@@zain4019 WHAT IS E=MC2 IS dimensionally consistent, AS TIME is NECESSARILY possible/potential AND actual ON/IN BALANCE; AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy is CLEARLY AND NECESSARILY proven to be gravity (ON/IN BALANCE); AS WHAT IS E=MC2 is taken directly from F=ma; AS the rotation of WHAT IS THE MOON matches the revolution; AS the stars AND PLANETS are POINTS in the night sky. Consistent WITH WHAT IS E=MC2, “mass"/ENERGY involves BALANCED inertia/INERTIAL RESISTANCE consistent WITH/AS what is BALANCED electroMAGNETIC/gravitational force/ENERGY; AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy is CLEARLY AND NECESSARILY proven to be gravity (ON/IN BALANCE) !!! SO, what are OBJECTS may fall at the SAME RATE !!! WHAT IS GRAVITY IS, ON BALANCE, an INTERACTION that cannot be shielded (or blocked). Consider the man who IS standing on what is THE EARTH/ground. Consider what is THE EYE ON BALANCE !!! Now, consider what is the TRANSLUCENT AND BLUE sky !!! (What is THE EARTH IS ALSO BLUE !!!) Again, consider WHAT IS E=MC2 !!! c squared CLEARLY (AND NECESSARILY) represents a dimension of SPACE ON BALANCE, AS TIME is NECESSARILY possible/potential AND actual ON/IN BALANCE; AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy is CLEARLY AND NECESSARILY proven to be gravity (ON/IN BALANCE). It ALL CLEARLY makes perfect sense ON BALANCE, AS BALANCE AND completeness go hand in hand. Great. By Frank Martin DiMeglio
Sir you make very abstract subject matter so easy and straight forward to understand and the genius of that can almost be under appreciated; what you do is not as easy as people think! You are a great public servant i really hope you can consider doing interviews on radio CSPAN, NPR, BBC...your such a talent thank you again!!!YOU TUBE DESERVES TO PAY YOU!!! C'mon Sergei do the right thing!!!
Thank you so much for these amazing explanations. You help me a lot. I couldn’t find as useful videos in this topic in my own language as yours. I’m so grateful, you are an amazing teacher!
AHA!! .. I answered my own question before asking it here... I was going to ask you if we could use Coulomb's formula, F=(kQq)/r^2, to find the FORCE and then insert that into the .. a= f/m equation.. rather than using the F = E/q... .. well.. as you know... IT DOES WORK... lol .. but this problem was centered around the Electric Field concept... so I see it was easier to go that route... I guess it was just nice to see the Consistency in using various FORCE Equations and they all work out fine... Thanks Michel for another great series of Video Lectures.... interesting to note that if F=E/q and F = (kQq)/r^2 then E/q = (kQq)r^2 .. or multiplying both sides by q .. gives an equation for E = (kQq^2)/r^2 .. interesting.. just multiplying Coulomb's Equation by the charge "q" yields the Electric Field, E ... or as EINSTEIN would say, "Gee, Whodda Thunk It?!"
thanks very much sir for your impact. you have made physics look more understanding for i and my friends. we love you and God bless you and all those sponsoring you if there is any. KEEP IT UP.
It's missing the direction of the acceleration, it only solved the magnitude. Should put -1.6x10.... with the minus and also the (x versor) so the final answer has a (-x^)
S An electron is released from rest in a weak electric field given by E =-1.50 x 10 ^-10 N/C j (along y axis) . After the electron has traveled a vertical distance of 1.0 mm, what is its speed? (Do not neglect the gravitational force on the electron.) Shed some lights on this professor.
I was going to ask if its going to reach the speed of light and can it break it or not, and I realized it will take a small fraction of a second to cover the 5 meters, but then I saw the description, so yeah. big fan of LHC.
Thanks for giving me more clarity these equations. Professor, I thought the equation F=qE was only used when we are considering the uniform electric field between two plates. Can I ask why you use that equation when there is only one charge at the origin? Is that electric field uniform? Thanks
it works either way. Since kq1q2/r^2 =ma a = k q1 q2 / r^2 * m(electron) Since the charge on electron is negative. Your answer will be negative, meaning it will be moving towards the origin in the negative i hat direction, or x hat.
