is an electrostatic phenomenon between "material surfaces"
Apart from a few too many jumpcuts this is a good history lesson. You can see here that people share passion for physics too and that this topic isn't always as boring as presented in school. Very well done.
It's been years since I was a physics major. I didn't graduate but I do remember things like Amperes' Law, Lenze's Law, and the Maxwell equations. That link between the two fields you mentioned, namely the mathematics establishing a link between the electric and the magnetic fields was the key and was interesting. And I believe that Einstein, observing that the same voltage was induced whether he moved a magnet relative to a wire loop or if you moved the wire loop relative to the magnetic in the lab, was nature whispering to him that no experiment could ever be performed that would betray absolute motion. That observation led to one of Einstein's postulates of special relativity, namely that: " Absolute uniform motion cannot be detected ". Put another way, there's no place in space upon which an origin of coordinates can be fixed.
Hi, yes that is really interesting and I even made a video about it :)
Fantastic production. I've always said if their is a fairy tale in physicsit is precisely the eureka moment Maxwell discovered that light was indeed an EM wave. This is the only unfied theory to have been achieved to this date.
Maxwell was imo the greatest physicist of all time.
I have never Seen any Great UA-camr like You at Explaining Physics
not only that, he's making the history part actually interesting. that was a hard-sell for me when I was in school.
@@HyenaEmpyema Yes
Try david butler
@@HyenaEmpyema oinc oinc
Note EM forces totally ignored in BIG BANK tHEORY... no wonder it keeps failing
Excellent
Very good, informative video
Thanks
Thanks for the support : )
Never having studied physics at school I found your video really helpful. I am now 70!!!
Pure excellence in explanation.
Such a great channel for deep discussions about physics! As a student it helps to lock in all the crucial information with cherries AND sprinkles - love it.
Also do remember that u0 and e0 are measurable attributes of vacuum. That suggests that vacuum is filled with u0, e0 and hence a medium some call it Aether.
From the start we were under an impression that Aether exists as wind that blows through all matter. And the M&M design of experiment was based on such assumption.
It is also important to appreciate that no medium for no seismic wave, no air for no sound, no strings vibration for no music. Likewise no e0, u0, or Aether for no E,B radiation or no light.
The luminiferous aether was thought to be a fixed frame of reference relative to which light traveled at a constant velocity.
This was disproven first by Michelson and Morley and by many other experiments and has been ruled out to 1 part in 10^18.
ε_0 & μ_0 are not fixed reference frames.
@@lafenelson3212
“The luminiferous aether was thought to be a fixed frame of reference relative to which light traveled at a constant velocity.” - by mistake.
“This was disproven first by Michelson and Morley and by many other experiments and has been ruled out to 1 part in 10^18.” - because Albert Einstein said, “You cannot solve a problem with the same mind that created it.” That Aether wind is a wrong mind set. Aether is a fluid that attached to matter and drag at equal speed. The M&M’s experiment set out looking for Aether wind have failed because It only drift in the far field at its own pace in deep space within the universe.
“ε_0 & μ_0 are not fixed reference frames.” Because it attach and drag with matter in the near field.
@@lafenelson3212MM experiment doesnt actually disprove the aether according to some.
Swing and a miss@@philoso377
@@philoso377 bro discovered secrets but has been cursed to use of poetic language only
please do more videos on the experiments amazing explanation.
The line breaking for induction,
Visualizing the above and the maxwells equations both integration and differentiation made me understand it all completely snd intuitively!
That coulumbs law visualozation did wonders too!
Thank you!!
Excellent video. I like the historical approach and I think science video makers (and also teachers) should put more history in their content so that people manage to fully grasp the state-of-the-art knowledge humanity has reached after centuries of effort.
I have watch through many videos on Maxwell equations and the relationship with Light and I must say This Video is the Best in term of explaining electricity and magnetism together to see how Maxwell links Light as electromagnetic. Of course you will need to understand first all the 4 Maxwell equations to understand this video! Thanks
Well done!
