Hi, small error. Between 17:50 to 18:15 , I think the "q" on the outside of the main brackets was not properly distributed over all the terms inside the brackets when multiplying out.
Hi, thank you very much for this awesome lecture tutorial. It was excellent and superbly delivered. Would really appreciate so much if you can suggest a textbook on STR at the same level of difficulty as your video to supplement understanding further. Is there a textbook that also shows clearly step-by-step the non-invariance of Maxwell's Equations as you have shown here? Thank you.
In the nearfield, the speed of light is infinity (see my post at the top of the comments) So inserting c=infinity into the argument presented in this video shows that Maxwells equations are invariant under Galilean transformations in the nearfield, where the speed of light is infinite.
2:13 Galilean Transformations 5:07 Newton's Laws are invariant under Galilean Transformations 7:40 Maxwell''s Equations 14:03 Maxwell's Equations are NOT invariant under GT (Proof) 24:35 Final Thoughts
Search for the following paper that proves Maxwell equations are invariant under Gailiean transformation: A Summary of "Galilean non-invariance of Maxwell equations revisited" by Hrvoje Dodig
This is bloody amazing. If all university lectures preceeded themselves with an explanation like yours, with an explanation of what we are trying to do and the meaning of things, things would make a hell of a lot more sense.
Most books on special relativity, even the very best ones, give only a qualitative description of everything you have just said. Not only do you give a quantitative exegesis, you do so without leaving anything out! A complete explanation that totally satisfies ! You deserve the highest of commendation possible !
All thanks to your videos, I passed a course on Special relativity and Reimann Geometry, in Applied Mathematics. Your simple and systematic approach to teaching the subject was of great help to my understanding. Keep up the good work
I have to admit, it is not always easy to understand lectures of professors with Hindi accent, but I would like to say that I appreciate the effort you took on diction and pacing. Made it very comfortable to listen to, which is great for learning. Also your explanations are awesomely clear and easy to follow, without skipping anything important. I could follow the lecture very well, even though it is the first time I'm looking at this topic of the inconsistency of Maxwell equations and Galilean transformations. The algorithm did a great job, because I was looking exactly for this lecture and yours was the first thing to come up and it is well deserved. Thanks for the great content.
Yeah this dude's a rare breed among the vast space of Indian educators on UA-cam. Most are rushed and unhelpful and merely outline the bare minimum, but this channel actually approaches things with a good amount of passion and background.
This work is really a great opportunity to physics lovers, to polish/nurture etc.the subject. Sincere thanks to u and If all ends meet to justice to this chain to carry forward then u have option here!
Amazing derivation of the wave equation for E-M waves! MIT lecturers took board space after board space to do it in only one dimension! I am really impressed!
you have really great way of describing difficult concepts, I benefited a lot from your video .. Can you do one more video to show that magnetic field is a relativistic effect from moving reference frame. So that electricity and magnetism are two sides of the same coin.
I suggest checking Shankar's Yale physics 201 lectures. More precisely, his second lecture on EM waves towards the end. The question you asked is discussed there. You can also consult David Griffiths book on EM.
Sir, you really talented teacher among the others teacher . Everyday I am looking for best teacher for b.sec physics on you tube but I never find teacher like you. You are really a great master and as well as a great physicist. Sir you long live. Jai baharat jai India. 🙏🙏🙏🙏🙏🙏❤❤❤❤❤
I have become a fan of your teaching style.Your videos give an opportunity to revisit what I have learnt during my college days. Would love to see you teach mathematical physics as well.
@@FortheLoveofPhysics In the nearfield, the speed of light is infinity (see my post at the top of these comments) So inserting c=infinity into the argument presented in this video shows that Maxwells equations are invariant under Galilean transformations in the nearfield, where the speed of light is infinite.
In the nearfield, the speed of light is infinity (see below) So inserting c=infinity into the argument presented in this video shows that Maxwells equations are invariant under Galilean transformations in the nearfield, where the speed of light is infinite.
Thank you giving a great understanding of how things worked in reality. This enhances my curiosity in Physics. Thank you for your hardwork and you explain really in a extremely good manner.