I have a question, so in a circuit, where the current goes from positive to negative, but actually is going from negative to positive because electricity is made by electrons. Why when we do electric fields the positive goes to the negative and not backwards?
+Alejandro Vidales Aller We have Benjamin Franklin to thank for that among others. Before they understood which charges moved through conductors it was made the convention to assume that positive charges are moving through the conductors and current was defined as the movement of positive charges.
Sir since the first charge was replaced with electron, why should not use electron charge like (9*10^9)(1.602*10^-19)÷(50)^2= 5.77*10^-13N/C and then (5.77*10^-13)(1.602*10^-19÷(9.11*10^-31)
The electric field is not a force, it is a field. The direction is defined by the direction of the force experienced by a positive test charge that is placed in the field.
So, in terms of the direction of the acceleration, do we say, "In the negative x direction", or do we put a negative sign in front of "7.6x10^14 m/s^2" OR is it just "7.6x10^14 m/s^2"?
If an electron were suspended in the centre of a uniform electrical field between a positive plate and a negative plate where the field direction will be from the positive plate to the negative plate, what would the direction of the force acting on the electron be? Will it go from the electron to the positive plate ( i.e in the direction opposite to the direction of the field ) since it accelerates in that direction?
That is correct. Note that F = q E (where q is a positive charge by definition) such that the direction of the force is in the same direction as the electric field, and with a negative charge, the force will be in the opposite direction.
First of all, the elessons are amazing and very helpful, thanks for that. Secondly I have a question about the problem. I didn't understand how did you find the magnitude of the small electrion that added in the electric field later on the question? How did it get the value of -1.6x10^-19? Did you made it up or is there a solid solution to find the value of it? Thanks...
For the first part, why is the electric field pointing to the right of the positive charge? Where would the electric field point if the charge was negative?
The electric field is directed away from a positive charge and towards a negative charge. Therefore the direction of the electric field would be to the left (on the right side).
The acceleration magnitude found at the end is greater than the speed of light. How does that work? Edit: ive seen from previous comments that despite the acceleration, electron doesnt exceed c. So i guess electron speed here reaches c in literally no time? I just cant make sense of an acceleration magnitude thats greater than c
The magnitude of the acceleration can be greater, just not the speed. (Note that the acceleration will diminish quickly as the charges move away from each other. )
You got me the highest grade in the class wrt mechanics and I am pretty sure the same will be said about E and M!! How did you guys get through Physics w/o great public access videos!
sir why you use Electric field value which is before you place the electron charge to calculate acceleration ? electron charge does not effect on electric field ?
It has to do with the atoms and molecules making up the material. If the atoms are more electronegative, they will have a greater tendency to pull electrons from another material when they are in contact.
sir This Example Consider uniform of Electric field ariented in the x - direction ìn empty space. Acube od edge length L is placed in the field , find the net flux through the surface of the cube?
Sure, the coulomb force can be used. But you find the direction of the force by knowing the direction of the electric field and the sign of the charge.
Sure, you can use Coulomb's law to find the force on the charge. But to find the direction of the force it is easier to use the direction of the electric field and the sign of the test charge.