Very good introduction to the topic, I liked that you explained each topic that got us to the discovery of light as an electromagnetic wave
Time varying E doesn’t create B - nor is the inverse true. The equations state an equivalence but not causation. All of the fields and their time delayed manifestations are caused by charge motion. It is a subtle point, and nearly everyone teaches this incorrectly.
But time varying E can't be created without charge motion I think so we thought of it as causation
@@mehuldangar6660 And that charge motion establishes both the propagating E and B fields period. They don’t keep giving rise to each other; that’s the mistaken causation interpretation.
@@briansauk6837 exactly magnetic field energy is due to motion of charge
beautiful explanation!
Fantastic video
Excellent. Thank you.
Great Content 😮
Great work!!
Maxwell: discovered the physics of (special) relativity.
Einstein: invented the paradigm of relativity.
It is interesting to notice how Maxwell's equations alone give all the phenomena of relativity, like time dilation and length contraction. But the few physicists who discovered those phenomena (although mostly in a non-constructive way), and came up with the right coordinate transformations to get the frame adopted by a moving device, still considered those coordinates to be less "real" than the coordinates of a frame at absolute rest. And although this rest frame could not be detected they kept giving explanations describing how this frame conspires to remain undetectable. It took Einstein to recognise that it was pointless to keep talking about an absolute frame in physics. With this regard I consider him more influential than Maxwell, since he founded the paradigm for theoretical physics, while Maxwell was still thinking in a classical paradigm of absolute space and time. But yes, apparently Maxwell was the first one to give a complete theory of non-gravitational physics.
Another interesting notice is that classical mechanics is completely compatible with relativity, as long as all the forces are local, and fundamentally described by electromagnetism, despite common pedagogy erroneously tends to talk about a contrast in the description of the phenomena rather than paradigm. On this topic there is an interesting paper by John Bell, "how to teach special relativity", on stressing the importance for a "Lorentzian pedagogy".
Great video!
Amazing!
Entertaining explanation 💯
Nice video and presentation.
Page 19:30
Please remember that these equations describes (near field to near field) induction and not (near field to far field) radiation. Some sharp shooters mistaken about that ends up calling Maxwell a liar.
Bro yappin from a fringe side-quest or what
Not only are Maxwell's equations wrong, this guy knows the more correct version..sure
very informative
20:01 - wow, now it makes senese how he discovered light is an Electro-Magnetic Wave and derived his equation. Great explanation and important topic in physics. Is it possible maybe someday you can do an explanation to similar manner on how Roger Penrose gave the foundations of calculating black hole formation which he got the Noble Prize for?
A splendid educational video! +1 subscriber!
Awesome stuff. You explained it all really well such that even I can understand it.
The acceleration of light at zero time and zero time is plus one cycle
I have a question, what is photon if we talking about waves. Light is the same as what antena of AM transmitter for example radiate. Right? Then one photon si part of height of this wave(like smallest possible part)? One slice of this wave like a one sample? We can show signal on oscliloscope, but its many phototos, what part of triggered sampled wave on screen is one emmited photon? I see many videos, but still have a big confusion about this. And second question, photon energy is depend directly on wavelength, but it can be lowered or incresed by relative motion - doopler effect, universe expansion - where energy loss goes? Because energy must be conservated.... 🙂
Maxwell was just such an astounding genius. One of the last true Renaissance Men whose genius was applied in so many different realms. Besides electromagnetism, he investigated kinetic theory and thermodynamics, the psychology of color perception (he made the first durable color photo!), and control theory (which at the time was related to governors on steam engines, which was as close as you could get to automation and cybernetics in the 1800s, lol)
He wrote poetry and played the guitar. In another age, he might have been a rock and roll star, lol
He was witheringly intelligent and socially awkward: the protonerd. lol
sometimes i feel Maxwell only studied electromagnetism was because he was tired of being surrounded by people saying “f-king magnets, how do they work?” 😅
As I understand it waves are perturbations in a medium, like ocean waves are perturbations in water. Then what are electromagnetic waves perturbations in? Is there a static electromagnetic field permeating the entire Universe in which waves can be produced by an alternating electric current? Are electric fields local and limited to an area around electrons which interact with and produce perturbations in the electromagnetic field when the electrons move?
