@Crime Master gogo No because the definition we use is that the direction of current is where the positive charge travels. It means that if electrons travel a certain distance the current is gonna be in the opposite direction but if protons travel in a certain direction the current is in the direction of the protons. Since the current in both frames is the same, then the magnetic field is the same. This is a commonly known and the confusing fact that when you have + and - on the battery, it means that + is a positively charged deck and - is a negatively charged deck and if you connect them with a wire the electrons from - will travel to + but we say the current is from + to -.
@Crime Master gogo Sorry it took so long to reply. The direction of the magnetic field was meant to be as you say. It is just a weird perspective that sometimes it appears other way around. I even made mistake in 10:50 since it should have different orientation there but I realized it too late :D
Here's the problem with the contracting protons theory, you have to say "wire of infinite length", which obviously dos not exist. What would happen in the real world, where wires have finite length? If the protons and the distances between them contracted then the wire itself would also contract, because it is also in the same relative motion as the protons, and if the wire contracted then the spaces between the electrons would also contract, because if they didn't then it would be the same as the electrons suddenly spreading apart from each other just because a particle was moving outside the wire, and if they spread apart then fewer electrons could fit inside the wire, so where would the extra ones go? This is how we know that length contraction is pure fantasy.
@@VortekStarling If you want to solve it for a finite wire you have to use the relativity of simultaneity as it is the actual cause of the length contraction. I would need to create animation to explain this but maybe I will when I record the video about what the length contraction really is.
@@lukasrafajpps Okay, but also record a video about a square moving vehicle with both a horizontal light beam going from the lower left corner to the lower right corner and a diagonal beam going from the upper left corner to the same lower right corner. You'll find that it's impossible to make both beams work using the same desynchronization of the clocks at the back and front of the square. Why? Because the diagonal beam is only moving toward the front of the square at half the speed of the horizontal beam, because its velocity is split half horizontal and half vertical, because its on a 45 degree angle. So it moves forward at half the velocity and therefore requires a different desynchronization, it breaks special relativity and proves it is flawed.
Yes it is kinda clickbait but not entirely because at that time there were only galilean transforms and therefore Maxwell's equations could not explain this. This means that at that time people would say there is something odd about maxwell's equations. So this title can be taken as from historical point of view.
However, magnets DO exist - rocks from Magnesia or Magnetic Island are magnets with a North & South Pole. The Force of Attraction (Repulsion) between protons & electrons is extremely strong . Even if velocity v of proton is relatively small so that contraction of the wire is quite small, the resultant Force is still significant. If we stood next to someone at arm’s length, & we had 1% more electrons, then the Force of Repulsion would equal the ‘weight’ of the entire Earth.
@@dnickaroo3574 "1% more electrons" is a boatload of electrons ... on the order of 10^27. Add in the fact that the electromagnetic force is about 10^37 times stronger than gravity, and ... well, let's hope you don't suddenly acquire such a charge.
One of the best explanation of the Magnetic Force being a relativistic effect of the Electric field. And finally introducing the electric 4-Vector ! (which of course would deserve some more in-depth considering)
electric monopole connected to 4 dimension. Magnetic dipole do not connected to 4 dimension and appears in 3D in the moment when '+' and '-' electric monopoles ,2 halves of magnetic dipole, in 4 dimension compose magnetic dipole and annihilate themselves.
When created in 4D magnetic dipole can live long in 3D. It can be broken if begins to move. In that case some thing encountered and break it to peaces , again in "+" and "-' electric monopoles wich immediately connect themselves to 4D and process repeat. time elapsed is proportional to distance between poles. Constant frequency of electromagnetic wave is evidence then vacuum is a crystal and magnetic dipole breaks when encounter units of crystal .
It is not a relativistic effect of the electric field though. The 4-vector literally has magnetic field components. this is just a stupid explanation that doesn't really explain anything, and this seems to be a common trend in physics; take something and explain it within something wrong, but claim it is true. A single moving charge causes a magnetic field, and there is no 'difference in positive and negative' to cause an 'electric field that looks like a magnetic field.' The fact you can transform to a frame of which a magnetic does not exist doesn't mean the magnetic field is a relativistic effect of the electric field
Magnetic field is not a relativistic effect of the electric field. Light is a self-propagating electromagnetic wave, with magnetic and electric field components orthogonal to one another. There is no frame you can transform into that removes the magnetic field. If you could do this, you'd be in a frame where light has a speed of 0. So, SR directly proves that magnetic fields are not a relativistic effect. Ironic, no?
The purpose of science is not solely to provide a complete and definitive explanation of a phenomenon. It is often impossible to fully explain something, as there are always deeper layers that unexplained. Instead, the primary goals of science are to offer predictions and to apply the effects discovered.
3:15 - This definitely holds when the wire is not charged and current is not flowing, because we won't observe external electric field. Comparing to it, at 7:56 length contraction will produce external (repulsive) electric field (on the moving test particle). By the symmetry, at 7:45 the stationary observer should observe length contraction of moving electron chain, right? Length contraction should produce excess negative charge density on the wire, so we should observe measurable external electric field (i.e. stationary test particle should be attracted towards the wire). But we do not observe measurable electric field, correct? What am I missing?
My assumptions were that the wire is neutral already with the current inside. You can make assumptions as you like when you want to demonstrate some physical phenomena. If I assumed the wire being neutral without current, then after I turn ON the current then the wire becomes charged as you said. In labolatory though, after you switch ON the current the wire would neutralize itself relative to the frame in which the mean velocity of nearby charges is zero. Therefore it the wire in a labolatory without current is neutral, when you switch ON the current the charge of the wire spike up and then decay to zero.
@@lukasrafajpps (What you describe at the end is transient, but until now we only have had comparisons between steady states, so transients should be irrelevant to this problem.) The sentence *"the wire would neutralize itself relative to the frame in which the mean velocity of nearby charges is zero"* could be an explanation, but I don't understand what _"mean velocity of nearby charges is zero"_ is suppose to mean. _Mean velocity_ from whose perspective (relative to what)?
Try to read the paper written by Stephan J. G. Gift, that's " Light speed invariance is a remarkable illusion". This imply that the ether theory might be true and in this way, since the Maxwell's equations aren't based on this particular reference of frame, what can be done? We know for sure that in some ways these equations works so there should be a way to explain this and we need to go back to the basis.
A mechanical elites was asked what vacuum means. In his reply - vacuum is empty of matter. An electrical engineer was given the same question - he replies, vacuum is empty of matter but Aether. Aether is a fluid that has no physical but electrical property, with a permittivity measuring 8.8541817128*10-12 Farad per meter. Therefore Aether is a component necessary to enable e field and displacement charge q into the vacuum-Aether for light propagation inside. Furthermore, Aether, a fluid, always attaches to matter, from subatomic particles to atoms to molecules to ions to solid to liquid to gas and to plasma. When gas, liquid, solid moves Aether drag along with it, also together with the MMX apparatus. On the other hand, from a macrocosm scale, Aether as a fluid continue and remotely drag with everything but drift at an averages velocity defined by the nearest and most dominant body in the 3D space. With that shall we rewrite SR.
Hi, thank you for your explanation. What I do not understand is what will happen to stationary charge near current carrying wire? Will it feel any force or will it remain stationary?
Hi. Well, this really depends only on what you measure. If you see the cahrge drifting away, you know the wire is electrically charged. This is the definiton of electric field. If it remains stationary, then you know the wire is electrically neutral. This is the whole point. The electric charge of the wire depends on the reference frame of the observer. If you have a wire with a non zero current inside, there is only one frame of reference in which the wire is neutral and in all other it appears charged. I hope it is clear enough now.
@@lukasrafajpps Thank you for your answer, I understand conceptually that if it remains stationary that wire is neutral and if charge drifts away that wire is electrically charged. My question is what will happen? Will it remain stationary or will it move? There must be one true behavior of the stationary charge near current carrying wire. The frame of reference is just the way we observe these things. I couldn't find anywhere what will happen to a stationary charge near a wire and how that makes sense from relativistic point of view? Thank you.
Ok so first of all we need to clarify what maxwell's equations tell us. If we measure a certain value of let's say electric field and how it changes in time, we can calculate how the magnetic field will behave. Maxwell's equations have no predicting power for what will happen to a charged particle near a wire with non zero current without proper initial conditions. You have to put some information into the equations (like the measured charge of the wire in certain frame of reference) and then you can make predictions. Let's assume couple of different situations. scenario 1) We have a charged particle near a wire and we know the current in the wire is non zero. We measure no force acted on the charged particle therefore we conclude the wire is neutral. Now we can use the information about the current inside the wire and calculate what force would act on the charged particle if it started moving with certain velocity and we would conclude it is due to magnetic field of the wire. But from the particles point of view, we just pushed the particle into a frame where the wire is electrically charged. Scenario 2) We have a wire with the same current but now we measure a force acting on our stationary charged particle. We conclude that the wire is electrically charged, then we can calculate for example how fast should the particle move in the opposite direction so the magnetic field compensate the measured electric field and there would be no force on the particle. But from the particles point of view, we just pushed it into a frame where the wire is neutral. This video is just about the fact that different observers would conclude that the force is due to different effect but the strength of the force must remain the same.
@@lukasrafajpps ua-cam.com/video/1TKSfAkWWN0/v-deo.html this is the link to the video of Veritasium. Please look at 1:24 where he claims that stationary electric charge will feel NO force near a current carrying wire. For me this makes no sense. Do you know is this true or no? Do you know maybe, did someone made some experiments about this topic and what was their conclusion? Thanks
@@markoula7211 in 1:20 he made an assumption that the overall electric charge of the wire is zero. This assumption is just to make things clear. So before doing any experiment, we must measure the electric charge of the wire by measuring the force acting on a stationary charged particle. Usually, if you are in a lab, the wire is neutral in your frame of reference because statistically, all particles inside the laboratory have zero velocity on average (considering velocities in all directions). Therefore the wire will neutralize itself relative to the frame in which the average velocity of charges around is zero.
On page 8:20 when -ve charged electrons moving right produces B field downward. It will then produce B field point up moving left. If we reverse the polarity from -ve to +ve for ions, ions moving left SHOULD produce B field downward and not upwards.
Something (amongst all the other stuff I don't understand about all this): How can we talk about positive charges in the wire, when most of the electrons in the (assumed metallic) wire are still bound to their respective nuclei, and hence 'shield' most of the charge on the nucleus. When a current flows in a wire, are there indeed 'extra' electrons in that wire compared to a non-connected wire? Otherwise it would seem that as you increase the voltage in the wire, you are more and more ionising the wire, as extra electrons are freed from their orbitals. Where am I going wrong?
Since the metal is conductor the electrons are almost free and can easily travel from atom to atom. Otherwire the wire would not be able to conduct electricity. About the extra electrons, when you have a neutral conductor without a current and then you apply current then the wire becomes temporaly charged but it will neutralise itself relative to the reference frame in which the average velocity of nearby charges is zero.
@@lukasrafajpps Thanks for your speedy reply. Somehow I thought that only 'valence' electrons were free to drift in a metal. I had thought that the innermost ones were too tightly bound to become free.
I am in class 12 and do u know how much I researched for this answer🙂...My teacher told me remember this as a property that moving charge creates Magnetic field but I wasn't satisfied...I searched too much and I am happy that I finally found it now,!!❣️
Your video is on the top of all videos I’ve looked at on this subject, and it is very simple for a non math student to comprehend. I am going to show this video to my Ham Radio club this coming Monday 9/25/23. My topic is, “What are Radio Waves…..Really?” Thanks again for making this video.
(comment on what is said at 4:50 min) There is a 4th possibility: the velocity v is the velocity between the two frames of frames of reference. In two dimensions you can think of each frame of reference as a massless sheet that slide through each other. This _relational_ velocity is frame independent.
hi! nice video. can u include links to references in description? also, like others have said, i would also love a video dedicated to the part at: 9:39 > _"4 independent quantities [of EM Force]"_
For the positive charges in the wire, the single positive charge moves to the right and therefore it induces a magnetic field in reverse to the one you draw (4:08). So in the reference frame of the single charge there acts no force on it (v=0), but the force that acts on the wire pushes the wire away from the single charge, that is stationary. Do You have a source to your videos content?
Hi, this of course since the wire pushes the particle also the particle must push the wire. What do you mean by source to my video content? If you mean where I get the informations from then it is hard to track because I learn from a lot of sources.
@@lukasrafajpps What I wanted to say is that the motion depends on your system that is at rest. In the wire system (system at rest) the particle senses a force and it moves away from the wire, while the wire feels no froce and vice versa.
@@alextron2988 No particle magnetic field in the reference frame of the particle since the particle is stationary in this frame of reference thus neither the particle nor the wire feel a force. In the first inertial frame of reference both the particle and the wire feel a force since both the wire and the particle produce Magnetic fields and there are charges moving inside the wire and the particle is itself moving.