Dear Michel, would you please tell me what you think of this? PRECISELY WHY AND HOW THE BALANCED, TOP DOWN, COMMON SENSE, SIMPLE, EXTENSIVE, AND CLEAR MATHEMATICAL UNIFICATION OF PHYSICS/PHYSICAL EXPERIENCE IS PROVEN BY (AND CONSISTENT WITH) F=MA AND E=MC2: The following also CLEARLY explains why the rotation of WHAT IS THE MOON matches it's revolution. c squared represents a dimension of SPACE on balance WITH the fact that the stars AND PLANETS are POINTS in the night sky. Indeed, the sky is blue; AND what is THE EARTH/ground is ALSO BLUE (on balance) !! Consider what is the speed of light (c) ON BALANCE. A PHOTON may be placed at the center of what is THE SUN (as A POINT, of course), AS the reduction of SPACE is offset by (or BALANCED with) the speed of light (c) (ON BALANCE); AS E=mc2 IS F=ma; AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy is (CLEARLY AND necessarily) proven to be gravity (ON/IN BALANCE). General Relativity is directly taken from Special Relativity. E=mc2 is taken directly from F=ma. CLEARLY, gravity AND ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy are linked AND BALANCED opposites (ON BALANCE); as the stars AND PLANETS are POINTS in the night sky. Consider TIME (AND time dilation) ON BALANCE. I have exposed Einstein. Beautiful. Note: Consider what is THE EYE ON BALANCE. Think carefully about the black “space” AS WELL. Great. It ALL CLEARLY makes perfect sense, as BALANCE AND completeness go hand in hand. THE EYE represents a two dimensional surface OR SPACE (ON BALANCE) that is consistent with F=ma AND E=mc2. This NECESSARILY represents, INVOLVES, AND DESCRIBES what is possible/potential AND actual IN/ON BALANCE. Consider what is necessarily, CLEARLY, logically, and by definition the MIDDLE DISTANCE in/of SPACE ON/IN BALANCE. GREAT !!! Think about what is true/real QUANTUM GRAVITY !!! Great. Consider what is THE SUN. The sky is blue, and THE EARTH/ground is ALSO BLUE. Again, the stars AND PLANETS are POINTS in the night sky. GREAT. E=mc2 IS F=ma. This explains the fourth dimension AND the term c4 from Einstein's field equations. BALANCED inertia/INERTIAL RESISTANCE is fundamental. The gravitational “field” is E=mc2 as F=ma. Consider what is THE EARTH/ground ON BALANCE. The stars AND PLANETS are POINTS in the night sky. Consider TIME (AND time dilation) on balance. Consider what is THE SUN ON BALANCE. I have explained why the rotation of WHAT IS THE MOON matches it's revolution. The sky is blue, and THE EARTH/ground is ALSO BLUE. Carefully consider what is THE EYE ON BALANCE. Consider what is the balanced MIDDLE DISTANCE in/of SPACE. E=mc2 IS F=ma ON BALANCE. That's the answer. ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy is CLEARLY and necessarily proven to be gravity (ON/IN BALANCE). Get a good LOOK at what are the fully illuminated (AND setting) Moon AND the orange AND setting Sun. Consider what is the blue sky ON BALANCE. Lava is orange, and it is even blood red. THINK !!! SO, ON BALANCE, consider what are the tides !!! Excellent. E=mc2 IS F=ma. Accordingly, it ALL CLEARLY makes perfect sense; as BALANCE AND completeness go hand in hand. Again, the stars AND PLANETS are POINTS in the night sky. Consider what is THE SUN ON BALANCE. Think about what is the BALANCED MIDDLE DISTANCE in/of SPACE, AND consider what is the speed of light (c) ON BALANCE !!! GREAT !!! Consider TIME (AND time dilation) ON BALANCE !!! Wonderful. The sky is blue, AND THE EARTH is ALSO BLUE. The tides are CLEARLY and necessarily proven to be ELECTROMAGNETIC/gravitational ON/IN BALANCE, as E=mc2 IS F=ma (ON/IN BALANCE). By Frank DiMeglio
Frank. We appreciate your comments. But in order to respond, the questions need to be paired down to one step, question at a time. For example: PRECISELY WHY AND HOW THE BALANCED, TOP DOWN, COMMON SENSE, SIMPLE, EXTENSIVE, AND CLEAR MATHEMATICAL UNIFICATION OF PHYSICS/PHYSICAL EXPERIENCE IS PROVEN BY (AND CONSISTENT WITH) F=MA AND E=MC2: contains so many words, that grammatically I couldn't figure out what you are asking.