Please do more about Electromagnetism
I will :)
Nice, sir. Thank you. Avoid hard work immediatly after taking food and drink more water to avoid flatulence. S Chitrai Kani
N Tesla
Sound Waves, In The Aether.
Light Can't Be Anything Else
But longitudinal Disturbance
In Aether Involving Alternate
Compressions & Rarefaction
Ibn Sahl arrived at Snell's law before Willebrord Snellius 3:24
Great video btw
Did he provide correct mathematical formula?
@@lukasrafajpps I think so
If I misunderstood or simply had a false view or information, I'm willing to give it up for truth
When I last checked this topic, I remember stumbling upon a paper where it is showed that ibn Sahl drew a simple diagram with a Mathematical formulation next to it.
@@cringotopia8850 I am also not quite sure of it because the law of refraction was studied in very far history by many philosophers but I believe the exact mathematical formulation was now known only approximate one.
@@cringotopia8850 But it is always hard to know exactly who should get the credit for certain discoveries.
@@lukasrafajpps I completely agree
Beside that point, you did a very great job, the video is amazing
In antenna the field intensity are at 90° what are right and easy verifiable.
But then Maxwell become with the theory that in space those field change to be at same phase in intensity .
That are against of energy conservation, since at each semi cycle both fields vanishes.
But if the both fields intensity were at 90° the energy never vanishes and mantain a constant intensity.
This have more implication relative at if the wave has a medium of propagation or not.
At 90° no necessary any medium.
At in phase of EM field you need a medium were storage the energy when the fields passed trough cero energy.
Make a video on Electrostatic levitation or the b2 stealth bomber power system
13:47 please what expression was written on the straight red lines..
it is the second part of the exuation for Ampere's law. They represent the current density that is passing through an infinitesimally small surface dS. Think of them as infinitely many red lines and each give a small contribution to the total current that is passing through the surface S.
James Clerk Maxwell proved that light is an electro-magnetic wave theoretically; Heinrich Hertz proved it experimentally.
--
please do a video on controversy of electricity ( electrical energy travel through em wave not though wire)
9:42 Jees mate! Doin' that on tv? Hahahahahaha :-)
:D
Can’t believe you don’t mention who simplified Maxwell’s equations into the 4 well known ones we have today: Oliver Heaviside, the forgotten genius!
Because that is not relevant for the history of how Maxwell foud out light is an EM wave
@@lukasrafajpps But you should mention Hertz who proved experimentally EM fields propagate. He also specifically theoretically calculated the nonlinear phase vs distance curve for propagating EM fields and correctly noted that the minima near the source corresponds to instantaneous field speed, and where the curve becomes approximately linear corresponds to the approximately speed c propagation:
*Heinrich Hertz, Electric Waves, London: Macmillan & Co., 1893, p. 151 and 152
We recently repeated Hertz experiment in the nearfield using a modern oscilloscope, and the results confirms that an EM pulse propagates in the nearfield with no propagation delay, showing the front speed, or the speed of information is instantaneous in the nearfield. This absolutely disproves the 2nd postulate in Relativity, leaving only the 2nd postulate: Galilean Relativity, where space and time are absolute. The paper has been peer reviewed and accepted for publication by the Journal IRECAP and will be publish ~Oct. See the my post for a link to this paper.
*Superluminal Maxwell Displacement Current measured in the near-field of a spherical capacitor, 2024
Wave of what? Field of What?
Don’t apologize. There’s no reason. Shorter is always better.
What about Proca and the Proca equations
Electromagnetism is a two-dimensional abstract of a three-dimensional spiral consisting of virtual photons reacting with Casimir effect energy consisting of quantum foam.
This is pretty much what I think but I think that aether/quantum foam is a repulsive force for matter which is what gravity actually is. I have been trying to wrap my brain around what is happening when light is going through a polarized glass if light is a spiral
@@patrickday4206 Yes, Bells inequality three polarizer experiment may be indicative that twisted light enters a higher dimension and then reappears in this dimension as it was originally polarized due to its momentum.
@@apollo-r5z well that could explain it and definitely seems to make sense.