I don't understand why the electrons spread out in their frame. They start moving so length contracts in their direction. Meaning that they are closer to other electrons leading to increased electron density but the protons contract too leading to increased proton density. I've been wracking my head on this problem for a while now. I have no idea why the electrons spreadout.
Have you ever considered that the only way to sense both the electric field force and the magnetic field force simultaneously, is by utilizing matter e.g., sensors created out of matter. I like the idea that the electric field and the magnetic field are really just two manifestations of the same force.
Unit of 3D crystal is only place where can be located electric monopole and only place where magnetic dipole can't be located . That's why speed of light is constant. When (1D)magnetic dipole begins moving with arbitrary speed, it inevitably encounter unit of crystal and will be broken in two peaces, '+' and '-' (0D)elictric monopoles, wich immediately will be located in nearest units and connected to 4D. In 4D time to meet '+' and '-' is proportional to distance between units, and time of reincarnation of dipole in 3D also constant. So at next collision dipole will have speed of light independently wich speed it have before first collision.
It seems to me that this explanation does not stand for at least 3 reasons : - the length contraction effect depends only on the modulus of the speed, so the effect would not depend on the direction of the current. - the contraction effect play a symmetrical role also for the electrons when the reference frame of the atoms is used. - you could consider a free electron beam, i. e. suppress all the positive charges, and the magnetic effect would be the same (not considering the electrostatic force) It is the EM field itself that is viewed differently from each reference frame, it doesn't depends on the way it is produced.
1: It depends on the relative motion of the observers. If the observer is moving _with_ the current the effect will be different than when the observe is moving against it. That is why the direction matters. 2: Correct.The single charge moving relative to the wire would be length contracted from the point of view of the positive charges in the wire. What do you think this would change? 3: If you ignore the electrostatic force between two parallel electron beams the effect would be the same. But the electrostatic force completely dominates this experiment! There will never be a net magnetic attraction. The magnetic effect in this scenario would be to effectively weaken the electrostatic repulsion. This is an effect of _time dilation_ . The force seen on moving particles produces less acceleration than we expect. This video by Eugene Khutoryansky explains this effect in some detail ua-cam.com/video/rKFzV8sVDsA/v-deo.html "It is the EM field itself that is viewed differently from each reference frame, it doesn't depends on the way it is produced." Correct. But if you don't know what produces it you don't know how to transform it because the transformation depends on your motion relative to the source. These effects show why it makes so much sense to view E and M as a single field in the first place.
@@narfwhals7843 Thank you for your response. On point 1 I see that you are right, because the movement of the particle is also inverted. On the point 2 it would lead to a global increase of the negative charge density, and thus an electrostatic force that would be seen on non moving particles. On the point 3 I know that it is a little trickier, and I am not sure that I am right...
@@christianthom5148 Charge density is a relative property when we consider length contraction. The total charge is conserved. Do you mean that the moving charge should see an electrostatic effect on a charge that is not moving relative to the wire? It does! Since the wire is electrically charged in this reference frame. But it also sees that charge move through a magnetic field. And the magnetic and electric effects cancel out to no net force.
@@narfwhals7843 It is just that, as the moving particle sees a positively charged wire due to the length contraction of the ions, a fixed charge will see a negatively charged wire due to le length contraction of the moving electrons. It should induce a force on this non moving particle. Maybe it is the case, but I was not aware of this phenomenon.
@@christianthom5148 the fixed(relative to the wire) charge does not set a negatively charged wire when the current is steady. The wire is neutral in its own rest frame. The moving electrons are length contracted, but for a steady current the effects balance out. What happens in detail when you turn the current on is pretty complicated, though.
Thanks!!! right now I am focusing on special relativity but it is linked with electrodynamics so there is certainly going to be another videos of such kind :)
@@lukasrafajpps Us that has done engineering work on any kind of transmission, know that Maxwell is never used. Euler is what is in all textbooks and we can do wonderful things like FFT (fourier). All of this math only works if there is a medium. ua-cam.com/video/gZRDSy88SN4/v-deo.html Check it out and please find errors.
magnetic flux ring as conical in frequency rates natural encryption yes or no? as in fm graphed moduluation change rate conical dopler 3rd demension colapse
Have in mind that Lorenz transform was introduced by Lorenz to prove that there is a global frame of reference (the so called aether) for all observers (option 1) in order to explain why the Michelson-Morley experiment didn't produce any results... But Einstein used Lorenz transform to prove that there is not a global frame of reference for all observers (option 2). So as you can see, it is a matter of interpretation, or a philosophical position whether which is correct... and not an actual fact...
Einstein did not use the Lorentz Transforms to prove this. He _assumed_ that the speed of light is constant for all observers and used that assumption to *derive* the Lorentz transforms. This basically shows that any aether theory which obeys the lorentz transform must have a completely undetectable aether.
For those who are still confused....you need to watch a UA-cam video about why we are moving through Space-Time at exactly the speed of light no matter how we measure our velocity through space.
wired electricity and wireless electricity behave weirdly . My advice ??read nichola tesla ignition coil patent and play with that . Nichola tesla knew the ideal distance between wire in theory but in practice required a 3d printer because wire required to be bare as often as possible for nonsensor application
While it makes sense for quantities in 4D to have 4 components, that doesn't actually explain why the electromagnetic field still seems to have 6 components. The reason why what seems like it should be a 4-dimensional quantity actually appears as a 6-dimensional quantity is really interesting. One thing that you might notice if you're familiar to combinatorics, binomials, or Pascal's Triangle is that there are 6 different ways to chose 2 elements out of a set of 4. Could each component of the electromagnetic field really be between 2 of the 4 dimensions? We might also note that the timelike dimension behaves noticeably differently from the spacelike dimensions, and those 6 can be split into two groups: those that have a timelike component, and those that don't. Knowing Pascal's Triangle, it should be apparent that the 6 could be derived from each pair of dimensions in 3D along with an extra component for each of the single dimensions, which would now be raised up to have a timelike part. The components with a timelike part are the electric field, and the components without a timelike part are the magnetic field. Lorentz boosts can cause one to rotate into the other, keeping them tied together even if they are still separable in a given frame of reference.
Most of this is over my head (not a math guy) , but I was visualizing something similar to explain "spin ½" as if angular momentum was pointing as a combination of two directions, but only one of them being in our conventional 3 and another orthogonal, making it seem more like a precessional flip . Does that make any sense to you?
@@petevenuti7355 Spin 1/2 doesn't actually need a 4th dimension at all. (or at least a 4th spatial dimension.) Quaternions on their own are entirely 3-dimensional objects, even if they have 4 components, and they're already spin 1/2.
what ? Do you think its normal for the tree to grow root and branch like its being electrocuted ??it literally look like lightning root side and lightning branch side . I suspect trees were used to balance things . But sand prevent trees growth
if you put isolated wire too close you get false signal(sensor), too far and you can no longer use the wireless electricity potential .(tesla coil electric motor , generator , 1970 ignition coil . And if you hold 1970 ignition coil with a metal loop ? Its no longer a condensator as defined by nichola tesla ..same for distributor condensor . A 1970 car does not require a distributor condensator if ignition coil holder is not metal
Your video is awesone at showing that _Einshtein. yes, that guy again_ (Sabine Hossenfelder) kind of pursues us even down to everyday life. However, why do you still use tetms like "length contraction" even though you provide us with a full (1+3)D spacetime description? Nothing is conhtracted here, all the effect is actually a side effect of the relativity of simulteneity of two spatially separated events, so a t' = const. line (within some coordinate system Σ') will certainly differ from a t = const. line in another coordinate system Σ. If you cross a street with width d at an angle α, you'll have to travel a greater distance d/cos(α) and nobody would ever call this "width dilation".
Well, Maxwell eqs are macroscopic, not microscopic, and they are not Galileo transformation invariant. Not they do not a correct answer, they are not suitable for this type of experiment. A single electron is not a current. See Landau &n Lifschitz fields volume.
It's a very good video, but there's an explanatory problem that I think should have been avoided. You say at 8:00 onwards that the distance between protons decreases in terms of the external particle, while the distance between electrons in the wire does not. But this is not true. Think about it! Suppose we have a SEMICONDUCTOR, not a plain wire. In it, the electrons move by jumping from atom to atom - hole to hole. Let's say there is a additional electron on every second atom, and a hole on every second atom (electron deficiency), so it is electrically neutral. So every second atom has a - charge, every second atom has a + charge. There will indeed be Lorentz contraction in terms of the outer particle, but the whole system will shrink. So the atoms will shrink AND ALSO the distance between the electrons! Because that is fixed at an average of two atoms. So the set of electrons will also undergo the SAME contraction as the set of protons. After all, the whole problem could be described as having a piece of moving heavy positive charge and a small test particle moving with it. Seen from the first inertial frame (the one they are moving in), there is a magnetic field of the positive charge that displaces/attracts the test particle (Lorentz force) + to this is added the Coulomb force between the two charges. And in the second inertial frame (where they are stationary) there is no magnetic field for the large positive charge, only a Coulomb force between them. Again, the two are not equal according to Maxwell's law, just as in the wire case. But if you calculate with the four-vectors and electromagnetic four-potential, everything should be fine. Anyway, this is a known issue. In the wire example, this "positive atoms contract and electrons don't" is a known flawed explanation. It should not be shared, yet it is all over the internet. I don't know where it came from, but it has entered the public consciousness, even though it is a completely incorrect explanation. The correct explanation is the one you share at the end of the video about four-vectors and electromagnetic four-potential.
it's less confusing if you understand in terms of phasors and complex-valued fields and forces. studying electrical engineering is a great way to understand physics better
you might also appreciate Peter Rowlands work on the nilpotent Dirac algebra which is a very elegant way of building up towards the complete physics of the relativistic wave equation for fermions with bosonic fields
wireless electricity is an emergent phenomenon . You got wire electricity motion and magnetism .. I do not think incoherent magnetism is doable yet the core would melt . Good for weapon but not much else . If i am right ? Sand is not the best medium to grow seed
It is called the aether. Sadly, Einstein virtually discounted electromagnetism. Velikovsky almost had him about to change his mind before the Professor passed away.
The density of electrons is not the same as protons, because electrons are moving. In the directions of its movement spacetime is compressed causing the density of electrons to be bigger.
The wire is electrically neutral in its rest frame. So the electron density is equal to the proton density after taking their length contraction into account. When you turn on a current in the wire the electrons will rearrange to accommodate this.
@@narfwhals7843 If there is no current, the wire is neutral. But if there is a current, the wire is not neutral. The moving electrons contract their spacetime in the direction of its movement. If the electron mass is the same, but the spacetime is smaller the density has to be bigger in the direction of its movement (relative to the proton frame of reference). A nearby charge is attracted/repelled BECAUSE of this change in density that causes the resultant "electric field" to change. This change in the "electric field" we call "magnetic field", but they are the same. If the density did not change, there were be no reason for any of this happen. The magnetic field appears BECAUSE the change of density.
@@tongolembiouski702 A nearby charge that is stationary relative to the wire is _not_ attracted or repelled. A charge that is moving along the wire is. That charge sees length contraction on the charges in the wire and in its own frame that is why it is repelled. In the rest frame of the wire it is electrically neutral. This is easy to measure. The moving charges are contracted and rearranged to achieve this when the current turns on.
Your talk seemed very carefully thought through. But unfortunately, although you showed some formulas and stated your conclusions, you did not derive any formulas which would prove any of your conclusions. It's most important to prove your conclusions by deriving all the formulas which imply your conclusions.
@@lukasrafajpps Thank you for your kind reply. I really enjoyed your video. What you explained, you explained very well. Instead of full derivations then, it could have been helpful to me if I could have seen, listed on 1 page, side by side, an ordered summary of all the derived relativistic formulas used in each of the 2 reference frames. Then I could follow the logic through to understand how all the variables transform to cause what we observe. I've invented a unifying physics theory, matter theory, and although I've tried to understand this problem before, I've yet to see a full solution that I thought was logical. In case you might be interested, I have invented what I think is a unique and the only logical explanation for the surprising results of many particle 2 slit experiments. I'm curious what you might think about my explanation in my video, "Particle 2 Slit Experiments Explained By Paul Marostica".
I think you should have gone deeper into the fact of "neutral" wire. This is much more complicated than just glimpsing over it by "it should be obvious"...
and the motion of the "charged particle" (an imaginary construct itself) is NOT relative to the OBSERVER, no, its relative to the other object in the experiment, i.e, the MAGNET. So any relative motion between Magnet and wire will create the current flow. It doesn't matter if the magnet moved relative to the wire, or the wire moved relative to the magnet, the same current flows, thus there is NO PROBLEM here for EInsteins wacky pseudoscience. Maxwells equations work 100% when you apply them to the ACTUAL real objects, the MAGNET and the WIRE. And NOT to imaginary non existing metaphorical "particles" such as Electrons.
Sometimes I feel like an omniscient being when I watch UA-cam videos. I knew this at age 10 over thirty years ago. There's literally nothing new I can learn and I feel completely trapped, like all of that knowledge is completely useless. Everything I know, from mathematics to physics to psychology to sociology to you name it is utterly useless at helping me make a friend or connect with humanity
I feel the same way. All this physics and math and whatever, doesn't help making friends. Maybe you should try connecting with other people with autism, bonding over some special interest. Sounds like you have it too.