@@MichelvanBiezen This simplifies the matter: E=MC2 AS F=MA CLEARLY PROVES (ON BALANCE) WHY AND HOW THE PROPER AND FULL UNDERSTANDING OF TIME (AND TIME DILATION) UNIVERSALLY ESTABLISHES THE FACT THAT ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS GRAVITY: A PHOTON may be placed at the center of what is THE SUN (as A POINT, of course), AS the reduction of SPACE is offset by (or BALANCED with) the speed of light; AS E=mc2 IS F=ma; AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy is gravity. Indeed, the stars AND PLANETS are POINTS in the night sky. E=mc2 IS F=ma. Gravity IS ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy. Time DILATION ULTIMATELY proves ON BALANCE that ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy is GRAVITY, AS E=mc2 IS F=ma. Indeed, TIME is NECESSARILY possible/potential AND actual IN BALANCE; AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS GRAVITY; AS E=MC2 IS F=MA. Great. "Mass"/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. E=mc2 IS F=ma. (Very importantly, outer "space" involves full inertia; AND it is fully invisible AND black.) BALANCE and completeness go hand in hand. It ALL CLEARLY makes perfect sense. I have mathematically unified physics/physical experience, as I have CLEARLY proven that E=mc2 IS F=ma in what is a truly universal and BALANCED fashion. By Frank DiMeglio
@@MichelvanBiezen THE MATHEMATICAL AND PHYSICAL PROOF THAT E=MC2 IS DIMENSIONALLY CONSISTENT WITH ONE AND WHAT IS A TWO DIMENSIONAL SURFACE OR SPACE ON BALANCE, THEREBY PROVING THAT ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS CLEARLY AND NECESSARILY PROVEN TO BE GRAVITY (ON/IN BALANCE): This also clearly proves ON balance that E=mc2 is directly taken from F=ma. Magnificent. Gravity is a property of SPACE ON BALANCE. It involves adherence or cohesion. So, BALANCED inertia/INERTIAL RESISTANCE is fundamental ON BALANCE. Accordingly, ON BALANCE, TIME is NECESSARILY possible/potential AND actual ON/IN BALANCE. Consider what is the man who IS standing on what is THE EARTH/ground (ON BALANCE). What is the blue sky ON BALANCE? This IS the blue EARTH AS this is expressed on balance WITH (or equivalently by) what is the eye. The translucent AND blue sky is consistent with what is BALANCED BODILY/VISUAL (AND electromagnetic/gravitational) EXPERIENCE ON BALANCE, as touch AND feeling BLEND; as ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy is CLEARLY (AND necessarily) proven to be gravity (ON/IN BALANCE). GREAT. The stars AND PLANETS are POINTS in the night sky ON BALANCE, AND consider what is the speed of light (c) ON BALANCE !! Consider TIME (AND time dilation) ON BALANCE. E=mc2 IS F=ma ON BALANCE, AS the rotation of WHAT IS THE MOON matches it's revolution; as ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy is CLEARLY (AND necessarily) proven to be gravity (ON/IN BALANCE). The tides are CLEARLY and necessarily proven to be electroMAGNETIC/gravitational ON BALANCE. I have also CLEARLY explained (ON BALANCE) why THE PLANETS move away very, very, very, very slightly in relation to WHAT IS THE SUN !! I have explained why WHAT IS THE EYE beholds what is then (ON BALANCE) WHAT IS THE BLUE EARTH. Notice the associated black “space” AND DOME regarding what is the eye. Again, the stars AND PLANETS are POINTS in the night sky ON BALANCE. ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy is CLEARLY AND NECESSARILY proven to be gravity (ON/IN BALANCE). Very carefully consider what is THE SUN ON BALANCE !! E=mc2 IS F=ma. Again, I have proven AND explained why the rotation of WHAT IS THE MOON matches it's revolution. Gravity cannot be shielded (or blocked) ON BALANCE. What is quantum gravity is CLEARLY fundamental ON BALANCE. Gravity is CLEARLY fundamental ON BALANCE. BALANCED inertia/INERTIAL RESISTANCE is fundamental ON BALANCE. Define “mass". You cannot. BALANCED inertia/INERTIAL RESISTANCE is fundamental. E=mc2 is taken directly from F=ma. CLEARLY, gravity AND ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy are linked AND BALANCED opposites (ON BALANCE); as the stars AND PLANETS are POINTS in the night sky !! Consider TIME (AND time dilation) ON BALANCE. GREAT. You have to CLEARLY