Thank you thank you 🤠🤖🌍🇮🇳🇱🇷🌹🧠
I have a serious question, If light is an electromagnetic wave,why doesn't electricity or magnetism have an effect on it?
It does that's how old tube TV's work
@@patrickday4206 the CRTs use electrons, that strike a phosphorous surface and cause it to glow. It uses electrons not light.
It does effect
Light is radiation
Hello Sir are you preparing to response Dialect cause his arguments are getting more and more Problamatic day by day it is getting worser he is now attacking Einstein personally and somehow thinks he is disproving Relativity
How is white light composed and how fast was it at zero time?
Hey Plzz Make Video against Dialect if you have Time of course
It is not what you're saying.
It is only a perturbation in the energetic level of the so-called "EM" field.
There's no real isolated "photon".
It is just the specific energetic level that's disturbed.
There are those, including me, who say that there is no such thing as magnetism and hence, electromagnetism. What people have been experiencing as "magnetism" is just a result of electric charge and special relativity.
see the answer to the comment by actyon20
I have a video about it as well :)
Edgy guy alert
That's like saying there is no such thing as momentum because it's really just the result of energy and special relativity.
How does your special relativity explains emergence of magnetic field around one moving proton? Let's assume Maxwell equations are right. Please, explain. One moving proton. Not an electric current because then you will use that rubish explanation about length contraction. I think most physicists don't get what lenght contraction is about. Actual elelectric density doesn't change. You have a moving object which is longer in its rest frame but only in units. Units that are contracted comparing to original non moving frame of reference. Real density doesn't change.
N Tesla
Attempts To Explain The
Working Of The Universe
Without Aether Are Futile
👍👍
You showed Romer making his second observation of Jupiter while staring into the noontime sun. How does that work?
he simply listed start time and end time of the eclipses throught the year, calculation based on same duration of each eclipse but as the months were passing, the time difference was there and at one point it was 22 min time difference from his predicted time in the list thus he concluded when earth is opposite side, farthest from jupiter, light takes time to reach there.
@@abridgetool Yes I know how that works, I only commented on the wrong implication of the diagram. It implies that he made an impossible observation.
The speed of light is not a constant speed 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 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 Galilean Transform, 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.
*UA-cam presentation of above arguments: ua-cam.com/video/sePdJ7vSQvQ/v-deo.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
I am impressed. So many words for naught,.
@@martinstubs6203 So prove what I am saying is wrong!
@@williamwalker39 do you assume you're entitled to detailed debate of your work?
@@martinstubs6203 The data from GPS clock frequency data shows that ALL of the components of Planck's constant, in the realm or the General Theory, are unaffected by gravity. Since we know that the electron transition energy is the only component in the realm of the General Theory that changes with altitude, and none of the components of Planck's Constant are affected by gravity, this implies that the speed of light, the only untested component in regard to General Relativity, must change with altitude.
The Shapiro microwave experiment of the 1960s also implies that the speed of light changes with magnetic flux density, AKA distance from the Sun, per the implied flux density gradient of Gauss's Law for Gravity.
I.E. the speed of light must increase with altitude, in the magnetic field where the satellites are, and there can be no such thing as gravitational redshift; redshift is a function of magnetic flux density, changing with altitude and velocity wrt the Earth's magnetic field.
@@martinstubs6203 The 2nd postulate of Special Relativity is also contradicted by GPS experiments in favor of the Lorentz version of relativity.
On Constancy of the Speed of Light in the Global
Positioning System
Yang-Ho Choi
Light is a beam.
A helix.
Many beams Emirati g from the center source.
It’s not a particle it is not a wave.
It is a helix one right spiraling back to the center (south pole) and one spiraling left out from the center. (North Pole)
They create a tube of light between them.
Just like a magnets helix same thing.
Focus on magnifying the BEAM of light and you can see each one.
The South Pole is blue the North Pole is red.
A perfect balance of red and blue gives you a yellow beam In The center (the sun).
Any imbalance of frequency (in htz) will give you a different color.
I’m not going on the five color ratios here but you should get the point.
Once you can see this you realize all subatomic particles are a lie.
Just like most of the bs spewed here.
Why do you think your dna is a helix?