Einstein's theory of Special Relativity is based on 2 premises 1) Galilean Relativity: the laws of physics are the same in all inertial frames of reference 2) the speed of light is the same in all inertial frames of reference. I claim that the 2nd premise is already included in the 1st premise. This is because the speed of light c is a law of physics, and according to the 1st premise it must be the same in all inertial frames of reference. Another way of stating the 1st postulate, is that there is no experiment that can be done to determine the speed of an inertial moving body. So the 2nd postulate must be included in the 1st postulate, otherwise one could do an experiment based on the speed of light to determine the velocity of a moving inertial observer (like the Michelson Morley experiment). The 1st postulate predicts the Michelson Morley experimental outcome, and it can not measure the effects of the Ether! So if the 2 premises of Special Relativity are just the premise of Galilean Relativity, then according to logic, it is impossible to get different transformations (Lorentz transformations) than one gets for Galilean Relativity (Galilean transformations). Consequently Galilean Relativity must be the correct theory of Relativity. So if the effects of Relativity are observed in experiments, then the effects of Relativity must be an optical illusion. Another outcome of this argument is that Galilean Relativity assumes the speed of light is the same in all inertial frames of reference, which includes the instantaneous nearfield and speed of light farfield. In other words Maxwells equations, which predicts both, is invariant under Galilean transformations.
@@ashutosh10110Search for the following paper that proves Maxwell equations are invariant under Gailiean transformation: A Summary of "Galilean non-invariance of Maxwell equations revisited" by Hrvoje Dodig
Love you sir, great explain everything make more videos 🤩 I am fist year engineering physics student pls sir launch course for gate physics it great help
Very great video , but I am not sure about Newton's law implying there is no absolute reference frame ; it is Galileo who suggest this , Newton actually assumes space( and time ) is absolute without relate to anything ; meaning there actually exists one absolute reference frame, at least Newton assumes this . (Even though it seems to contradict with Galileo's relativity , but I guess he assumes it to accept that space exists even though there was no object in it . )
Well done, I so much enjoyed most of your videos in most of the topics you explained. I would want you to do me a favour by making videos on electromagnetism and problems in respects to this concept. I would be very glad if you do this for me and for other Physics scholars. Thanks!
Sir, your videos are amazing, can you please also post the DUAL VECTORS? I have exam in ten days, would be very grateful! I cannot understand anyone who is describing it here, I really need your explanations. Thanks in advance!
One of the most difficult unit in physics when i was doing B.SC was statistical thermodynamics...I hope i will see a playlist on that unit in future by you sir...
You write E=E(x,t) along the y axis, but if "E" is a function of x and t then the electric field movies along the x axis or time axis instead of y axis.similarly for the magnetic field . I get confused here.
me bhi einstein ne jo theory diya h usme kam karna chahta hu ,12th ke bad mujhe kya krna chahiye ,astrophysicist bnna sahi hoga na ,astrophysicist bnne k liye 12 th ke bad kaumsa course kru
do any physicists ever have an urge to ask what transformation makes maxwell's eq invariant. it was the Voigt who tried 1st, and came with voigt transformation which was similar to that of lorentz but backward. experts said voigt was still correct in his own right or something. but i dont have math skills to follow the proof, maybe someone can show me easy way.
We have seen the formula so many times, but never seen it being applied to real world problem with real numbers, albeit hypothetical. Do you have an example problem, that we can apply to see if time dilation and length contraction does do its intended purpose, i.e. keeping the speed of light constant regardless of if you are a moving observer or a stationary one. Using some real numbers, like v = 0.6c, and find out if time dilation and length contraction works. More fun would be, what if v = -0.6c, opposite direction of the light travel?
The atomic clocks of Global positioning system satellites are faster than that of on earth ,so they have to be calibrated to provide correct information.
@@doctorpanigrahi9975 Aromic clock in the satellite needs to be reset twice a day due to shift in its location, speed. No need for relativity correction.
Momentum (as a quantity) is not invariant. This is because momentum is mass times velocity. N velocity can be different in different frames of reference.
Sir, i'm not getting hold of the thing that the progagation medium for em waves is vacuum.and what's ether then?It's also a progapgating medium😅..Pls clr my doubt.I'm a bit baffled.