Too bad length contraction is actually not a valid explanation. Why did you say "imagine an infinite wire" at 2:47, when you know that it's an impossibility? The reason is rather obvious, because if you said "imagine a wire 1 meter in length" and showed both ends of it in the illustration, people would say "if the wire contracted but the spaces between the electrons did not contract then obviously the same number of electrons would no longer fit inside the wire and some would be pushed out the ends into the open air or vacuum". Then what would you say, "no, they simply vanished and would later reappear when we went back to viewing it from the wire frame"?
You "TRANSFORM" the numbers to become OTHER numbers that work. How do you know if that math is creating a new reality for you? The non-transformed reality didn't disappear because you CHANGED the numbers. The cross product DOES NOT bring a causal reason for it being at a right angle, so everything after that calculation has no cause involved ("why" is absent). Describing what you see it do with math is not an understanding. Dimensions 1 and 2 don't exist without math, and that is the same for 4 or more dimensions. Show me time outside of your brain's ability to remember and anticipate. Someone PLEASE do that if you can! GPS? Send a pendulum in to space, NO CLOCK. Michelson and Morley may have proven that light speed is determined at production AND REFLECTION, so a drift velocity is pointless in a massless medium. Science has jumped at the answers that they want, ignoring that they may be CREATING it for themselves.
The problem with this explanation is it doesn't explain electron beams. Electron beams don't have a positive particle to generate a positive force to attract each other and yet they still have the same attraction.
When you put two electron beams next to each other the magnetic force between them will counteract the electric repulsion. So they will seem to repel more slowly than they ought to. But there will never be a net attractive force between them. This too is a relativistic effect. Time dilation. We observe the time in the frame of the moving electrons to tick slower, so a given force between them will result in less acceleration than we'd observe if they were at rest. Eugene Khutoryansky explains this effect in some detail in this video. ua-cam.com/video/rKFzV8sVDsA/v-deo.html
@@narfwhals7843 ua-cam.com/video/vAJYLTFiUeU/v-deo.html Okay but then relativistic electrostatics for induction would mean this coil arrangment should be horrible at inducing a magnetic field. The inner coil is just 26gague patch cable, dirving the larger outer coil The coils are wound with the same twist, so (on the right side) the inside goes down from front to back, while the outside goes up from front to back... similarly on the inside, the outside of the inner coil is going up, while that coil it's inducing in is going down; it's not like it's 90 degrees, but I'm pretty sure I could build some coils to emphasize the non-parallel nature of the near windings... Anyway - these should be a terrible arrangement to induce a field (especially for an air core), and yet they actually have a very high Q that can work at nearly any frequency; it's just a Mazilli/Royer oscillator driving it. Which overall has a LC tank circuit, but there's no particular resonance between them
@@narfwhals7843 ua-cam.com/video/2qVhcC41C88/v-deo.html Or really this - it wouldn't matter so much an orientation towards the center point with the center of the other coil... I suppose this is pretty flat and doesn't necessarily convey the angles very well - but at the end I have the coil perpendicular, pointing towards the center and it picks up the magnetic field (relativistic electrodynamics?) *shrug* I'm still trying to wrap my head around it maybe somehow it does explain and I'm being stubborn but mostly I'm not really seein it.
@@3zdayz I'm not going to lie, I'm not an engineer. But I'm not sure why you think your arrangement would be particularly bad. The interesting thing about coils is that they are windings, so no matter where you move there is always current flowing relative to your motion. And induction happens when the current _changes_ so the orientation(up/down) of the wires doesn't really matter since what matters is that the relative motion between the charges is changing.
Why did they specify that the wire is of infinite length, which is of course impossible? The answer is obvious, because when the wire is a finite length, say 1 m, and the wire's length is contracted, say to 0.5 m, contracting the spaces between the protons but the electrons staying spaced the same, then how could the same number of electrons fit inside the shorter wire? Where did the other half of the electrons go? How could the number of electrons in the wire change by that much depending on whether the charged particle was moving or not? In reality, if the wire contracted then both the protons and the electrons would stay the same number and have the spaces between them equally contracted. So now you'll have to try to figure out the real explanation, because that one is clearly flawed and impossible to be true.
@@lukasrafajpps I don't even believe the explanation of the barn/ladder paradox, but it wouldn't apply to the wire anyway because time is not even a factor in that. But about the barn ladder, neither the ladder nor the barn were ever really contracted. Do you seriously think that you simply passing by something could make that thing contract in length? It's ridiculous. How would you know whether the entire universe was contracted by you moving through it or if you length expanded? Wouldn't it make more sense for little you to expand in length than the entire universe to contract in length? For Einstein's theory to be even slightly credible he would have had to postulate that objects expand in length when in motion relative to the universe, but since he didn't, it's not credible at all.
@@RolanRoyce I am actually preparing a video about the true meaning of length contraction in special relativity. It is true that solid objects don't shrink just because someone is moving that would be indeed ridiculous but it doesn't mean the length contraction isn't real either. Hopefully, the video is coming out this weekend so stay tuned :) But to not leave hanging without any answer, try to think about what is actually the very definition of the quantity called "Length"?
as for obsevers ? Its non sense . Everything in verse move . And some non sense happen . But since ms stopped bing indexing the DELTA SCALE and it likely can not be restarted . Its lost knowledge
The wire isn't positive, why go through these illogical explanations , instead of just making the electron move relative to the aether. Length contract is a illusion, , no different from running towards a sound wave. Not because the electron sees more proton in a shorter period of time , that doesn't mean that the wire is actually positive. These things only cause contradictions no different than the twin's paradox , proton say's the wire is negative and the electron say's the wire is positive. If it is the luminiferous aether that you are using the Micheal Morley experiment to disprove then say it's name, and stop lumping them together like all aether theory was disproven .
Because there is no aether. We checked. If you want to have an aether you *need* length contraction to explain the impossibility of its detection. That is why Lorentz came up with it in the first place.
@@narfwhals7843 This is the result of so many people pretending as if there was only one aether theory , the aether theory you are referring to is the "luminiferous aether ".
@@narfwhals7843 The one I am referring to is the entrained aether . Hypothesis that massive bodies can partly carry aether with them . Just like a ball moving through the atmosphere , the ball doesn't carry the entire atmosphere with it , this is not a exact analogy but close enough , as the earth is gravitating the aether far more than it actually dragging the aether .
Assume the drift velocity of the electrons is v. Move the charge with 1/2 v. Now the relative velocity for negative charges is + 1/2v and for positive charges is - 1/2 v. Both should contract. Then the explanation fails.
An interesting argument. However, if you consider the positive and negative charges are side by side when v+=0 and v-=v, this means that the negative charges are already feeling a Lorentz contraction. When your outer charge moves with v/2, the positive charges contract (as they go from 0 to -v/2) but the negative ones contract less as they go from v to v/2. They are no longer side by side and an electric field shows up and it compensates the lower magnetic force.
@@ptdongiovanni I do not think so. I think a 4th dimension is needed and must be considered in calculation and only then the magnetic magnetic field really exists as we know it and can penetrate 3 dimensional electrostatic shields. The simple example is too simple to reveal the full truth. Einstein said: "Make it as simple as possible, but not simpler". Happy new year!
@@lukasrafajpps That was my argument. Less velocity relative to the electrons means that are no longer as contracted as initially. However, protons would look more contracted. Therefore, electrons and protons are no longer ""side-by-side" and the charge per unit length is no longer zero. An electric force would show up and it compensate the loss of magnetic force.
I don't see how this is a failure of Maxwell's equations. You literally put in the description that "we expect Galilean relativity to hold." You literally just imposed an additional 'structure' on the problem, then claimed it was Maxwell's equations that failed when what failed was Galilean relativity.
Well we could simply *demand* that galilean relativity is correct and in that case Maxwell's Equations would not apply to this situation. They can't _both_ be true. So in galilean relativity maxwell's equations fail to explain this experiment. Or in "maxwellian electromagnetism" galilean transformations fail to explain this experiment. We have to replace some assumption.
@@narfwhals7843 Also, I want to point out that magnetic fields are not relativistic effect of electric field. Light is literally a self-propagating electromagnetic wave, and the magnetic component is orthogonal to the electric component. There is no frame you can transform into to remove the magnetic component, because that would make light stationary in your frame, with no magnetic field and an electric field stationary in space
your first terminal error was when you claimed that its not possible to tell which is moving... this is false claim for Physics. The one moving will be the one that has been subjected to the application of a force, requiring an application of energy and experiencing some acceleration. So immediately you are falling for the false Einstein claim that "there is no experiment that can tell which is moving, each can claim to be stationary." In Physics, we can not just delete information (like which object had force applied) because that information is critical to understanding what is happening, so sorry Einstein, we are NOT going to ignore critical information so that you can develop your nonsense hypothesis, based on half truths.
Magnetic fields are not a relativistic effect of electric fields. Light is a self-propagating electromagnetic wave, with magnetic and electric field components orthogonal to one another. There is no frame you can transform into that removes the magnetic field. If you could do this, you'd be in a frame where light has a speed of 0, with no magnetic field and an electric field stationary in space Using the 'relativity effect to change densities' is a terrible and fallacious argument that promotes false understanding. If this was a valid explanation, then it would work for self-propagating EM waves that absolutely require electric AND magnetic fields oscillating at right angles to one another; and since you cannot transform into a frame that puts the speed of light at 0, then these magnetic fields can never be transformed away into electric fields. Hence, relativity itself prove that magnetic fields are not a relativistic effect.
The fact that you can't always transform out magnetic field has nothing to do with the fact that it is a relativistic effect. EM wave is our 3D interpretation of a quantity that lives in 2+1D because it lives in just two spatial dimensions.
@@lukasrafajpps This literally has everything to do with it. If magnetic fields were a relativistic effect, you'd literally be able to transform them away. The only frame this works is one in which the speed of light is 0. Special relativity says the speed of light is constant in all frames. Hence, SR itself disproves the notion that magnetic fields are relativistic effects Not being able to transform something away is huge in physics and tend to form the foundation of a lot of deep mathematical theories This doesn't have anything to do with spatial dimensions
@@pyropulseIXXI I am not claiming that one is real and the other is not. I am claiming that there is just one single field (force) and electric and magnetic field are just manifestations of that field in 3D space. I even believe that there are magnetic charges in the universe which would make the Maxwell's equations more symetrical.
What do you mean? This video is perfectly compatible with how electricity works. It _explains_ how electromagnetism works without breaking relativity. This is the modern understanding of the electrodynamics of moving charges and not controversial.
Shouldn't it be "apparent" length contraction and "apparent" time dilation? This is where I've always disagreed with Special Relativity (SR). It implies that, matter has infinite configurations, simultaneously! => When you begin to add multiple observers, or even infinite observers, SR falls completely apart. Think about it. The MM experiment, in my opinion, indicates SR to be invalid, and indicates there is no physical manifestation of time as in space-time, nor any physical manifestation of space warping. It was designed to disprove the existence of a medium (ether, if you will), but I believe it disproves both the SR and ether paradigms. I hypothesize that there is a counter spectrum instead (the electromagnetic spectrum has a counterpart that we are completely missing) that is the root cause of our luminal speed limit and acts against both E and M fields. Say XY spectrum, where E has a counterpart X and M has a counterpart Y (and there is matter/antimatter and countermatter/anticountermatter as well). EM spectrum operates in space, XY spectrum operates in counter-space.
Hi dave, the length contraction is real but only for one observer because length is relative quantity. It is the same as saying this ship has a velocity of 50m/s it holds only for certain observers because velocity is relative quantity. MM experiment can't disprove SR just from the fact that it is in accord with the Einstein's second postulate of SR and all following consequences of SR is just from the postulates and nothing else. If you want to disprove Einstein SR, you have to measure different speed of light depending on the relative motion of the source. So whatever reason there is for lightspeed to be constant and independent of the observer, then SR holds but SR do not provide explanation why this is the case.
@@lukasrafajpps - It would be different length contractions for an observer at 0.5c, one @ 0.8c, another @ 0.9c, 0.99c, 0.999c and so forth is my point. Each would "see" a different length, or rather, apparent length. This is why I say apparent as the real length doesn't actually change - it can't simultaneously be different. Think of a train blowing a horn at 100Hz. There's an observer behind the train (moving away) and one in front (moving towards). The one behind hears 90Hz sound and the one in front hears 110Hz sound. Neither is hearing the actual sound, but relativistically speaking, each observer will hear something different. Both are apparent, but neither are real (the horn is not simultaneously blowing 3 frequencies) . Add a few hundred observers moving towards and away from the train at various velocities, and each will be different. I understand this example is for sound propagation and not light propagation. Since we know EM (light) has a speed limit, we can presume either time and/or length changes when we approach that limit (Einstein) [OR] that the speed limit is due to an interaction (or interface) with something else (a resistive element, a force, non EM spectrum back-pressure, ether, etc). The idea that "nothing can go faster than c" needs to be changed to "nothing electromagnetic in nature can exceed c". Setting c as the ultimate boundary condition for velocity through space was based on an assumption that c IS the boundary (sure it is for transverse electromagnetic waves, but I don't believe it is for longitudinal waves). Surely, Quantum Entanglement is a good indication that this assumption cannot be valid (that c is the universal speed limit). What do I know? lol! (I used to get into arguments with physics professors over this stuff in my youth. They'd ultimately argue amongst themselves and then question the greats, while I'd sit back, quietly drink a suspicious elixir and ponder the possibility that the foundations of modern physics is built on sand. Those were the days).