Like everything in the third dimension you see, it’s light.
Made of the three primary colors.
A positive polarity
A negative and a neutral.
It’s not that difficult.
I don’t get it
Where do I begin?
Ooogly Alien
This clearly proves that truth is not something even science can define. Because everything we do in physics and math are defined according to our philosophy. We create the definitions and also the axioms based on our philosophy. Just because the value is equal to the value we think that belongs to light speed shows us that we just never found the truth rather we defined it as a good or sufficient condition and made the world think we are saying the truth. I am a mathematician who follows structuralism and when I see theoretical phycists expresses their idea as truth just because it is working make me laugh. That's why these guys don't understand math and engineering even still now and thinks we are discovering math but what we do is we create system, where there exist consistent ideas that just simply works with our system. I am happy that I understood this and pursued math not the theoretical physics who constantly fights for if one's idea is either true or false, just to become a huge hero but after some decades when people will find the idea was wrong and throw him away to ashes and would also curse him for insisting people that he was true and would never take carr of his descendants will be the saddest story of his family's life but here I can just work and be happy and have time to praise my creator all the time and don't have worry about being famous because I know what I am doing is just inventing different ideas with the help of philosophy and logic and just creating ways by creating relationships with distinguishable ideas so that people can work with in some way at least using pen and paper makes me feel confident. Philosophy and logic taught me one thing that is direct proof is the only way to say something true, whenever indirect proof arises we can't say if something is either true or false then it becomes probabilistic. Human's direct proof is his senses, not the tools or subjects humans create. Have peace in mind people. When i saw the youtuber being emotionally driven towards the scientists he was talking about, I felt sad because that is how you become biased and lose the peace of your mind. Pride is not what we humans should search for rather, we should always be grateful towards our creator all the time because he is the one who can distinguish truth and false without any doubt. This distinguishable power wasn't given to us.
Does light refraction slow light down?🤔? I say yes, because the distance traveled becomes farther. Just my opinion. Like electricity, the longer the cord, the more the resistance.
Are not, Electromagnetic Waves a form of Gravity.?. Sabine Hausenfelder, never replies to my dumb questions.🥴. If light can be captured by a black hole 🕳️, then light has to be a form of gravity. What a quirk!🤪! Weak and strong forces wrestling around! 💪 😮 !.?. Any who, just my opinion. I learned myself, Autodidactic.
Enjoyed…. Thanks…
Solomon@…
AHUM’M’@…
Ibn.. Alhaitam you say it correctly
Ibn =son of
Alhaitam =one of the names of the lion
Arabs like to name their children like the strong & brave creatures
Magnetic loadstones were first invented in China not Greece 😉
Pa zašto bi ribice išle u bazene ako su svi isti, a ako idu u krug onda su uvijek različiti. :D
Ali ovi prijatelji na TV-u su sve krivo shvatili. Vidi se da su izgubljeni u vremenu i prostoru. :D
I hate the continued reference and use of field lines as it has been a great source of confusion by the less knowledged. Field intensity and dirrction are real atributes of fields but field lines exist only in our imaginations as a way to visualize field intensity and direction. That is to say, field lines do not exist in reality.
Hi! I partly agree actually. It is not possible to set up experiment that would truly detect their presence. Afterall electric and magnetic fields are just 3-dimensional cuts of a 4 dimensional quantity however electromagnetic wave can exist very far from the source. If there is no electric and magnetic field how do we explain its existence?
@@lukasrafajpps rather than field line density through a cross section to represent field strength we can map field strength like contour lines that represent altitude on a topographic map. Solid graduation lines would represent something real, the field magnitude, while dashed lines empathizing its imiginary condition would represent field direction. Solid Lines make us think of real things. A solid line for a specific magnitude may be arbitrary but it is a measurable quantity.
Weber's electrodynamics also leads to E/M waves (it's hard to derive, but possible) and explains some of simple experiments which Maxwell's theory cannot.
What is your nationality
Slovak
@@lukasrafajpps interesting. A ja som si myslel, ze si Cech :-). tu patron Juraj :-)
@@George_JA Ahoj :D odkial zo Slovenska si? :D
@@lukasrafajpps KE
@@lukasrafajpps KE
The first step is buying back your time, when you toil in a mcjob you cant do much physics or advanced mathematics
It's not a "discovery", but an assumption.