AND fully understand what E=mc2 means and represents ON BALANCE. We want to understand the dimensions in a seamless (or balanced) fashion in relation to gravity AND ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy (including what is E=mc2). Consider one AND three dimensional SPACE ON BALANCE. Consider what is the fourth dimension ON BALANCE. NOW, consider all of the following. Consider what is E=mc2. CLEARLY, you have to understand what is a TWO dimensional surface OR SPACE ON BALANCE. c squared CLEARLY represents BALANCED acceleration in conjunction WITH what is NECESSARILY a dimension of SPACE ON BALANCE. The stars AND PLANETS are POINTS in the night sky ON BALANCE, AND consider what is the speed of light (c) ON BALANCE. This CLEARLY AND NECESSARILY represents, INVOLVES, AND DESCRIBES what is possible/potential AND actual ON/IN BALANCE. Carefully consider what is THE EYE ON BALANCE. Great. Consider what is gravity AND E=mc2 ON BALANCE. TIME dilation ULTIMATELY proves (ON BALANCE) that ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy is gravity, AS E=MC2 is CLEARLY F=ma ON BALANCE. Gravity/acceleration involves BALANCED inertia/INERTIAL RESISTANCE, AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy is gravity; AS E=MC2 is CLEARLY F=ma ON BALANCE; AS the stars AND PLANETS are POINTS in the night sky. Accordingly, ON BALANCE, the rotation of WHAT IS THE MOON matches it's revolution. TIME is NECESSARILY possible/potential AND actual IN BALANCE, AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy is gravity; AS E=MC2 is CLEARLY F=ma ON BALANCE. The stars AND PLANETS are POINTS in the night sky. Accordingly, ON BALANCE, it makes perfect sense that THE PLANETS (including WHAT IS THE EARTH) will move away very, very, very slightly in relation to what is THE SUN !!! ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy is gravity, AS E=MC2 is CLEARLY F=ma ON BALANCE. Inertia/INERTIAL RESISTANCE is proportional to (or BALANCED with/as) GRAVITATIONAL force/ENERGY, as this balances gravity AND inertia; AS E=MC2 is CLEARLY F=ma ON BALANCE; AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy is gravity. GREAT. By Frank DiMeglio
@@MichelvanBiezen Thanks. Please comment dear Sir. Consider what is the man (AND THE EYE ON BALANCE) who IS standing on what is THE EARTH/ground. Touch AND feeling BLEND, AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy is CLEARLY (AND NECESSARILY) proven to be gravity (ON IN BALANCE). Great !!!! I have mathematically unified physics. What is E=MC2 is taken directly from F=ma. CLEARLY, gravity AND ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy are linked AND BALANCED opposites (ON BALANCE); as the stars AND PLANETS are POINTS in the night sky. Consider TIME (AND time dilation) ON BALANCE. c squared CLEARLY represents a dimension of SPACE ON BALANCE !! TIME is NECESSARILY possible/potential AND actual ON/IN BALANCE. ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy is CLEARLY (AND NECESSARILY) proven to be gravity (ON/IN BALANCE). Now, consider what is THE EYE ON BALANCE !!!! GREAT. It is CLEARLY proven (ON BALANCE). Indeed, the rotation of WHAT IS THE MOON matches it's revolution. Fantastic!! By Frank DiMeglio The stars AND PLANETS are POINTS in the night sky. TIME dilation CLEARLY proves that ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy is gravity. TIME is NECESSARILY possible/potential AND actual ON/IN BALANCE. E=MC2 CLEARLY proves that ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy is gravity ON/IN BALANCE. (Consider what is the TRANSLUCENT AND BLUE sky ON BALANCE.) WHAT IS E=MC2 is taken directly from F=ma. c squared CLEARLY represents a dimension of SPACE ON BALANCE. Consider what is THE EYE ON BALANCE. Indeed, consider what is the orange (AND setting) Sun. I have mathematically proven why the rotation of WHAT IS THE MOON matches it's revolution. Great. By Frank DiMeglio Static electricity, lightning, AND E=MC2 are FUNDAMENTALLY related. Great ❤️. By Frank DiMeglio
Greetings, I find your videos very helpful. I was wondering why Q1= 12 X 10^-6 and not 12 x 10^-5 . This may seem like a silly question but I would just like the clarification. Thank you in advance.