Traditionally, waves travel through some (material) medium. So, when em waves were discovered, it was assumed that there must be some medium (namely ether) that em waves propagate through. However, after relativity, the idea of ether has been abandoned. It was an idea which sounded nice a century ago, but for complete clarity, ether does not exist. There is NO such thing as ether. Em waves move through vacuum. We discuss ether only to give (historical) context to the development of these ideas.
It is outrageous and disgusting to see how the Relativity Sect fans manipulate arguments to try to validate their delusional relativistic ideas. It is clear that velocity is not the same for all inertial frames of reference; on the contrary, acceleration is invariant. So, some things we calculate are relative, and others are invariants. However, members of the relativity Sect argue that the fact that the Force is invariant means that there is no absolute frame of reference. What a conclusion!!! Pure genius!!! Hey, you, yes you!!!, velocity is not invariant, so in the same way that you dictatorially state that because the Force is invariant, that means no absolute frame, then by Royal decree, I state that because velocity is relative, there is undoubtedly an absolute frame of reference!!!. My Gosh. I can't believe this. I already explained the huge Relativity Hoax on my -->UA-camChannel. No need to say more; it is really disgusting to see this kind of video and how evil elites have shamefully imposed this trash in our educational system to manipulate, control, and exploit people.
Michelson Morley Experiment ► ua-cam.com/video/FQGGSNIWm3o/v-deo.html
Hi, small error.
Between 17:50 to 18:15 , I think the "q" on the outside of the main brackets was not properly distributed over all the terms inside the brackets when multiplying out.
Hi, thank you very much for this awesome lecture tutorial. It was excellent and superbly delivered.
Would really appreciate so much if you can suggest a textbook on STR at the same level of difficulty as your video to supplement understanding further. Is there a textbook that also shows clearly step-by-step the non-invariance of Maxwell's Equations as you have shown here?
Thank you.
In the nearfield, the speed of light is infinity (see my post at the top of the comments) So inserting c=infinity into the argument presented in this video shows that Maxwells equations are invariant under Galilean transformations in the nearfield, where the speed of light is infinite.
2:13 Galilean Transformations
5:07 Newton's Laws are invariant under Galilean Transformations
7:40 Maxwell''s Equations
14:03 Maxwell's Equations are NOT invariant under GT (Proof)
24:35 Final Thoughts
Hey I want to talk with you sir who we can
The general D'Alembert wave equation is not invariant under GT, why just matter when we talk about Maxwell Equations and not with material waves?
You wrote that divergence of electric field is 0
Search for the following paper that proves Maxwell equations are invariant under Gailiean transformation:
A Summary of "Galilean non-invariance of Maxwell equations revisited" by Hrvoje Dodig
Awesome work going into the details of how Newton's laws and Galilean Transforms work together.
You both are extremely hard working and making my love affair with Einsteing much much more ! Kudos and what great channels !
This is bloody amazing. If all university lectures preceeded themselves with an explanation like yours, with an explanation of what we are trying to do and the meaning of things, things would make a hell of a lot more sense.
Noted ( i am a professor in govt state college)
Most books on special relativity, even the very best ones, give only a qualitative description of everything you have just said. Not only do you give a quantitative exegesis, you do so without leaving anything out! A complete explanation that totally satisfies ! You deserve the highest of commendation possible !
All thanks to your videos, I passed a course on Special relativity and Reimann Geometry, in Applied Mathematics. Your simple and systematic approach to teaching the subject was of great help to my understanding. Keep up the good work
an under-subscribed channel
Other Physics lecturers must watch this young man to see how Physics lectures should be taken. Great work.
I have to admit, it is not always easy to understand lectures of professors with Hindi accent, but I would like to say that I appreciate the effort you took on diction and pacing. Made it very comfortable to listen to, which is great for learning. Also your explanations are awesomely clear and easy to follow, without skipping anything important. I could follow the lecture very well, even though it is the first time I'm looking at this topic of the inconsistency of Maxwell equations and Galilean transformations.
The algorithm did a great job, because I was looking exactly for this lecture and yours was the first thing to come up and it is well deserved.
Thanks for the great content.