@@davestorm6718 The point you apparently failed to grasp during your physics education is that there is no such thing as "real length", in the sense that there is no physical property called "length" that exists independent of frame of reference. Because no absolute frame of reference exists, what we call "length" is just a kind of measurement that depends on one's frame of reference.
@@DanielTanios I didn't miss this at all in my education, but I disagree with this hypothesis on the basis of reason. I insist that there must be a property of length independent of frame of reference. Indeed it is not what is taught in college (not since the 1950s). I apparently did not get my point across. If 1 million observers all moving at different relative velocities all report 1 million different "lengths", then, length is subjective. I disagree with this and assert that there is 1 and only 1 correct measurement within it's own frame (not relative to any other - it's its own absolute frame). All measurements outside an object's frame are merely apparent, an illusion, and they would have to be lest they be simultaneously all lengths at all times (and even sillier, can change simply by changing the velocity of any observer - which does not happen - no evidence of this absurd line of thinking will happen). Please reconsider my train horn argument. It's along the same line. A million observers all traveling at different velocities relative to the train will observe a million different frequencies. But all are apparent, not real. The only real frequency is at the horn (it's own frame).
@@davestorm6718 "...I disagree with this hypothesis on the basis of reason." Okay...so, what principles of reason are you invoking? "I insist that there must be a property of length independent of length independent." But there isn't. You can insist as much as you like, but it's just not true. Because there is no absolute frame of reference, there is therefore no absolute "coordinate grid", say, to measure the length of something against. "I apparently did not get my point across. If 1 million observers...all report 1 million lengths, then, length is subjective." Yes. Well, "subjective" in the sense that it's dependent on one's frame of reference. That's correct. "I disagree with this." This is just a bare assertion. You haven't even begun to explain why. "I disagree with this and assert that there is 1 and only 1 correct measurememt within its own frame (not relative to any other - it's its own absolute frame)". This is precisely what relativity has shown to be incorrect. You can assert as much as you want, but relativity is an extremely successful scientific theory with a mountain of evidence behind it. It's also worth mentioning that it's unclear what you mean by "it's it's own absolute frame." If an absolute frame of reference exists, then we don't need to think about frames at all -- just the single absolute frame, by which we can measure whatever we want. But athough you use the word "absolute", reading your last paragraph, it seems as though what you're saying is that the measurement arising from the frame of reference of, for instance, some object, should be favoured. That is, if I want to measure the length of a train, I should measure it from the reference frame of the train. Any other measurement will result in "apparent" incongruities, not "real" ones. Similarly with the "train horn" argument. But the problem is that you're just asserting that some object's own frame should be privileged and regarded as real, and all other measurements as fake. But why? What makes one "real" and one "apparent"? But there is more at stake here than mere word games. Suppose I take one of two twin atomic clocks, and put it on a stationary jet, accelerated that jet to mach 5 or something, then slowed down, landed, and jumped onto the tarmac with my atomic clock. If I compare the atomic clock that got accelerated to the atomic clock that remained on the ground, there will be a discrepancy exactly accounted for by GR (such experiments have taken place numerous times). But while the measurement is taking place, surely we are in the same inertial frame of reference as the atomic clocks, right? Then how can you account for the discrepancy between them? Here's the reality: length, mass and time are measurements that depend on reference frame, and we cannot privilege one frame over another. This is a well understood principle, and has been for many decades now, and you haven't produced the slightest reason to question it other than bare assertions and brazen insistence.
Maxwell's equations are not the problem here. they correctly describe the behaviors. The problem is our misunderstanding of frames. glowscript.org/#/user/jethomas5/folder/LW3/program/galileanrelativity
This is a great explanation of this and I've just finished my first semester taking electricity and magnetism and soon going into my second semester of electricty and magnetism and these explanations really help. The connection between electricity, magnetism, and relativity is one of the most eye opening and mind blowing things I've learned about in my entire life.
Two semesters of E&M? I am so damn jealous! I start Thermodynamics next semester, but I am still excite! I feel like I've have learned an incredible amount, yet I have only scratched the surface. I F'in LOVE IT, and this is why I'm going to keep going once I am done w/ my B.S..
@@chrispycryptic that’s really awesome! I might do statistical mechanics in my senior year but I wanna do as much as I can with quantum stuff since I wanna go into particle physics for graduate
@@sirawesomehat8814 Hell yeah!! Have you ever checked out Andrew Dotson's youtube? Following the journey through his PhD has been a huge inspiration for me when the going gets tough. He is in on the theoretical side of particle physics, and currently has been trying to get caught up on QFT so he can do some work in string theory (lol I know.). He is a really good dude, so when you mentioned particle phys I knew I had to give him a shout out. I wish you success in your academic pursuits, it is a hella long road, but we got this!!
This isn't the first time I've seen a video regarding the link between electromagnetism and special relativity, yet I was mind blown none the less. Your explanation was intuitive and had many valuable insights like the link between algebra and the redundant quantities, or even the of chain of discoveries which feels feels like a natural motivation for each succeeding theory. Goes to show fancy graphics don't substitute for clarity and reasoned presentation. Bravo
If magnetism is a relativistic by-product of electric charge then how should we re-define or re-imagine a photon, given that the usual description is along the lines of "an electric field oscillating at right angles to a magnetic field"?
He did that in the video around 4:20 . When you transform into the frame of the moving charge J changes from negative particles moving to the right to positive particles moving to the left. That is the same current so you get the same magnetic field.
it's fascinating to consider that at the same time this was being figured out people like Peano and Russell were in the process of destroying mathematics with absurd notions like mathematics is about operations over numbers, and numbers can be defined correctly via a successor operation. the problems here are numerous, and ultimately yield Incompleteness, thus defeating the purpose of Logicism. for instance, if 1 is the successor to 0, then how is 1/2 considered a number? and, if mathematical operations operate over numbers then how does division render unit conversion possible by handling pure units? and if numbers are sequential, as the successor operation insists, then how can 1+1=2 and 1+1=48 at the same time, given that 1 frog + 1 frog = 2 frogs, but 1 foot + 1 yard = 48 inches? and if each number is unique, then how can it be that I just showed you that 2 = 48? these are literally problems that toddlers notice, and yet they're just ignored by mainstream mathematics, even after more than 90 years with knowledge of the Incompleteness they induce despite the fact that they only exist in the first place because of a misguided movement to yield completeness. and beyond this, it's still popularly believed that Whitehead and Russell proved 1+1=2, despite the fact that they never made that claim, and the book which alluded to it was the very thing being criticized by Godel in his proofs of Incompleteness. tldr, as physics got smarter, math got way, way dumber... and that's amazing.
Well, using Galilean transformations for the electromagnetic potentials, assuming that the scalar potential transforms like a coordinate and a component of the vector potential transforms like time, one could come to a conclusion that the electric field is not zero in the electron's reference frame. Thus, the probing electron would fly away from the wire. Right?
👏👏👏👏Yes! I experienced the same fascination as you mention at the end of the video, many years ago, when I realized what you perfectly describe in this video.🤯 😁 The path of reasoning I learned about what happened historically is equivalent but slightly different though. Maxwell, when analyzing the findings of Coulomb, Faraday, Ampere, and together with the mathematical insight of Gauss, realized that a correction was to be made to the formula derived by Ampere. The derivative of the electric field multiplied by the electric permittivity and the magnetic permeativity had to be added. The product of these two constants is very small, so it was understandable that Ampere didn’t observe this flaw, and it took the genius of Maxwell to realize that without this term the equations yield a mathematical contradiction. By adding this term the equation of a wave function is immediately derived, a wave moving at a speed equal to the inverse of the square root of the product of the mentioned constants. This speed happened to be numerically equal to the speed of light! So this finding settled the debate about light being a wave, and the success of this finding was immense! But then, a new apparent inconsistency showed up. The electric permittivity and the magnetic permeativity are plain dimensional constants, it makes no sense for them to be different as measured in different moving reference frames. It took the genius of Einstein to solve this apparent contradiction by daring to say that, well, there it is, in front of our eyes. The speed of light is a constant with the same value in any frame of reference. 😎
Actually the speed of light is not exactly a constant, but rather it is a dimensional relativity limit of the force of time. Time (not clock time) is a force in it's own right, that is what is wrong with these equations. Light slows down when change mediums and its speed in matter is slower than in a free space vacuum.
@@enricolucarelli816 well I have a theory that the English language is backward. It’s use by people who don’t understand this, is resulting in the entropy of intelligence. No offense intended. You have the advantage to read the original papers of the giants we really stand upon. That’s all. Many great papers have not been translated. There is a paradigm shift happening. GR, SR, Minkowski space etc. are the reason why there is a crisis in cosmology, in all of science really. Everyone is going to know soon and Einstein and Hawking will be reduced to the status of Ptolemy and The four humours. Carbon dating is going to be questioned. Antigravity is going to be revealed. Christians are learning about the god they’ve been worshipping The big bang theory is being challenged by new information every two months… The whole world is going crazy. We may want to clear the table and start over where Mach and Whitehead and Tesla left off. If we’re not distracted by a word war… again. But I could be wrong.
If you enjoyed this video you can buy me a coffee here www.buymeacoffee.com/pprobnsol Much appreciated :)
@Crime Master gogo No because the definition we use is that the direction of current is where the positive charge travels. It means that if electrons travel a certain distance the current is gonna be in the opposite direction but if protons travel in a certain direction the current is in the direction of the protons. Since the current in both frames is the same, then the magnetic field is the same.
This is a commonly known and the confusing fact that when you have + and - on the battery, it means that + is a positively charged deck and - is a negatively charged deck and if you connect them with a wire the electrons from - will travel to + but we say the current is from + to -.
@Crime Master gogo Sorry it took so long to reply. The direction of the magnetic field was meant to be as you say. It is just a weird perspective that sometimes it appears other way around. I even made mistake in 10:50 since it should have different orientation there but I realized it too late :D
Here's the problem with the contracting protons theory, you have to say "wire of infinite length", which obviously dos not exist. What would happen in the real world, where wires have finite length? If the protons and the distances between them contracted then the wire itself would also contract, because it is also in the same relative motion as the protons, and if the wire contracted then the spaces between the electrons would also contract, because if they didn't then it would be the same as the electrons suddenly spreading apart from each other just because a particle was moving outside the wire, and if they spread apart then fewer electrons could fit inside the wire, so where would the extra ones go? This is how we know that length contraction is pure fantasy.
@@VortekStarling If you want to solve it for a finite wire you have to use the relativity of simultaneity as it is the actual cause of the length contraction. I would need to create animation to explain this but maybe I will when I record the video about what the length contraction really is.
@@lukasrafajpps Okay, but also record a video about a square moving vehicle with both a horizontal light beam going from the lower left corner to the lower right corner and a diagonal beam going from the upper left corner to the same lower right corner. You'll find that it's impossible to make both beams work using the same desynchronization of the clocks at the back and front of the square. Why? Because the diagonal beam is only moving toward the front of the square at half the speed of the horizontal beam, because its velocity is split half horizontal and half vertical, because its on a 45 degree angle. So it moves forward at half the velocity and therefore requires a different desynchronization, it breaks special relativity and proves it is flawed.
the equations do explain the experiment correctly, it’s the incorrect assumption that the reference frames follow galilean transforms that’s incorrect
Yes it is kinda clickbait but not entirely because at that time there were only galilean transforms and therefore Maxwell's equations could not explain this. This means that at that time people would say there is something odd about maxwell's equations. So this title can be taken as from historical point of view.
This is correct but it all follows GALILEI's _principles._
However, magnets DO exist - rocks from Magnesia or Magnetic Island are magnets with a North & South Pole. The Force of Attraction (Repulsion) between protons & electrons is extremely strong . Even if velocity v of proton is relatively small so that contraction of the wire is quite small, the resultant Force is still significant.
If we stood next to someone at arm’s length, & we had 1% more electrons, then the Force of Repulsion would equal the ‘weight’ of the entire Earth.
@@dnickaroo3574 "1% more electrons" is a boatload of electrons ... on the order of 10^27. Add in the fact that the electromagnetic force is about 10^37 times stronger than gravity, and ... well, let's hope you don't suddenly acquire such a charge.
@@jpdemer5 this could be the principle that aliens use to propel their craft.