You are quite right about James Clark Maxwell is a good mathematician also follow Faraday’s observation close.
Do we know that u0 and e0 are a must have mediums to build E and B fields in vacuum?
Do we also know that the mediums must be directly coupled / attached to energize matter before E and B fields can be establish into the vacuum?
Since attached, do we agree that u0 and e0 also drag with matter and move at equal velocity?
If we agree up to this point shall we say that we should not expect fringe activities take place in Michelson’s interferometer?
Shall we also say that E & B fields and light has a common medium?
Great video for modern physics. But, modern physicists describe what they see it do with math and then act like they understand it. Maxwell's equations use a cross product, and a cross product turns numbers perpendicular for NO REASON, so everything after that is likely wrong, because the reason that they are perpendicular is skipped completely. That's a big part to skip. Even the gyroscopic effect math uses a right-hand rule to put the numbers into a cross product, and this skips WHY it is a perpendicular effect. Look at my explanation that is based in CAUSAL accelerations. Angular momentum is an accurate analogy that has NOTHING to do with CAUSE. I don't want to affect your income here, but you removing this is the same reason modern science is so lost today. It's always ONLY forward, never question it.
Cross products are the product of vectors, not numbers. The numbers you see are the components of the vector for a given coordinate system.
@@kevconn441 There is no mechanism involved in turning those vectors perpendicular, so after you use it, you completely erase the reason they have a perpendicular relationship. Regurgitating the brainwashed jargon don't make it real, no matter how accurate and consistent you think it is. Modern science can't see anything but math, no one even knows what cause even is, because it is not math. In BASIC MECHANICS you are told angular momentum is responsible for the gyroscopic effect, and this was derived FROM math. This is physics right in your face, and everyone lets math lie to them. Angular momentum is analogous to a real cause based in accelerations. Look at my latest video that explains the creation of accelerations that have nothing to do with spinning but the rate that it creates for the cause. The cause merely steers spin velocity around from a PERPENDICULAR perspective. A cross product didn't tell you that, I did. In electromagnetism, WHY they are perpendicular is not even a goal. That is just stupid.
@@jnhrtmn lol
@@jnhrtmn I watched one of your vids. Try looking at the integral form of Maxwell's equations and you wont have to worry about cross products that you clearly don't understand.
@@kevconn441 You are suggesting more math without telling me WHY they are perpendicular. Are you seriously that brainwashed? It's not about whether I can do the math. The variables in the math likely have NOTHING to do with what CAUSES IT! The variables in gravity math likely have NOTHING to do with what causes gravity, and gravity is clue #1 to the Universe. "The wheels on the bus go round and round." This stupid song describes EVERYTHING you see a bus do exactly like math, but it is NOT an understanding of what causes a bus. The wheels going round come after a cause, so they are incidental variables, just like in your math, and YOUR science will not see that. This is your entire math paradigm of science. Then, you watched my latest video describing the accelerations that CAUSE the gyroscopic effect, and you are not affected by that? My math don't need a right-hand rule first by describing the actual cause directly. I've written 5 or 6 papers over the past 20+ years that no one will publish, and all I can say is that I wish you would all wake up. 100% math is not the answer. Find the cause first and describe that. The Strong force was INVENTED to keep from having to question electric charge in the nucleus, and that's it's only job. Science sets constants and refuses to question the constant. They invent something new instead. If charge changes when crammed into a nucleus, this mechanism would certainly be the link between ALL forces, but modern science has that set already describing forces piecemeal in constant form. This is so huge, I could go on and on. You all just believe it and agree with each other, so that's a bandwagon, not a science. You don't ever question anything. Gamma Ray bursts ALL arrive here in order of wavelength, and if this were known in the year 1900, you would not have Relativity either. You can't show me dimensions 1 or 2, time is a function of thought, and Relativity adjusts these fake dimensions to create constant light for you ON YOUR PAPER ONLY. You don't actually see any of this, but you believe it.