Yeah this dude's a rare breed among the vast space of Indian educators on UA-cam. Most are rushed and unhelpful and merely outline the bare minimum, but this channel actually approaches things with a good amount of passion and background.
This work is really a great opportunity to physics lovers, to polish/nurture etc.the subject.
Sincere thanks to u and If all ends meet to justice to this chain to carry forward then u have option here!
Lovely explanation...😘. This channel is true for the lover of physics.. 😘
This was outstanding. Thank you. Brought back wonderful memories of my early days of physics as a freshman at Caltech in 1969. Wonderful!!!!
A caltech legacy alum!?
Damn sir!
Well explainaion..your way of explainaion are excellent sir..ji
Amazing derivation of the wave equation for E-M waves! MIT lecturers took board space after board space to do it in only one dimension! I am really impressed!
Much obliged sir ❤❤❤
At 18:00 how B becames B'
Thanks!
Great lecture explaining a very complex subject in a simple, cleat way. Bravo
Fantastic explanation !!
After wandering through several different videos on relativity i finally found the one that clearly explained the need of the ether concept!
you have really great way of describing difficult concepts, I benefited a lot from your video ..
Can you do one more video to show that magnetic field is a relativistic effect from moving reference frame. So that electricity and magnetism are two sides of the same coin.
I suggest checking Shankar's Yale physics 201 lectures. More precisely, his second lecture on EM waves towards the end. The question you asked is discussed there. You can also consult David Griffiths book on EM.
Sir, you really talented teacher among the others teacher . Everyday I am looking for best teacher for b.sec physics on you tube but I never find teacher like you. You are really a great master and as well as a great physicist. Sir you long live. Jai baharat jai India. 🙏🙏🙏🙏🙏🙏❤❤❤❤❤
I have become a fan of your teaching style.Your videos give an opportunity to revisit what I have learnt during my college days.
Would love to see you teach mathematical physics as well.
Sir according to me ur teaching n ur way teaching both r so unique n very best.
I would like 2 say that ur the best sir
👍Great!
Thank you so much Shubham :)
@@FortheLoveofPhysics In the nearfield, the speed of light is infinity (see my post at the top of these comments) So inserting c=infinity into the argument presented in this video shows that Maxwells equations are invariant under Galilean transformations in the nearfield, where the speed of light is infinite.
Beautifully taught! Everything is perfect.
again a flawless lecture...to the point and very well presented ..for me you are the best teacher
In the nearfield, the speed of light is infinity (see below) So inserting c=infinity into the argument presented in this video shows that Maxwells equations are invariant under Galilean transformations in the nearfield, where the speed of light is infinite.
Brilliant explanation! Thank you so much.
😢😢no word to thank this person.i would love to give credit of my success in physics to this gentleman
Clear and upto the point, just loved it 😍
Thank you giving a great understanding of how things worked in reality. This enhances my curiosity in Physics. Thank you for your hardwork and you explain really in a extremely good manner.
You are a great teacher! Thank you for your videos!
Awesome explanation for physics lovers...
You are physics itself sir. i love the clear explanations
At 18:00 how B becames B'
Clear explanation eventhough it uses vector calculus. After all it's awesome
Sir if you don't mind can you explain 17:50... The comparison and how we get B=B'
I think the "q" on the outside of the main brackets was not properly distributed when multiplying out.
This video was very helpful. Thank you very much!
Nicely done. That wasn't easy. Tricky thing to explain.
Sir please upload video on general relativity plz
7:33 why you did not multiply d/dt with -v?
Same question bro. Did you find any logical explanation to it?
Sir please bring the general theory of relativity as soon as possible.
A lot of hard work is put in this video, outstanding performance with a taste of simplicity...... enjoyed learning.👏👏
Sir, want just to thank you for your excellent presentation on SR...thank you so much...
oh my god… you’re just amazing 😂❤
just splendid🔥 ..tysm Sr for this Amazing explanation ❤️
Great explanation...!!
Nice one.