One of the best explanation of the Magnetic Force being a relativistic effect of the Electric field. And finally introducing the electric 4-Vector ! (which of course would deserve some more in-depth considering)
Thanks! I agree the full covariant description of electromagnetism deserves its own video :)
electric monopole connected to 4 dimension. Magnetic dipole do not connected to 4 dimension and appears in 3D in the moment when
'+' and '-' electric monopoles ,2 halves of magnetic dipole, in 4 dimension compose magnetic dipole and annihilate themselves.
When created in 4D magnetic dipole can live long in 3D. It can be broken if begins to move.
In that case some thing encountered and break it to peaces , again in "+" and "-' electric monopoles
wich immediately connect themselves to 4D and process repeat. time elapsed is proportional to distance between poles.
Constant frequency of electromagnetic wave is evidence then vacuum is a crystal and magnetic dipole breaks when encounter
units of crystal .
It is not a relativistic effect of the electric field though. The 4-vector literally has magnetic field components. this is just a stupid explanation that doesn't really explain anything, and this seems to be a common trend in physics; take something and explain it within something wrong, but claim it is true.
A single moving charge causes a magnetic field, and there is no 'difference in positive and negative' to cause an 'electric field that looks like a magnetic field.' The fact you can transform to a frame of which a magnetic does not exist doesn't mean the magnetic field is a relativistic effect of the electric field
Magnetic field is not a relativistic effect of the electric field. Light is a self-propagating electromagnetic wave, with magnetic and electric field components orthogonal to one another. There is no frame you can transform into that removes the magnetic field. If you could do this, you'd be in a frame where light has a speed of 0.
So, SR directly proves that magnetic fields are not a relativistic effect. Ironic, no?
Well put together and yes this blew my mind when I came to understand this many decades ago, but the clarity once you understand will never leave you.
Excellent analysis. I hope you can make some more of these videos. Very thought-provoking.
Thanks, will do!
I first came across a similiar derivation in "Electromagnetic Fields and Waves" (2nd Edition) by Paul Lorrain & Dale R. Corson as an Undergrad.
The purpose of science is not solely to provide a complete and definitive explanation of a phenomenon. It is often impossible to fully explain something, as there are always deeper layers that unexplained.
Instead, the primary goals of science are to offer predictions and to apply the effects discovered.
3:15 - This definitely holds when the wire is not charged and current is not flowing, because we won't observe external electric field.
Comparing to it, at 7:56 length contraction will produce external (repulsive) electric field (on the moving test particle).
By the symmetry, at 7:45 the stationary observer should observe length contraction of moving electron chain, right? Length contraction should produce excess negative charge density on the wire, so we should observe measurable external electric field (i.e. stationary test particle should be attracted towards the wire). But we do not observe measurable electric field, correct? What am I missing?
My assumptions were that the wire is neutral already with the current inside. You can make assumptions as you like when you want to demonstrate some physical phenomena. If I assumed the wire being neutral without current, then after I turn ON the current then the wire becomes charged as you said.
In labolatory though, after you switch ON the current the wire would neutralize itself relative to the frame in which the mean velocity of nearby charges is zero. Therefore it the wire in a labolatory without current is neutral, when you switch ON the current the charge of the wire spike up and then decay to zero.
@@lukasrafajpps (What you describe at the end is transient, but until now we only have had comparisons between steady states, so transients should be irrelevant to this problem.)
The sentence *"the wire would neutralize itself relative to the frame in which the mean velocity of nearby charges is zero"* could be an explanation, but I don't understand what _"mean velocity of nearby charges is zero"_ is suppose to mean. _Mean velocity_ from whose perspective (relative to what)?
Try to read the paper written by Stephan J. G. Gift, that's " Light speed invariance is a remarkable illusion". This imply that the ether theory might be true and in this way, since the Maxwell's equations aren't based on this particular reference of frame, what can be done? We know for sure that in some ways these equations works so there should be a way to explain this and we need to go back to the basis.
What can be done? Read Mach and Bohm, lest we end up repeating the same mistakes again.
A mechanical elites was asked what vacuum means. In his reply - vacuum is empty of matter.
An electrical engineer was given the same question - he replies, vacuum is empty of matter but Aether.
Aether is a fluid that has no physical but electrical property, with a permittivity measuring 8.8541817128*10-12 Farad per meter.
Therefore Aether is a component necessary to enable e field and displacement charge q into the vacuum-Aether for light propagation inside.
Furthermore, Aether, a fluid, always attaches to matter, from subatomic particles to atoms to molecules to ions to solid to liquid to gas and to plasma. When gas, liquid, solid moves Aether drag along with it, also together with the MMX apparatus.
On the other hand, from a macrocosm scale, Aether as a fluid continue and remotely drag with everything but drift at an averages velocity defined by the nearest and most dominant body in the 3D space.
With that shall we rewrite SR.
Just thank you for your work. Outstanding quality all across the board.
Excellent vivid explanation of utmost clarity. Please keep it up!
Hi, thank you for your explanation. What I do not understand is what will happen to stationary charge near current carrying wire? Will it feel any force or will it remain stationary?
Hi. Well, this really depends only on what you measure. If you see the cahrge drifting away, you know the wire is electrically charged. This is the definiton of electric field. If it remains stationary, then you know the wire is electrically neutral. This is the whole point. The electric charge of the wire depends on the reference frame of the observer. If you have a wire with a non zero current inside, there is only one frame of reference in which the wire is neutral and in all other it appears charged. I hope it is clear enough now.
@@lukasrafajpps Thank you for your answer, I understand conceptually that if it remains stationary that wire is neutral and if charge drifts away that wire is electrically charged. My question is what will happen? Will it remain stationary or will it move? There must be one true behavior of the stationary charge near current carrying wire. The frame of reference is just the way we observe these things. I couldn't find anywhere what will happen to a stationary charge near a wire and how that makes sense from relativistic point of view? Thank you.
Ok so first of all we need to clarify what maxwell's equations tell us. If we measure a certain value of let's say electric field and how it changes in time, we can calculate how the magnetic field will behave. Maxwell's equations have no predicting power for what will happen to a charged particle near a wire with non zero current without proper initial conditions. You have to put some information into the equations (like the measured charge of the wire in certain frame of reference) and then you can make predictions. Let's assume couple of different situations.
scenario 1) We have a charged particle near a wire and we know the current in the wire is non zero. We measure no force acted on the charged particle therefore we conclude the wire is neutral. Now we can use the information about the current inside the wire and calculate what force would act on the charged particle if it started moving with certain velocity and we would conclude it is due to magnetic field of the wire.
But from the particles point of view, we just pushed the particle into a frame where the wire is electrically charged.
Scenario 2) We have a wire with the same current but now we measure a force acting on our stationary charged particle. We conclude that the wire is electrically charged, then we can calculate for example how fast should the particle move in the opposite direction so the magnetic field compensate the measured electric field and there would be no force on the particle.
But from the particles point of view, we just pushed it into a frame where the wire is neutral.
This video is just about the fact that different observers would conclude that the force is due to different effect but the strength of the force must remain the same.
@@lukasrafajpps ua-cam.com/video/1TKSfAkWWN0/v-deo.html this is the link to the video of Veritasium. Please look at 1:24 where he claims that stationary electric charge will feel NO force near a current carrying wire. For me this makes no sense. Do you know is this true or no? Do you know maybe, did someone made some experiments about this topic and what was their conclusion? Thanks
@@markoula7211 in 1:20 he made an assumption that the overall electric charge of the wire is zero. This assumption is just to make things clear. So before doing any experiment, we must measure the electric charge of the wire by measuring the force acting on a stationary charged particle. Usually, if you are in a lab, the wire is neutral in your frame of reference because statistically, all particles inside the laboratory have zero velocity on average (considering velocities in all directions). Therefore the wire will neutralize itself relative to the frame in which the average velocity of charges around is zero.
On page 8:20 when -ve charged electrons moving right produces B field downward. It will then produce B field point up moving left. If we reverse the polarity from -ve to +ve for ions, ions moving left SHOULD produce B field downward and not upwards.
Something (amongst all the other stuff I don't understand about all this): How can we talk about positive charges in the wire, when most of the electrons in the (assumed metallic) wire are still bound to their respective nuclei, and hence 'shield' most of the charge on the nucleus. When a current flows in a wire, are there indeed 'extra' electrons in that wire compared to a non-connected wire? Otherwise it would seem that as you increase the voltage in the wire, you are more and more ionising the wire, as extra electrons are freed from their orbitals. Where am I going wrong?
Since the metal is conductor the electrons are almost free and can easily travel from atom to atom. Otherwire the wire would not be able to conduct electricity. About the extra electrons, when you have a neutral conductor without a current and then you apply current then the wire becomes temporaly charged but it will neutralise itself relative to the reference frame in which the average velocity of nearby charges is zero.
@@lukasrafajpps Thanks for your speedy reply. Somehow I thought that only 'valence' electrons were free to drift in a metal. I had thought that the innermost ones were too tightly bound to become free.
I am in class 12 and do u know how much I researched for this answer🙂...My teacher told me remember this as a property that moving charge creates Magnetic field but I wasn't satisfied...I searched too much and I am happy that I finally found it now,!!❣️
Great video! Just a a criticism the video edit flip is kinda disruptive. Again love the video!
Thanks for the feedback I thought it might be too much :D
Your video is on the top of all videos I’ve looked at on this subject, and it is very simple for a non math student to comprehend. I am going to show this video to my Ham Radio club this coming Monday 9/25/23. My topic is, “What are Radio Waves…..Really?” Thanks again for making this video.
that's awesome! thanks!
This great! Thank you. Can you make videos that talk about General Relativity?
Thanks! later I certainly will but don't know when yet.
@@lukasrafajpps cool, yeah no problem! Whenever you can is cool. Just glad you are willing to do them.
Good, clean, thought provoking explanation, I look forward to more videos
(comment on what is said at 4:50 min)
There is a 4th possibility: the velocity v is the velocity between the two frames of frames of reference. In two dimensions you can think of each frame of reference as a massless sheet that slide through each other. This _relational_ velocity is frame independent.
hi! nice video. can u include links to references in description?
also, like others have said, i would also love a video dedicated to the part at:
9:39 > _"4 independent quantities [of EM Force]"_
I take that the v on page 5:00 is relative to Aether and only Aether, so as all E,B activities. In any case, Aether is drag with matter on earth.
For the positive charges in the wire, the single positive charge moves to the right and therefore it induces a magnetic field in reverse to the one you draw (4:08). So in the reference frame of the single charge there acts no force on it (v=0), but the force that acts on the wire pushes the wire away from the single charge, that is stationary.
Do You have a source to your videos content?
Hi, this of course since the wire pushes the particle also the particle must push the wire. What do you mean by source to my video content? If you mean where I get the informations from then it is hard to track because I learn from a lot of sources.
@@lukasrafajpps What I wanted to say is that the motion depends on your system that is at rest. In the wire system (system at rest) the particle senses a force and it moves away from the wire, while the wire feels no froce and vice versa.
@@alextron2988 No particle magnetic field in the reference frame of the particle since the particle is stationary in this frame of reference thus neither the particle nor the wire feel a force.
In the first inertial frame of reference both the particle and the wire feel a force since both the wire and the particle produce Magnetic fields and there are charges moving inside the wire and the particle is itself moving.
excellent, best explanation ive seen yet. thank you!
I don't understand why the electrons spread out in their frame. They start moving so length contracts in their direction. Meaning that they are closer to other electrons leading to increased electron density but the protons contract too leading to increased proton density. I've been wracking my head on this problem for a while now. I have no idea why the electrons spreadout.
this is an initial conditions problem. I tackle this issue in one of my videos about 5 common mistakes in relativity.
probably the best overview on this topic
Have you ever considered that the only way to sense both the electric field force and the magnetic field force simultaneously, is by utilizing matter e.g., sensors created out of matter. I like the idea that the electric field and the magnetic field are really just two manifestations of the same force.
Unit of 3D crystal is only place where can be located electric monopole and only place where magnetic dipole can't be located .
That's why speed of light is constant. When (1D)magnetic dipole begins moving with arbitrary speed, it inevitably encounter unit of crystal and will be broken in two peaces, '+' and '-' (0D)elictric monopoles, wich immediately will be located in nearest units and connected to 4D.
In 4D time to meet '+' and '-' is proportional to distance between units, and time
of reincarnation of dipole in 3D also constant.
So at next collision dipole will have speed of light independently
wich speed it have before first collision.
It seems to me that this explanation does not stand for at least 3 reasons :
- the length contraction effect depends only on the modulus of the speed, so the effect would not depend on the direction of the current.
- the contraction effect play a symmetrical role also for the electrons when the reference frame of the atoms is used.
- you could consider a free electron beam, i. e. suppress all the positive charges, and the magnetic effect would be the same (not considering the electrostatic force)
It is the EM field itself that is viewed differently from each reference frame, it doesn't depends on the way it is produced.
1: It depends on the relative motion of the observers. If the observer is moving _with_ the current the effect will be different than when the observe is moving against it. That is why the direction matters.