the claim that quaternions and tensors yield the same result is not true. Example: (1) Start with a 4vector potential. No matter what you do, in the end you end up with a 3vector electric and a 3vector magnetic field. You lose one component. You have Gauge Freedom now. Which means your equations are underdetermined, so you have to introduce an auxiliary condition, called the gauge, completely at your disposal. Yes, I do know it's a Faraday Tensor, but if you keep time intact, it behaves as a 3vector, since the tensor components at hand are the i0 and 0i ones. (2) Start with a quaternion potential. Similar to the 4vector potential, the quaternion potential has 4 components as well. Now, no matter what you do to this quaternion potential, you end up with another quaternion. You still end up with a 4D solution. If you want a 3D solution, you have to forcibly declare the time component of the quaternion potential to be zero. This is artificial of course and will transform under a coordinate transformation back to a proper 4 component quaternion. So no matter what you do, you end up with another quaternion, not with a terzion. So you see, there is a difference between the tensor and the quaternion formalism. Yes, we are all taught that quaternions and vectors can be transformed one into another, just that quaternions are more complicated. But clearly there is something else at play. This is the basis of Tesla's work on Scalar Waves. These do not exists in the Helmholtz tensor electromagnetism. I have seen a CIA document "explaining" Tesla's work by assuming there is a longitudinal wave, and then transforming it back to no longitudinal wave, concluding that Tesla was wrong. The CIA guy did it all in the tensor formalism. Not realising that whatever you do with tensors, you end up in 3D. Instead, he should have done it with quaternions, but that is not being taught any more. Also, the transformations we use between tensors and quaternions is probably flawed somewhere: we do prove that tensors and quaternions yield the same results. Which is false by doing the entire thing with quaternions only. No one touches this for the past century and more. Except Tesla, who was cut off completely. Tunguska in 1908 was probably his doing... which means there is something to it. He probably created standing electrowaves between Earth and the Ionosphere: probably an oscillating circle, with ionosphere and Earth acting as conducting plates, the lightning path being zig-zag, hence like a solenoid connecting Ionosphere and Earth, with current running from low to a lot and back to low, bouncing between Earth and Ionosphere "plates", and there you have it. I have also seen a more complicated attempts at explaining what Tesla wanted to do with Earth and Ionosphere. But it doesn't get any simpler than the oscillating circuit I guess. So he was cut off probably for this. It is free energy for everyone. Finally, all our solutions and equations depend on the mathematics we have invented so far. General Relativity would be impossible without Riemann spaces. Quantum theory without Hilbert spaces and Fourier transforms. And so on. We blindly believe we have all mathematics there is. Which is not true. We need new mathematical tools next. Oh, and your electric field video that cannot reach the conclusion: yes, there is the problem with the tensor description of electromagnetism. Tensors don't work well with vector products. Tensors do not vanish under coordinate transformation, ever. There are no ghosts with tensors. And yet, there are coordinate systems where any vector product vanishes: just stop the rotation. And magnetism comes from the vector product... Laterz! Keep posting please!
Maxwell unified electricity and magnetism but his equations do not describe light. Einstein borrowed speed of light from Maxwell but he couldn't unify electromagnetism with gravity, which suggests you can't just borrow speed of light from electromagnetism and apply it to light.
Maxwells equations among other applications also describe electomagnetic waves. And these match behaviour of light in many ways: radiation pressure, energy flow, speed of propagation, polarisation behaviour, interference patterns, diffraction, refraction.
Sure it's not the full picture, quantum view is needed to explain blackbody radiation, photoelectric effect, spin.
Ripples of massless fields propagate with speed of light in theory of relativity. EM waves are well described in relativity theory, both classical and quantum views. The fact that gravity hasn't been meaningfully quantised is not saying much about lack of understanding of light. Light is demonstrably identifiable with electromagnetic waves, of course Maxwell's equations are useful for describing light
How do we know it is a wave and not a spiral a spiral view from the side looks like a wave?
@@whataboutthis10 Light definitely obeys causality but causality and speed of light are two different concepts. Causality suggests two way speed of light is constant while Einstein's speed of light suggest one way speed of light is constant. One way speed of light was never measured so we know for certain only constancy of two way speed of light.