Einstein's theory of Special Relativity is based on 2 premises 1) Galilean Relativity: the laws of physics are the same in all inertial frames of reference 2) the speed of light is the same in all inertial frames of reference. I claim that the 2nd premise is already included in the 1st premise. This is because the speed of light c is a law of physics, and according to the 1st premise it must be the same in all inertial frames of reference. Another way of stating the 1st postulate, is that there is no experiment that can be done to determine the speed of an inertial moving body. So the 2nd postulate must be included in the 1st postulate, otherwise one could do an experiment based on the speed of light to determine the velocity of a moving inertial observer (like the Michelson Morley experiment). The 1st postulate predicts the Michelson Morley experimental outcome, and it can not measure the effects of the Ether! So if the 2 premises of Special Relativity are just the premise of Galilean Relativity, then according to logic, it is impossible to get different transformations (Lorentz transformations) than one gets for Galilean Relativity (Galilean transformations). Consequently Galilean Relativity must be the correct theory of Relativity. So if the effects of Relativity are observed in experiments, then the effects of Relativity must be an optical illusion.
Another outcome of this argument is that Galilean Relativity assumes the speed of light is the same in all inertial frames of reference, which includes the instantaneous nearfield and speed of light farfield. In other words Maxwells equations, which predicts both, is invariant under Galilean transformations.
At 18:00 how B becames B'
@@ashutosh10110Search for the following paper that proves Maxwell equations are invariant under Gailiean transformation:
A Summary of "Galilean non-invariance of Maxwell equations revisited" by Hrvoje Dodig
Sir love you from Bangladesh. It's really helping us a lot. Please continue to make such amazing videos.
At 18:00 how B becames B'
M glad I show your channel... Thank u so much for this explanation ❤
Love you sir, great explain everything make more videos 🤩
I am fist year engineering physics student pls sir launch course for gate physics it great help
Sir, your lectures are amazing but please create the playlist of your vedios....to help us find the vedios separately and easily
Will do
Ok sir..thanks
Very great video , but I am not sure about Newton's law implying there is no absolute reference frame ; it is Galileo who suggest this , Newton actually assumes space( and time ) is absolute without relate to anything ; meaning there actually exists one absolute reference frame, at least Newton assumes this . (Even though it seems to contradict with Galileo's relativity , but I guess he assumes it to accept that space exists even though there was no object in it . )
Deserve more subscriber
This is what I wanted thank you
Sir, can you make a separate lecture on General relativity
Thank you my fellow human
Great explaining power sir....
Dear Sir,
When you will made vedios on GTR with each and every detail. Have you any further plans for it or not?
thank you so much sir that helped me beside you are really good at explaning
Well done, I so much enjoyed most of your videos in most of the topics you explained. I would want you to do me a favour by making videos on electromagnetism and problems in respects to this concept. I would be very glad if you do this for me and for other Physics scholars.
Thanks!
That's what I was looking for, ty :)
+Luffy Houssam You're welcome!
Flawless lecture lots of love dear
absolute FOR kia hota ha?
Sir, your videos are amazing, can you please also post the DUAL VECTORS? I have exam in ten days, would be very grateful! I cannot understand anyone who is describing it here, I really need your explanations. Thanks in advance!
superb
sir at 10:00 you have written Del.E=0 but its not true its=p/epsilon
plz answer
Its true in vacuum where there are no charges, so p=0
Thankyou sir
Sir next topic btaiye
Super sir...
you are doing great work sir
hats off
Thanks :)
Sir you are doing a great job. Your understanding of physics is deep and very clear. Please make a series on general relativity also :) :)
Sir I want to learn about twin paradox in special theory of relativity
Thank u very much sir,
l eagerly wait of general relativity field equations derivation from u.
Sir i am inspired by you and i want to be like you🙏🙏
Wow lots of love
18:00 The "q" is missing in some of the terms in the equation.
At 18:00 how B becames B'
Amazing explanation ☺☺☺☺
One of the most difficult unit in physics when i was doing B.SC was statistical thermodynamics...I hope i will see a playlist on that unit in future by you sir...
Sir when u give general theory of relativity
Nice video sir
😊👍
+Sonal Thank you..
sir plz tell me how to understand theory of realtivity from origin
Sir plzzz make a series of quantum physics plzz sir
You write E=E(x,t) along the y axis, but if "E" is a function of x and t then the electric field movies along the x axis or time axis instead of y axis.similarly for the magnetic field .