Sir, Why is the negatively charged electron the one whos experiencing a force? Shouldnt the positive electron also experience a force due to the presence of the negatively charged electron? I can imagine the positive electron moving at a much lower speed, but not completely still. 🤔🤔
The electric field of stationary charges is static. However, when the charges begin to accelerate or vibrate, then they will cause electromagnetic radiation that moves at the speed of light. See this playlist: PHYSICS 50 ELECTROMAGNETIC RADIATION
The size of the electric field of the electron is insignificant compared to the electric field of the positive charge. There is no need to calculate the electric field of the electrons in order to determine the force on and the acceleration of the electron.
If the charge was negative, then the electric field would be towards the charge (to the left at the location of the other charge), and the force on the force on the electron would be repulsive and directed to the right.
The answer is not the speed of the electron, but the acceleration of the electron (note the units). As you mentioned, the speed of the electron can never exceed the speed of light.
+OneFish TwoFish Since force is a vector, it cannot be negative. A vector has magnitude and direction and the magnitude of a vector can only be positive. However, that said, a force can act in a negative direction. Thus a vector is defined by giving its magnitude (always positive) and its direction.
Hi prof, first i would like to thank you for this lecture. second , can you tell me where is this (q)= 1.6x10^(-19) come from please ... thanks in advance . Nawar
That depends on how the answer is expressed. Here in this video it is expressed as the magnitude of a vector (which cannot be negative). If you also want to express the direction, then the answer needs to be written in the vector format.
+Mohammad Mahmoud This whole channel is a compilation of thousands of videos covering all topics of physics and other topics in the order in which they are taught.
violinsheetmusicblog The magnitude of all vectors are positive. Thus the magnitude of the force and the magnitude of the velocity of the electron are positive. However, that said, if I wrote the answer in vector notation, since the direction of both the force and the velocity is in the negative direction, I would have to put a negative sign in front of these two values and the unit vector behind them.
violinsheetmusicblog, Don't think about the force being positive or negative. The magnitude of a vector quantity (force) can never be negative, but it can be directed in a positive or negative direction. In this problem you have a 6.9 x 10^-16 N force acting in a negative direction. A positive charge placed in an electric field will experience a force in the same direction as the field. A negative charge placed in an electric field will experience a force in the opposite direction as the field.
+Nestor Montejo The magnitude of a vector is always positive. The direction of the acceleration of the electron is to the left. (negative x-direction).
Acceleration and speed are not the same thing. It is possible to have very large acceletations, as long as the final speed is less than the speed of light.
Jennifer, Think about it this way: The electric field starts from a positive charge and ends at a negative charge. So when you place an electron (which is a small negative charge) in an electric field, it will feel a force of attraction towards the positive charge (which is in the opposite direction compared to the direction of the electric field). Now if you place a proton in an electric field, it will feel a force away from the positive charge creating the electric field and therefore move in the same direction as the electric field.
+Samuel Souto There is no restriction on how you want to set up a problem. You only use a "positive test charge" if you want to determine the convention of the direction for the electric field and associated forces.
There are hundreds (both in the physics section and the electrical engineering section). Take a look at the home page of the channel where the videos are all organized by chapter.
Hi Mr. I have a lil confusion here . where did the electron's charge -1.6X10^-19 C came from ? I just can't stop thinking about that . May you help me Mr ?
This guy is the hidden gem of youtube
The amount of content on your channel is simply astounding, and you show no signs of slowing down. You're a legend in my book.
Tyrone Slothdrop 2 years later and he's still uploading daily
Such a passionate teacher!
@@zain4019 5 years later and still.
@The Magic School Bus 7 years later he still going, crazy.
@@zain4019 WHAT IS E=MC2 IS dimensionally consistent, AS TIME is NECESSARILY possible/potential AND actual ON/IN BALANCE; AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy is CLEARLY AND NECESSARILY proven to be gravity (ON/IN BALANCE); AS WHAT IS E=MC2 is taken directly from F=ma; AS the rotation of WHAT IS THE MOON matches the revolution; AS the stars AND PLANETS are POINTS in the night sky. Consistent WITH WHAT IS E=MC2, “mass"/ENERGY involves BALANCED inertia/INERTIAL RESISTANCE consistent WITH/AS what is BALANCED electroMAGNETIC/gravitational force/ENERGY; AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy is CLEARLY AND NECESSARILY proven to be gravity (ON/IN BALANCE) !!! SO, what are OBJECTS may fall at the SAME RATE !!! WHAT IS GRAVITY IS, ON BALANCE, an INTERACTION that cannot be shielded (or blocked). Consider the man who IS standing on what is THE EARTH/ground. Consider what is THE EYE ON BALANCE !!! Now, consider what is the TRANSLUCENT AND BLUE sky !!! (What is THE EARTH IS ALSO BLUE !!!) Again, consider WHAT IS E=MC2 !!! c squared CLEARLY (AND NECESSARILY) represents a dimension of SPACE ON BALANCE, AS TIME is NECESSARILY possible/potential AND actual ON/IN BALANCE; AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy is CLEARLY AND NECESSARILY proven to be gravity (ON/IN BALANCE). It ALL CLEARLY makes perfect sense ON BALANCE, AS BALANCE AND completeness go hand in hand. Great.