Totally wrong.
@@chadkline4268 Electromagnetism is compatible with special relativity but it is not compatible with general relativity. That is why Einstein's unified field theory failed.
what!? Light is an Electro-Magnetic Wave ?! I didn't know that. Nobody gave me the memo
I am an PhD physicist and the analysis presented in this video is wrong! EM fields are created by sources and they cannot be set to zero when sources are present. Setting the sources to zero is only valid at infinite distance from the source which does not exist in this universe. Including the source terms yields a wave equation equal to a source term and solving this inhomogeneous PDE is much more difficult, but it has been done by many researchers. Extracting the phase vs distance relation for an oscillating source and applying phase speed and group speed operators (inversely proportional to the slope of the curve), shows that the speed of the fields are instantaneous in the nearfield and reduces to about speed c after propagating 1 wavelength from the source. As they continue to propagate, the speed continues to get closer to speed c, but never becomes exactly speed c, even at astronautical distance from the source, confirming my initial statement. So the speed of light is not a constant and this disproves the 2nd postulate of Relativity, and what remains is only the 1st postulate: Galilean Relativity, where time and space are absolute and not flexible as Relativity suggests. So Relativity is wrong, and this also disproves GR which is based on it, and it has consequences for all of modern physics, see my comment below. The last paper linked in my comment below shows a recent experiment where an EM pulse propagated in a lab without any observed propagation delay. This shows that the front speed, or the speed of information is instantaneous in the nearfield, and absolutely disproves Relativity. This paper has been peer reviewed and will be published ~October in the EM Journal IRECAP.
Dr. William Walker, PhD Physics ETH Zurich, 1997
Sure bud
@@whataboutthis10 Prove what I have said is wrong.
@@williamwalker39occam's razor bud, if you've proven Einstein wrong, why aren't you famous?
Nope. Light is not an em wave.
Light is photons.
that is for another discussion but photons are quanta of EM wave if you will
@@lukasrafajpps
Nope.
Radio & radar are em waves.
@@atheistaetherist2747 no. those are photons too. and waves at the same time
@@George_JA
Nope.
Photons emit photaenos, which have a helical emission, which gives a pseudo-faux-quasi-wavelike signal.
The statement was never "light = wave", the statement is that "light can be seen as a wave, and the calculations to prove it are just tools", to make it easier to calculate as you may have wondered. I don't really like the quantum field theory but they use the same logic applied to bosons as well. They are not literally waves, but they behave almost the same. Yeah I still don't like it very much.
It is not..
It's don't
How can mature people say such nonsense? Fairy tales for children.
The information is definitely valuable, but what's the point of making these videos with such a thick English accent spoken at .78 speed? There are a million videos on the same topic out there already with young smiling and ambitious science men, this piece of content hardly sheds light on anything new or in a novel manner.
Link the videos then. I have seen my fair share and I have yet to see them talk about the history
🤦♀️
You're calling that an English accent? Sounds Czechian to me.
ight can travel through water for 100 years, but when it goes out into the air, the speed increases. How is it possible without ether.
There is a great 3blue 1brown video explaining this phenomenon I think it’s in his optics puzzles series. In short the light, though of as a sin wave traveled at speed c when it enters a medium the electromagnetic waves cause the particles of the medium to oscillate creating their own electromagnetic field which interferes deconstructive the resulting sine wave of the initial electromagnetic field is the same but with an incredibly small negative phase shift, this happens for every particle in the medium. The resulting sine wave has a shorter period and to maintain its frequency it slows down. when it exits the medium it’s still the same sine wave just with a slightly shifted phase
Maxvell has written 20 Statements but Einstein and Company has reduce on a 4.
Heaviside reduced it to 4 when Einstein was around 5 years old.
Light never travels slower than c. The effective velocity in a medium is due to interference of the incident wave and the waves emitted by the medium. See group velocity and phase velocity.
When the light exits the medium there is no more waves emitted from the medium and the interference stops, so the phase velocity and group velocity are equal.
14:40 I have the same problem 😂
:D
He probably cried out of satisfaction 😂😅
Excellent