I get confused here.
R these videos apt for Bsc? or its based for engeenering syllabus
Brilliant
At 18:00 how B becames B'
Sir how law of angular momentum is invariant in galalian transformation
me bhi einstein ne jo theory diya h usme kam karna chahta hu ,12th ke bad mujhe kya krna chahiye ,astrophysicist bnna sahi hoga na ,astrophysicist bnne k liye 12 th ke bad kaumsa course kru
To go into astrophysics you need to do graduation in Physics. So a BSc Hons in Physics of a 5 yr Msc from an IIT are good options
At,17:58 can anyone explain how the comparison results in such results?
I think the "q" on the outside of the main brackets was not properly distributed when multiplying out.
Comparison ????? How you have done
Time is not absolute if go more faster to the nearly speed of light ,the time is slower for you
do any physicists ever have an urge to ask what transformation makes maxwell's eq invariant. it was the Voigt who tried 1st, and came with voigt transformation which was similar to that of lorentz but backward. experts said voigt was still correct in his own right or something. but i dont have math skills to follow the proof, maybe someone can show me easy way.
We have seen the formula so many times, but never seen it being applied to real world problem with real numbers, albeit hypothetical.
Do you have an example problem, that we can apply to see if time dilation and length contraction does do its intended purpose, i.e. keeping the speed of light constant regardless of if you are a moving observer or a stationary one.
Using some real numbers, like v = 0.6c, and find out if time dilation and length contraction works.
More fun would be, what if v = -0.6c, opposite direction of the light travel?
The atomic clocks of Global positioning system satellites are faster than that of on earth ,so they have to be calibrated to provide correct information.
@@doctorpanigrahi9975 Aromic clock in the satellite needs to be reset twice a day due to shift in its location, speed. No need for relativity correction.
Can you please tell me reference books
I can't myself keep thinking where the fuck I was for three years
My apologise. Actually I didn’t understand the steps :q(E-VqB)=q(E'-Vq'B') =>qE-VqB=qE'-VqB'+VB'
Shouldn't q also be multipled to vqB? 18:09
That's right! I think the "q" on the outside of the main brackets was not properly distributed when multiplying out.
Gem❤❤😊😊
Sir plz rply...
Whether the momentum remains invorent under galilean transformation?
Plz rply tomorrow is my exam😭😭
Momentum (as a quantity) is not invariant. This is because momentum is mass times velocity. N velocity can be different in different frames of reference.
But sir my frnd gave me something proof of .."show that the linear momentum is invariant under galilean transformation?
Sir, i'm not getting hold of the thing that the progagation medium for em waves is vacuum.and what's ether then?It's also a progapgating medium😅..Pls clr my doubt.I'm a bit baffled.
Traditionally, waves travel through some (material) medium. So, when em waves were discovered, it was assumed that there must be some medium (namely ether) that em waves propagate through. However, after relativity, the idea of ether has been abandoned. It was an idea which sounded nice a century ago, but for complete clarity, ether does not exist. There is NO such thing as ether. Em waves move through vacuum. We discuss ether only to give (historical) context to the development of these ideas.
Thanks a lot sir!!
At 18:00 how B becames B'
I was also left hanging there
It is outrageous and disgusting to see how the Relativity Sect fans manipulate arguments to try to validate their delusional relativistic ideas. It is clear that velocity is not the same for all inertial frames of reference; on the contrary, acceleration is invariant. So, some things we calculate are relative, and others are invariants. However, members of the relativity Sect argue that the fact that the Force is invariant means that there is no absolute frame of reference. What a conclusion!!! Pure genius!!! Hey, you, yes you!!!, velocity is not invariant, so in the same way that you dictatorially state that because the Force is invariant, that means no absolute frame, then by Royal decree, I state that because velocity is relative, there is undoubtedly an absolute frame of reference!!!. My Gosh. I can't believe this. I already explained the huge Relativity Hoax on my -->UA-camChannel. No need to say more; it is really disgusting to see this kind of video and how evil elites have shamefully imposed this trash in our educational system to manipulate, control, and exploit people.
At 18:00 how B becames B'
for the algorithm :)