2: Correct.The single charge moving relative to the wire would be length contracted from the point of view of the positive charges in the wire. What do you think this would change?
3: If you ignore the electrostatic force between two parallel electron beams the effect would be the same. But the electrostatic force completely dominates this experiment! There will never be a net magnetic attraction.
The magnetic effect in this scenario would be to effectively weaken the electrostatic repulsion. This is an effect of _time dilation_ . The force seen on moving particles produces less acceleration than we expect.
This video by Eugene Khutoryansky explains this effect in some detail ua-cam.com/video/rKFzV8sVDsA/v-deo.html
"It is the EM field itself that is viewed differently from each reference frame, it doesn't depends on the way it is produced." Correct. But if you don't know what produces it you don't know how to transform it because the transformation depends on your motion relative to the source.
These effects show why it makes so much sense to view E and M as a single field in the first place.
@@narfwhals7843 Thank you for your response. On point 1 I see that you are right, because the movement of the particle is also inverted.
On the point 2 it would lead to a global increase of the negative charge density, and thus an electrostatic force that would be seen on non moving particles.
On the point 3 I know that it is a little trickier, and I am not sure that I am right...
@@christianthom5148 Charge density is a relative property when we consider length contraction. The total charge is conserved.
Do you mean that the moving charge should see an electrostatic effect on a charge that is not moving relative to the wire?
It does! Since the wire is electrically charged in this reference frame.
But it also sees that charge move through a magnetic field. And the magnetic and electric effects cancel out to no net force.
@@narfwhals7843 It is just that, as the moving particle sees a positively charged wire due to the length contraction of the ions, a fixed charge will see a negatively charged wire due to le length contraction of the moving electrons. It should induce a force on this non moving particle. Maybe it is the case, but I was not aware of this phenomenon.
@@christianthom5148 the fixed(relative to the wire) charge does not set a negatively charged wire when the current is steady. The wire is neutral in its own rest frame.
The moving electrons are length contracted, but for a steady current the effects balance out.
What happens in detail when you turn the current on is pretty complicated, though.
Awesome video thank you. Kind Sir please make more videos on Electricity and Magnetism it’s my favorite subject in physics :)
Thanks!!! right now I am focusing on special relativity but it is linked with electrodynamics so there is certainly going to be another videos of such kind :)
@@lukasrafajpps Us that has done engineering work on any kind of transmission, know that Maxwell is never used. Euler is what is in all textbooks and we can do wonderful things like FFT (fourier). All of this math only works if there is a medium.
ua-cam.com/video/gZRDSy88SN4/v-deo.html
Check it out and please find errors.
如圖所示，如果只動-負電荷，其實是因為，觀察者與正電荷一樣處於［沒在動］，但是這是假設，因為星系軌道自轉公轉的基礎主線設定
換言之，要與某個為基礎0原點，就要相關共同（振、序、效）運作
所以若隨著（同、超）光速、電流方式行進//運作，
#死亡回溯
#時間逆行
#覺醒憶起。 都是可能
精神藥物、Dmt、冥想、入定、炁功態（內核信念、目的、情緒...皆為可控之參數）
腦袋有電流運轉（（意識））
@@user-system6creaters
Much ❤ Love
🌎🌏🌍☯️⚡️
World🌞Peace
Very good explanation & nice videos..... Soon you will be famous U tuber
Thank you very much :)
magnetic flux ring as conical in frequency rates natural encryption yes or no? as in fm graphed moduluation change rate conical dopler 3rd demension colapse
Awesome video! Thanks a lot for the knowledge!!
Glad you enjoyed it!
Have in mind that Lorenz transform was introduced by Lorenz to prove that there is a global frame of reference (the so called aether) for all observers (option 1) in order to explain why the Michelson-Morley experiment didn't produce any results... But Einstein used Lorenz transform to prove that there is not a global frame of reference for all observers (option 2). So as you can see, it is a matter of interpretation, or a philosophical position whether which is correct... and not an actual fact...
Einstein did not use the Lorentz Transforms to prove this. He _assumed_ that the speed of light is constant for all observers and used that assumption to *derive* the Lorentz transforms.
This basically shows that any aether theory which obeys the lorentz transform must have a completely undetectable aether.
You are right, that displacement charge is independent with any observer so in independent with all bodies in the universe. Page 7:00.
Read Griffiths 2nd edition p489. 10.3.1 Magnetism as a Relativistic Phenomenon
thanks for suggestion
9 seed arranged spherically are likely the best way . I still do not know in what medium but its not sand
This is an excellent video. More please!
Thanks I am kinda limited by the amount of free time but I'll do my best :)
For those who are still confused....you need to watch a UA-cam video about why we are moving through Space-Time at exactly the speed of light no matter how we measure our velocity through space.
wired electricity and wireless electricity behave weirdly . My advice ??read nichola tesla ignition coil patent and play with that . Nichola tesla knew the ideal distance between wire in theory but in practice required a 3d printer because wire required to be bare as often as possible for nonsensor application
While it makes sense for quantities in 4D to have 4 components, that doesn't actually explain why the electromagnetic field still seems to have 6 components. The reason why what seems like it should be a 4-dimensional quantity actually appears as a 6-dimensional quantity is really interesting. One thing that you might notice if you're familiar to combinatorics, binomials, or Pascal's Triangle is that there are 6 different ways to chose 2 elements out of a set of 4. Could each component of the electromagnetic field really be between 2 of the 4 dimensions? We might also note that the timelike dimension behaves noticeably differently from the spacelike dimensions, and those 6 can be split into two groups: those that have a timelike component, and those that don't. Knowing Pascal's Triangle, it should be apparent that the 6 could be derived from each pair of dimensions in 3D along with an extra component for each of the single dimensions, which would now be raised up to have a timelike part.
The components with a timelike part are the electric field, and the components without a timelike part are the magnetic field. Lorentz boosts can cause one to rotate into the other, keeping them tied together even if they are still separable in a given frame of reference.
Most of this is over my head (not a math guy) , but I was visualizing something similar to explain "spin ½" as if angular momentum was pointing as a combination of two directions, but only one of them being in our conventional 3 and another orthogonal, making it seem more like a precessional flip .
Does that make any sense to you?
@@petevenuti7355 Spin 1/2 doesn't actually need a 4th dimension at all. (or at least a 4th spatial dimension.) Quaternions on their own are entirely 3-dimensional objects, even if they have 4 components, and they're already spin 1/2.
@@angeldude101 I know that's a math thing, over my head , I'll keep watching 3blue1 brown maybe I'll get it eventually mmm
what ? Do you think its normal for the tree to grow root and branch like its being electrocuted ??it literally look like lightning root side and lightning branch side . I suspect trees were used to balance things . But sand prevent trees growth
if you put isolated wire too close you get false signal(sensor), too far and you can no longer use the wireless electricity potential .(tesla coil electric motor , generator , 1970 ignition coil . And if you hold 1970 ignition coil with a metal loop ? Its no longer a condensator as defined by nichola tesla ..same for distributor condensor . A 1970 car does not require a distributor condensator if ignition coil holder is not metal
Your video is awesone at showing that _Einshtein. yes, that guy again_ (Sabine Hossenfelder) kind of pursues us even down to everyday life.
However, why do you still use tetms like "length contraction" even though you provide us with a full (1+3)D spacetime description?
Nothing is conhtracted here, all the effect is actually a side effect of the relativity of simulteneity of two spatially separated events, so a t' = const. line (within some coordinate system Σ') will certainly differ from a t = const. line in another coordinate system Σ. If you cross a street with width d at an angle α, you'll have to travel a greater distance d/cos(α) and nobody would ever call this "width dilation".
8:04 we do not even know if its coherent magnetism or if it could be incoherent magnetism
Well, Maxwell eqs are macroscopic, not microscopic, and they are not Galileo transformation invariant. Not they do not a correct answer, they are not suitable for this type of experiment. A single electron is not a current. See Landau &n Lifschitz fields volume.
It's a very good video, but there's an explanatory problem that I think should have been avoided. You say at 8:00 onwards that the distance between protons decreases in terms of the external particle, while the distance between electrons in the wire does not.
But this is not true.
Think about it! Suppose we have a SEMICONDUCTOR, not a plain wire. In it, the electrons move by jumping from atom to atom - hole to hole. Let's say there is a additional electron on every second atom, and a hole on every second atom (electron deficiency), so it is electrically neutral. So every second atom has a - charge, every second atom has a + charge. There will indeed be Lorentz contraction in terms of the outer particle, but the whole system will shrink. So the atoms will shrink AND ALSO the distance between the electrons! Because that is fixed at an average of two atoms. So the set of electrons will also undergo the SAME contraction as the set of protons.
After all, the whole problem could be described as having a piece of moving heavy positive charge and a small test particle moving with it. Seen from the first inertial frame (the one they are moving in), there is a magnetic field of the positive charge that displaces/attracts the test particle (Lorentz force) + to this is added the Coulomb force between the two charges. And in the second inertial frame (where they are stationary) there is no magnetic field for the large positive charge, only a Coulomb force between them. Again, the two are not equal according to Maxwell's law, just as in the wire case. But if you calculate with the four-vectors and electromagnetic four-potential, everything should be fine.
Anyway, this is a known issue. In the wire example, this "positive atoms contract and electrons don't" is a known flawed explanation. It should not be shared, yet it is all over the internet. I don't know where it came from, but it has entered the public consciousness, even though it is a completely incorrect explanation.
The correct explanation is the one you share at the end of the video about four-vectors and electromagnetic four-potential.
it's less confusing if you understand in terms of phasors and complex-valued fields and forces. studying electrical engineering is a great way to understand physics better
you might also appreciate Peter Rowlands work on the nilpotent Dirac algebra which is a very elegant way of building up towards the complete physics of the relativistic wave equation for fermions with bosonic fields
wireless electricity is an emergent phenomenon . You got wire electricity motion and magnetism .. I do not think incoherent magnetism is doable yet the core would melt . Good for weapon but not much else . If i am right ? Sand is not the best medium to grow seed
It is called the aether. Sadly, Einstein virtually discounted electromagnetism. Velikovsky almost had him about to change his mind before the Professor passed away.
Discounted electromagnetism? He based the entirety of Special Relativity on electromagnetism and the negative aether detection.
The density of electrons is not the same as protons, because electrons are moving. In the directions of its movement spacetime is compressed causing the density of electrons to be bigger.
The wire is electrically neutral in its rest frame. So the electron density is equal to the proton density after taking their length contraction into account.
When you turn on a current in the wire the electrons will rearrange to accommodate this.
@@narfwhals7843 If there is no current, the wire is neutral. But if there is a current, the wire is not neutral. The moving electrons contract their spacetime in the direction of its movement. If the electron mass is the same, but the spacetime is smaller the density has to be bigger in the direction of its movement (relative to the proton frame of reference).
A nearby charge is attracted/repelled BECAUSE of this change in density that causes the resultant "electric field" to change. This change in the "electric field" we call "magnetic field", but they are the same.
If the density did not change, there were be no reason for any of this happen. The magnetic field appears BECAUSE the change of density.
@@tongolembiouski702 A nearby charge that is stationary relative to the wire is _not_ attracted or repelled. A charge that is moving along the wire is. That charge sees length contraction on the charges in the wire and in its own frame that is why it is repelled.
In the rest frame of the wire it is electrically neutral. This is easy to measure. The moving charges are contracted and rearranged to achieve this when the current turns on.
Yes ... keep on making these type of videos
“The Final Theory: Rethinking Our Scientific Legacy”, Mark McCutcheon for proper physics.
This is a very good explanation! Thanks 😊
This was very good! Thank you
I can’t imagine Maxwell the cat doing all this science 😮
Keep uploading man. Great content.
What about gyroscopes? 😕
Excellent explanation
Thanks, man. Means a lot!!!!
Your talk seemed very carefully thought through. But unfortunately, although you showed some formulas and stated your conclusions, you did not derive any formulas which would prove any of your conclusions. It's most important to prove your conclusions by deriving all the formulas which imply your conclusions.
Those formulas are already derived and I just present them. This videos are not supposed to be 2 hour lectures.
@@lukasrafajpps Thank you for your kind reply. I really enjoyed your video. What you explained, you explained very well. Instead of full derivations then, it could have been helpful to me if I could have seen, listed on 1 page, side by side, an ordered summary of all the derived relativistic formulas used in each of the 2 reference frames. Then I could follow the logic through to understand how all the variables transform to cause what we observe. I've invented a unifying physics theory, matter theory, and although I've tried to understand this problem before, I've yet to see a full solution that I thought was logical. In case you might be interested, I have invented what I think is a unique and the only logical explanation for the surprising results of many particle 2 slit experiments. I'm curious what you might think about my explanation in my video, "Particle 2 Slit Experiments Explained By Paul Marostica".
Well done. This is good.
"On a sheep in the middle of the ocean, it is impossible to determine emotion" 🤔
:D
Awesome video sir
Just a matter of perspective
Great explanations !!!