By Frank Martin DiMeglio
He is truly one of the best teachers in here....
Sir you make very abstract subject matter so easy and straight forward to understand and the genius of that can almost be under appreciated; what you do is not as easy as people think! You are a great public servant i really hope you can consider doing interviews on radio CSPAN, NPR, BBC...your such a talent thank you again!!!YOU TUBE DESERVES TO PAY YOU!!! C'mon Sergei do the right thing!!!
+Anthony Njoroge Anthony,Thank you for your comment. I am glad that I can give back to the world and help students around the world.
Monica,
The charge on an electron was experimentally discovered by Millikan utilizing his oil drop experiment.
(I have a video on that)
Your explanations are amazing, finding this channel has been one of the best things for my degree.
Keep working hard towards that degree.
This helped me put things in perspective better much better than my physics professor. Thank you
Glad it helped! 🙂
Thank you so much for these amazing explanations. You help me a lot. I couldn’t find as useful videos in this topic in my own language as yours. I’m so grateful, you are an amazing teacher!
We are glad you found our videos.
passed my physics exams because of your videos, I owe you my life sir thank you lol
God bless you and go ahead ....
Your content is great and I’m learning more than ever - I’m also watching your general relativity series, thanks you so much!
Great to hear!
AHA!! .. I answered my own question before asking it here... I was going to ask you if we could use Coulomb's formula, F=(kQq)/r^2, to find the FORCE and then insert that into the .. a= f/m equation.. rather than using the F = E/q... .. well.. as you know... IT DOES WORK... lol .. but this problem was centered around the Electric Field concept... so I see it was easier to go that route... I guess it was just nice to see the Consistency in using various FORCE Equations and they all work out fine... Thanks Michel for another great series of Video Lectures.... interesting to note that if F=E/q and F = (kQq)/r^2 then E/q = (kQq)r^2 .. or multiplying both sides by q .. gives an equation for E = (kQq^2)/r^2 .. interesting.. just multiplying Coulomb's Equation by the charge "q" yields the Electric Field, E ... or as EINSTEIN would say, "Gee, Whodda Thunk It?!"
Philip Y hahah I had the same question
thanks very much sir for your impact. you have made physics look more understanding for i and my friends. we love you and God bless you and all those sponsoring you if there is any. KEEP IT UP.
Thank you for your comment. Glad we can be of help.
This guy got me into Cal Berkeley for Physics/Math major Thank you professor
BEST. PROFESSOR. EVER.
It's missing the direction of the acceleration, it only solved the magnitude. Should put -1.6x10.... with the minus and also the (x versor) so the final answer has a (-x^)
emas
"mu" which stands for "micro" = 1 x 10^-6
So 12 microcoulombs = 12 x 10^-6
Michel van Biezen μ＝micro
mate , What about the direction ?
I must thank you for explaining this subject by using amazing exercises! You are the man!
S An electron is released from rest in a weak electric field given by E =-1.50 x 10 ^-10 N/C j (along y axis) . After the electron has traveled a vertical distance of 1.0 mm, what is its speed? (Do not neglect the gravitational force on the electron.)
Shed some lights on this professor.
I'm hoping I'll understand everything and that I'll be able to solve my homework effortlessly after watching those videos of yours.
are we ignoring the electric field caused by electron?
BIG THANK YOU PROFESSOR
We did not ignore the electric field of the electron. (The electric field of the electron does not exert a force on the electron).