Light is quantum, doesnt behave as we understand motion. it does what its told. AND/OR: THERE WAS NEVER A C.
Maxwell's Equations are covariant and do not fail to account fot this.
They are covariant under Lorentz transformations not under Galilean transformations and that is basically the point of this video.
Great video, man :)
I think you should have gone deeper into the fact of "neutral" wire. This is much more complicated than just glimpsing over it by "it should be obvious"...
It is my initial assumption.
and the motion of the "charged particle" (an imaginary construct itself) is NOT relative to the OBSERVER, no, its relative to the other object in the experiment, i.e, the MAGNET.
So any relative motion between Magnet and wire will create the current flow. It doesn't matter if the magnet moved relative to the wire, or the wire moved relative to the magnet, the same current flows, thus there is NO PROBLEM here for EInsteins wacky pseudoscience. Maxwells equations work 100% when you apply them to the ACTUAL real objects, the MAGNET and the WIRE. And NOT to imaginary non existing metaphorical "particles" such as Electrons.
awesome video !
Sometimes I feel like an omniscient being when I watch UA-cam videos. I knew this at age 10 over thirty years ago. There's literally nothing new I can learn and I feel completely trapped, like all of that knowledge is completely useless. Everything I know, from mathematics to physics to psychology to sociology to you name it is utterly useless at helping me make a friend or connect with humanity
I feel the same way. All this physics and math and whatever, doesn't help making friends.
Maybe you should try connecting with other people with autism, bonding over some special interest. Sounds like you have it too.
Too bad length contraction is actually not a valid explanation. Why did you say "imagine an infinite wire" at 2:47, when you know that it's an impossibility? The reason is rather obvious, because if you said "imagine a wire 1 meter in length" and showed both ends of it in the illustration, people would say "if the wire contracted but the spaces between the electrons did not contract then obviously the same number of electrons would no longer fit inside the wire and some would be pushed out the ends into the open air or vacuum". Then what would you say, "no, they simply vanished and would later reappear when we went back to viewing it from the wire frame"?
I said that for the simplicity of the video. The finite wire case is just the ladder paradox as I have already dedicated video about.
You "TRANSFORM" the numbers to become OTHER numbers that work. How do you know if that math is creating a new reality for you? The non-transformed reality didn't disappear because you CHANGED the numbers. The cross product DOES NOT bring a causal reason for it being at a right angle, so everything after that calculation has no cause involved ("why" is absent). Describing what you see it do with math is not an understanding. Dimensions 1 and 2 don't exist without math, and that is the same for 4 or more dimensions. Show me time outside of your brain's ability to remember and anticipate. Someone PLEASE do that if you can! GPS? Send a pendulum in to space, NO CLOCK. Michelson and Morley may have proven that light speed is determined at production AND REFLECTION, so a drift velocity is pointless in a massless medium. Science has jumped at the answers that they want, ignoring that they may be CREATING it for themselves.
The problem with this explanation is it doesn't explain electron beams. Electron beams don't have a positive particle to generate a positive force to attract each other and yet they still have the same attraction.
When you put two electron beams next to each other the magnetic force between them will counteract the electric repulsion. So they will seem to repel more slowly than they ought to. But there will never be a net attractive force between them.
This too is a relativistic effect. Time dilation. We observe the time in the frame of the moving electrons to tick slower, so a given force between them will result in less acceleration than we'd observe if they were at rest.
Eugene Khutoryansky explains this effect in some detail in this video.
ua-cam.com/video/rKFzV8sVDsA/v-deo.html
@@narfwhals7843 Hmm ok. thanks.
@@narfwhals7843 ua-cam.com/video/vAJYLTFiUeU/v-deo.html
Okay but then relativistic electrostatics for induction would mean this coil arrangment should be horrible at inducing a magnetic field. The inner coil is just 26gague patch cable, dirving the larger outer coil The coils are wound with the same twist, so (on the right side) the inside goes down from front to back, while the outside goes up from front to back... similarly on the inside, the outside of the inner coil is going up, while that coil it's inducing in is going down; it's not like it's 90 degrees, but I'm pretty sure I could build some coils to emphasize the non-parallel nature of the near windings...
Anyway - these should be a terrible arrangement to induce a field (especially for an air core), and yet they actually have a very high Q that can work at nearly any frequency; it's just a Mazilli/Royer oscillator driving it. Which overall has a LC tank circuit, but there's no particular resonance between them
@@narfwhals7843 ua-cam.com/video/2qVhcC41C88/v-deo.html Or really this - it wouldn't matter so much an orientation towards the center point with the center of the other coil... I suppose this is pretty flat and doesn't necessarily convey the angles very well - but at the end I have the coil perpendicular, pointing towards the center and it picks up the magnetic field (relativistic electrodynamics?) *shrug*
I'm still trying to wrap my head around it maybe somehow it does explain and I'm being stubborn but mostly I'm not really seein it.
@@3zdayz I'm not going to lie, I'm not an engineer. But I'm not sure why you think your arrangement would be particularly bad. The interesting thing about coils is that they are windings, so no matter where you move there is always current flowing relative to your motion.
And induction happens when the current _changes_ so the orientation(up/down) of the wires doesn't really matter since what matters is that the relative motion between the charges is changing.
Why did they specify that the wire is of infinite length, which is of course impossible? The answer is obvious, because when the wire is a finite length, say 1 m, and the wire's length is contracted, say to 0.5 m, contracting the spaces between the protons but the electrons staying spaced the same, then how could the same number of electrons fit inside the shorter wire? Where did the other half of the electrons go?
How could the number of electrons in the wire change by that much depending on whether the charged particle was moving or not? In reality, if the wire contracted then both the protons and the electrons would stay the same number and have the spaces between them equally contracted. So now you'll have to try to figure out the real explanation, because that one is clearly flawed and impossible to be true.
Hello, this is the same as barn-pole paradox problem, I have a video on the topic. The answer lies in the relativity of simultaneity
@@lukasrafajpps I don't even believe the explanation of the barn/ladder paradox, but it wouldn't apply to the wire anyway because time is not even a factor in that. But about the barn ladder, neither the ladder nor the barn were ever really contracted. Do you seriously think that you simply passing by something could make that thing contract in length? It's ridiculous. How would you know whether the entire universe was contracted by you moving through it or if you length expanded? Wouldn't it make more sense for little you to expand in length than the entire universe to contract in length? For Einstein's theory to be even slightly credible he would have had to postulate that objects expand in length when in motion relative to the universe, but since he didn't, it's not credible at all.
@@RolanRoyce I am actually preparing a video about the true meaning of length contraction in special relativity. It is true that solid objects don't shrink just because someone is moving that would be indeed ridiculous but it doesn't mean the length contraction isn't real either. Hopefully, the video is coming out this weekend so stay tuned :) But to not leave hanging without any answer, try to think about what is actually the very definition of the quantity called "Length"?
@@lukasrafajpps Okay, I'll wait for the new video and comment further there.
It makes sense.
as for obsevers ? Its non sense . Everything in verse move . And some non sense happen . But since ms stopped bing indexing the DELTA SCALE and it likely can not be restarted . Its lost knowledge
The wire isn't positive, why go through these illogical explanations , instead of just making the electron move relative to the aether. Length contract is a illusion, , no different from running towards a sound wave. Not because the electron sees more proton in a shorter period of time , that doesn't mean that the wire is actually positive. These things only cause contradictions no different than the twin's paradox , proton say's the wire is negative and the electron say's the wire is positive.
If it is the luminiferous aether that you are using the Micheal Morley experiment to disprove then say it's name, and stop lumping them together like all aether theory was disproven .
Because there is no aether. We checked.
If you want to have an aether you *need* length contraction to explain the impossibility of its detection. That is why Lorentz came up with it in the first place.
@@narfwhals7843 This is the result of so many people pretending as if there was only one aether theory , the aether theory you are referring to is the "luminiferous aether ".
@@m.c.4674 That is the aether people usually refer to. If you mean a different one you should specify.
@@narfwhals7843 The one I am referring to is the entrained aether . Hypothesis that massive bodies can partly carry aether with them . Just like a ball moving through the atmosphere , the ball doesn't carry the entire atmosphere with it , this is not a exact analogy but close enough , as the earth is gravitating the aether far more than it actually dragging the aether .
as for dimension ? Only 3d geometry exist . Why ? Show me an object of 0 x 1 x 1 , show me an object 0 x 0 x 1 in the real world .
Assume the drift velocity of the electrons is v. Move the charge with 1/2 v.
Now the relative velocity for negative charges is + 1/2v and for positive charges is - 1/2 v. Both should contract. Then the explanation fails.
An interesting argument. However, if you consider the positive and negative charges are side by side when v+=0 and v-=v, this means that the negative charges are already feeling a Lorentz contraction. When your outer charge moves with v/2, the positive charges contract (as they go from 0 to -v/2) but the negative ones contract less as they go from v to v/2. They are no longer side by side and an electric field shows up and it compensates the lower magnetic force.
@@ptdongiovanni I do not think so. I think a 4th dimension is needed and must be considered in calculation and only then the magnetic magnetic field really exists as we know it and can penetrate 3 dimensional electrostatic shields. The simple example is too simple to reveal the full truth. Einstein said: "Make it as simple as possible, but not simpler". Happy new year!
But you will have lower velocity relative to the electrons than in your initial configuration. Therefore electrons stretch and protons contract.
@@lukasrafajpps Yes, this is true.
@@lukasrafajpps That was my argument. Less velocity relative to the electrons means that are no longer as contracted as initially. However, protons would look more contracted. Therefore, electrons and protons are no longer ""side-by-side" and the charge per unit length is no longer zero. An electric force would show up and it compensate the loss of magnetic force.
I don't see how this is a failure of Maxwell's equations. You literally put in the description that "we expect Galilean relativity to hold." You literally just imposed an additional 'structure' on the problem, then claimed it was Maxwell's equations that failed when what failed was Galilean relativity.
Well we could simply *demand* that galilean relativity is correct and in that case Maxwell's Equations would not apply to this situation. They can't _both_ be true.
So in galilean relativity maxwell's equations fail to explain this experiment. Or in "maxwellian electromagnetism" galilean transformations fail to explain this experiment.
We have to replace some assumption.
@@narfwhals7843 Also, I want to point out that magnetic fields are not relativistic effect of electric field.
Light is literally a self-propagating electromagnetic wave, and the magnetic component is orthogonal to the electric component.
There is no frame you can transform into to remove the magnetic component, because that would make light stationary in your frame, with no magnetic field and an electric field stationary in space
@@narfwhals7843 Demanding Galilean is an additional structure. Why would you demand that holds when the topic is Maxwell's equations ?
@@pyropulseIXXI Because galilean relativity is the framework under which all of classical physics was developed until 1905.
It was _always_ assumed.
🤯
your first terminal error was when you claimed that its not possible to tell which is moving... this is false claim for Physics. The one moving will be the one that has been subjected to the application of a force, requiring an application of energy and experiencing some acceleration. So immediately you are falling for the false Einstein claim that "there is no experiment that can tell which is moving, each can claim to be stationary." In Physics, we can not just delete information (like which object had force applied) because that information is critical to understanding what is happening, so sorry Einstein, we are NOT going to ignore critical information so that you can develop your nonsense hypothesis, based on half truths.
Human are not field
Magnetic fields are not a relativistic effect of electric fields. Light is a self-propagating electromagnetic wave, with magnetic and electric field components orthogonal to one another. There is no frame you can transform into that removes the magnetic field. If you could do this, you'd be in a frame where light has a speed of 0, with no magnetic field and an electric field stationary in space
Using the 'relativity effect to change densities' is a terrible and fallacious argument that promotes false understanding. If this was a valid explanation, then it would work for self-propagating EM waves that absolutely require electric AND magnetic fields oscillating at right angles to one another; and since you cannot transform into a frame that puts the speed of light at 0, then these magnetic fields can never be transformed away into electric fields. Hence, relativity itself prove that magnetic fields are not a relativistic effect.
The fact that you can't always transform out magnetic field has nothing to do with the fact that it is a relativistic effect. EM wave is our 3D interpretation of a quantity that lives in 2+1D because it lives in just two spatial dimensions.
@@lukasrafajpps This literally has everything to do with it. If magnetic fields were a relativistic effect, you'd literally be able to transform them away. The only frame this works is one in which the speed of light is 0. Special relativity says the speed of light is constant in all frames. Hence, SR itself disproves the notion that magnetic fields are relativistic effects
Not being able to transform something away is huge in physics and tend to form the foundation of a lot of deep mathematical theories
This doesn't have anything to do with spatial dimensions
@@pyropulseIXXI I am not claiming that one is real and the other is not. I am claiming that there is just one single field (force) and electric and magnetic field are just manifestations of that field in 3D space.
I even believe that there are magnetic charges in the universe which would make the Maxwell's equations more symetrical.
This utterly ridiculously wrong. Everything we can observe directly is based on electricity and the world would collapse if his story was true
What do you mean? This video is perfectly compatible with how electricity works. It _explains_ how electromagnetism works without breaking relativity.
This is the modern understanding of the electrodynamics of moving charges and not controversial.
Haha nice clickbait.
I know, sorry :D
Shouldn't it be "apparent" length contraction and "apparent" time dilation? This is where I've always disagreed with Special Relativity (SR). It implies that, matter has infinite configurations, simultaneously! => When you begin to add multiple observers, or even infinite observers, SR falls completely apart. Think about it.
The MM experiment, in my opinion, indicates SR to be invalid, and indicates there is no physical manifestation of time as in space-time, nor any physical manifestation of space warping. It was designed to disprove the existence of a medium (ether, if you will), but I believe it disproves both the SR and ether paradigms. I hypothesize that there is a counter spectrum instead (the electromagnetic spectrum has a counterpart that we are completely missing) that is the root cause of our luminal speed limit and acts against both E and M fields. Say XY spectrum, where E has a counterpart X and M has a counterpart Y (and there is matter/antimatter and countermatter/anticountermatter as well). EM spectrum operates in space, XY spectrum operates in counter-space.
Hi dave, the length contraction is real but only for one observer because length is relative quantity. It is the same as saying this ship has a velocity of 50m/s it holds only for certain observers because velocity is relative quantity. MM experiment can't disprove SR just from the fact that it is in accord with the Einstein's second postulate of SR and all following consequences of SR is just from the postulates and nothing else. If you want to disprove Einstein SR, you have to measure different speed of light depending on the relative motion of the source. So whatever reason there is for lightspeed to be constant and independent of the observer, then SR holds but SR do not provide explanation why this is the case.
@@lukasrafajpps - It would be different length contractions for an observer at 0.5c, one @ 0.8c, another @ 0.9c, 0.99c, 0.999c and so forth is my point. Each would "see" a different length, or rather, apparent length. This is why I say apparent as the real length doesn't actually change - it can't simultaneously be different. Think of a train blowing a horn at 100Hz. There's an observer behind the train (moving away) and one in front (moving towards). The one behind hears 90Hz sound and the one in front hears 110Hz sound. Neither is hearing the actual sound, but relativistically speaking, each observer will hear something different. Both are apparent, but neither are real (the horn is not simultaneously blowing 3 frequencies) . Add a few hundred observers moving towards and away from the train at various velocities, and each will be different.
I understand this example is for sound propagation and not light propagation. Since we know EM (light) has a speed limit, we can presume either time and/or length changes when we approach that limit (Einstein) [OR] that the speed limit is due to an interaction (or interface) with something else (a resistive element, a force, non EM spectrum back-pressure, ether, etc).
The idea that "nothing can go faster than c" needs to be changed to "nothing electromagnetic in nature can exceed c". Setting c as the ultimate boundary condition for velocity through space was based on an assumption that c IS the boundary (sure it is for transverse electromagnetic waves, but I don't believe it is for longitudinal waves). Surely, Quantum Entanglement is a good indication that this assumption cannot be valid (that c is the universal speed limit).
What do I know? lol! (I used to get into arguments with physics professors over this stuff in my youth. They'd ultimately argue amongst themselves and then question the greats, while I'd sit back, quietly drink a suspicious elixir and ponder the possibility that the foundations of modern physics is built on sand. Those were the days).
@@davestorm6718 The point you apparently failed to grasp during your physics education is that there is no such thing as "real length", in the sense that there is no physical property called "length" that exists independent of frame of reference. Because no absolute frame of reference exists, what we call "length" is just a kind of measurement that depends on one's frame of reference.
@@DanielTanios I didn't miss this at all in my education, but I disagree with this hypothesis on the basis of reason. I insist that there must be a property of length independent of frame of reference. Indeed it is not what is taught in college (not since the 1950s).
I apparently did not get my point across. If 1 million observers all moving at different relative velocities all report 1 million different "lengths", then, length is subjective. I disagree with this and assert that there is 1 and only 1 correct measurement within it's own frame (not relative to any other - it's its own absolute frame). All measurements outside an object's frame are merely apparent, an illusion, and they would have to be lest they be simultaneously all lengths at all times (and even sillier, can change simply by changing the velocity of any observer - which does not happen - no evidence of this absurd line of thinking will happen).
Please reconsider my train horn argument. It's along the same line. A million observers all traveling at different velocities relative to the train will observe a million different frequencies. But all are apparent, not real. The only real frequency is at the horn (it's own frame).
@@davestorm6718 "...I disagree with this hypothesis on the basis of reason." Okay...so, what principles of reason are you invoking?
"I insist that there must be a property of length independent of length independent."
But there isn't. You can insist as much as you like, but it's just not true. Because there is no absolute frame of reference, there is therefore no absolute "coordinate grid", say, to measure the length of something against.
"I apparently did not get my point across. If 1 million observers...all report 1 million lengths, then, length is subjective."
Yes. Well, "subjective" in the sense that it's dependent on one's frame of reference. That's correct.
"I disagree with this."
This is just a bare assertion. You haven't even begun to explain why.
"I disagree with this and assert that there is 1 and only 1 correct measurememt within its own frame (not relative to any other - it's its own absolute frame)".
This is precisely what relativity has shown to be incorrect. You can assert as much as you want, but relativity is an extremely successful scientific theory with a mountain of evidence behind it.
It's also worth mentioning that it's unclear what you mean by "it's it's own absolute frame." If an absolute frame of reference exists, then we don't need to think about frames at all -- just the single absolute frame, by which we can measure whatever we want. But athough you use the word "absolute", reading your last paragraph, it seems as though what you're saying is that the measurement arising from the frame of reference of, for instance, some object, should be favoured. That is, if I want to measure the length of a train, I should measure it from the reference frame of the train. Any other measurement will result in "apparent" incongruities, not "real" ones. Similarly with the "train horn" argument. But the problem is that you're just asserting that some object's own frame should be privileged and regarded as real, and all other measurements as fake. But why? What makes one "real" and one "apparent"? But there is more at stake here than mere word games. Suppose I take one of two twin atomic clocks, and put it on a stationary jet, accelerated that jet to mach 5 or something, then slowed down, landed, and jumped onto the tarmac with my atomic clock. If I compare the atomic clock that got accelerated to the atomic clock that remained on the ground, there will be a discrepancy exactly accounted for by GR (such experiments have taken place numerous times). But while the measurement is taking place, surely we are in the same inertial frame of reference as the atomic clocks, right? Then how can you account for the discrepancy between them?
Here's the reality: length, mass and time are measurements that depend on reference frame, and we cannot privilege one frame over another. This is a well understood principle, and has been for many decades now, and you haven't produced the slightest reason to question it other than bare assertions and brazen insistence.
Maxwell's equations are not the problem here. they correctly describe the behaviors. The problem is our misunderstanding of frames.
glowscript.org/#/user/jethomas5/folder/LW3/program/galileanrelativity
Sorry for clickbait
This is a great explanation of this and I've just finished my first semester taking electricity and magnetism and soon going into my second semester of electricty and magnetism and these explanations really help. The connection between electricity, magnetism, and relativity is one of the most eye opening and mind blowing things I've learned about in my entire life.
I think there's also a connection EM-hydrodynamics.
Two semesters of E&M? I am so damn jealous! I start Thermodynamics next semester, but I am still excite! I feel like I've have learned an incredible amount, yet I have only scratched the surface. I F'in LOVE IT, and this is why I'm going to keep going once I am done w/ my B.S..
@@chrispycryptic that’s really awesome! I might do statistical mechanics in my senior year but I wanna do as much as I can with quantum stuff since I wanna go into particle physics for graduate
@@chrispycryptic Live your dream.
@@sirawesomehat8814
Hell yeah!!
Have you ever checked out Andrew Dotson's youtube? Following the journey through his PhD has been a huge inspiration for me when the going gets tough. He is in on the theoretical side of particle physics, and currently has been trying to get caught up on QFT so he can do some work in string theory (lol I know.). He is a really good dude, so when you mentioned particle phys I knew I had to give him a shout out.
I wish you success in your academic pursuits, it is a hella long road, but we got this!!
This isn't the first time I've seen a video regarding the link between electromagnetism and special relativity, yet I was mind blown none the less.
Your explanation was intuitive and had many valuable insights like the link between algebra and the redundant quantities, or even the of chain of discoveries which feels feels like a natural motivation for each succeeding theory.
Goes to show fancy graphics don't substitute for clarity and reasoned presentation. Bravo
Length contraction because of speed leads to a result
If magnetism is a relativistic by-product of electric charge then how should we re-define or re-imagine a photon, given that the usual description is along the lines of "an electric field oscillating at right angles to a magnetic field"?
Duuuude, this was an awwwwesome video.
Electrical engineer here giving you high praise and gracious thanks for making this content.
Wow, thanks!
@@lukasrafajpps but you know that the m m experiment did find some fringeshift
You have to transform all the fields to the new reference frame. E, B, J all change if you change your velocity.
He did that in the video around 4:20 . When you transform into the frame of the moving charge J changes from negative particles moving to the right to positive particles moving to the left. That is the same current so you get the same magnetic field.
it's fascinating to consider that at the same time this was being figured out people like Peano and Russell were in the process of destroying mathematics with absurd notions like mathematics is about operations over numbers, and numbers can be defined correctly via a successor operation.
the problems here are numerous, and ultimately yield Incompleteness, thus defeating the purpose of Logicism. for instance, if 1 is the successor to 0, then how is 1/2 considered a number? and, if mathematical operations operate over numbers then how does division render unit conversion possible by handling pure units? and if numbers are sequential, as the successor operation insists, then how can 1+1=2 and 1+1=48 at the same time, given that 1 frog + 1 frog = 2 frogs, but 1 foot + 1 yard = 48 inches? and if each number is unique, then how can it be that I just showed you that 2 = 48?
these are literally problems that toddlers notice, and yet they're just ignored by mainstream mathematics, even after more than 90 years with knowledge of the Incompleteness they induce despite the fact that they only exist in the first place because of a misguided movement to yield completeness.
and beyond this, it's still popularly believed that Whitehead and Russell proved 1+1=2, despite the fact that they never made that claim, and the book which alluded to it was the very thing being criticized by Godel in his proofs of Incompleteness.
tldr, as physics got smarter, math got way, way dumber... and that's amazing.
1/2 is not a number... 1 and 2 are numbers...
Well, using Galilean transformations for the electromagnetic potentials, assuming that the scalar potential transforms like a coordinate and a component of the vector potential transforms like time, one could come to a conclusion that the electric field is not zero in the electron's reference frame. Thus, the probing electron would fly away from the wire. Right?
You so right. Im happy at least one person in here mentions it geez...
👏👏👏👏Yes! I experienced the same fascination as you mention at the end of the video, many years ago, when I realized what you perfectly describe in this video.🤯 😁
The path of reasoning I learned about what happened historically is equivalent but slightly different though. Maxwell, when analyzing the findings of Coulomb, Faraday, Ampere, and together with the mathematical insight of Gauss, realized that a correction was to be made to the formula derived by Ampere. The derivative of the electric field multiplied by the electric permittivity and the magnetic permeativity had to be added. The product of these two constants is very small, so it was understandable that Ampere didn’t observe this flaw, and it took the genius of Maxwell to realize that without this term the equations yield a mathematical contradiction.
By adding this term the equation of a wave function is immediately derived, a wave moving at a speed equal to the inverse of the square root of the product of the mentioned constants. This speed happened to be numerically equal to the speed of light! So this finding settled the debate about light being a wave, and the success of this finding was immense!
But then, a new apparent inconsistency showed up. The electric permittivity and the magnetic permeativity are plain dimensional constants, it makes no sense for them to be different as measured in different moving reference frames. It took the genius of Einstein to solve this apparent contradiction by daring to say that, well, there it is, in front of our eyes. The speed of light is a constant with the same value in any frame of reference. 😎
Actually the speed of light is not exactly a constant, but rather it is a dimensional relativity limit of the force of time. Time (not clock time) is a force in it's own right, that is what is wrong with these equations. Light slows down when change mediums and its speed in matter is slower than in a free space vacuum.
Do you speak German?
@@raycar1165 Yes. Why do you ask?🙂
@@enricolucarelli816 well I have a theory that the English language is backward.
It’s use by people who don’t understand this, is resulting in the entropy of intelligence.
No offense intended.
You have the advantage to read the original papers of the giants we really stand upon. That’s all. Many great papers have not been translated.
There is a paradigm shift happening.
GR, SR, Minkowski space etc. are the reason why there is a crisis in cosmology, in all of science really.
Everyone is going to know soon and Einstein and Hawking will be reduced to the status of Ptolemy and The four humours.
Carbon dating is going to be questioned.
Antigravity is going to be revealed.
Christians are learning about the god they’ve been worshipping
The big bang theory is being challenged by new information every two months…
The whole world is going crazy.
We may want to clear the table and start over where Mach and Whitehead and Tesla left off.
If we’re not distracted by a word war… again.
But I could be wrong.