Man!! What if you were my teacher. I would have picked up Physics for a major. You are clutch. Please keep posting these videos.
The physics is top notch but that accent tops everything man!! NY all the way!!
+Anthony Njoroge You missed it by about 3000 miles. I am originally from Belgium.
+Michel van Biezen Well he's a physics student, not geography
:)
Thank you so much for taking the time to make this video. you are a good teacher.
Greetings from Qatar!
A very helpful video, sir. :)
Welcome to the channel!
amazing the site is great than the lecture in class ,,,, i wish ib were among your students but I"m great to b among the online learners
I truly truly love you! Thank you for all the work you do..
wonderful video...short but exact to the point!
May God bless your soul
I was going to ask if its going to reach the speed of light and can it break it or not, and I realized it will take a small fraction of a second to cover the 5 meters, but then I saw the description, so yeah. big fan of LHC.
Field force is a distance dependent force so you shoud had noticed that the acceleration you calculated is momentary
Whish playlist should i start with, 36 or 36.1, thank you Michel for your great effort.
Either one. 36.1 starts with some more basic concepts.
Sir you are simply the best ,
thanks a lot for your work professor
You are welcome 🙂
Thank you so much sir! i think you're going to be my saviour in this semester
Thank you very much, your explanations are the best😃😊
Thank you! 😃
Thanks for giving me more clarity these equations. Professor, I thought the equation F=qE was only used when we are considering the uniform electric field between two plates. Can I ask why you use that equation when there is only one charge at the origin? Is that electric field uniform? Thanks
That equation can be used in any situation. It is always true, (like F = ma). But the electric field strength will indeed change as the charge moves.
@@MichelvanBiezen Thanks for taking the time to explain. You are the best.
Never mind you answered my question in your lecture.
When calculating the acceleration of the electron force, how come we don't put the force as negative?
i think its because we are calculating the magnitude which is always positive
but it asks for the direction so I assume it should be in the negative x direction
it works either way. Since kq1q2/r^2 =ma
a = k q1 q2 / r^2 * m(electron)
Since the charge on electron is negative. Your answer will be negative, meaning it will be moving towards the origin in the negative i hat direction, or x hat.
Because the arrow on the diagram is already pointing to the left, so we now its direction already. In such a case, we can ignore the negative sign.
Thank you sir for your amazing explanations. Subscribed
I have a question, so in a circuit, where the current goes from positive to negative, but actually is going from negative to positive because electricity is made by electrons. Why when we do electric fields the positive goes to the negative and not backwards?
+Alejandro Vidales Aller
We have Benjamin Franklin to thank for that among others. Before they understood which charges moved through conductors it was made the convention to assume that positive charges are moving through the conductors and current was defined as the movement of positive charges.
Sir since the first charge was replaced with electron, why should not use electron charge like (9*10^9)(1.602*10^-19)÷(50)^2= 5.77*10^-13N/C
and then
(5.77*10^-13)(1.602*10^-19÷(9.11*10^-31)
Sorry I'm not sure I quite understand why the electron magnetic field move to the right. Shouldn't it be attracted to the positive charge?
The electric field is not a force, it is a field. The direction is defined by the direction of the force experienced by a positive test charge that is placed in the field.
So, in terms of the direction of the acceleration, do we say, "In the negative x direction", or do we put a negative sign in front of "7.6x10^14 m/s^2" OR is it just "7.6x10^14 m/s^2"?
+YFamilyVideos It makes more sense to express the answer in terms of the magnitude and the direction. Like 3 N in the negative x-direction.
If an electron were suspended in the centre of a uniform electrical field between a positive plate and a negative plate where the field direction will be from the positive plate to the negative plate, what would the direction of the force acting on the electron be? Will it go from the electron to the positive plate ( i.e in the direction opposite to the direction of the field ) since it accelerates in that direction?
That is correct. Note that F = q E (where q is a positive charge by definition) such that the direction of the force is in the same direction as the electric field, and with a negative charge, the force will be in the opposite direction.
@@MichelvanBiezen Reasonable, thank you sir
thank you very much prof your videos really helped me
First of all, the elessons are amazing and very helpful, thanks for that. Secondly I have a question about the problem. I didn't understand how did you find the magnitude of the small electrion that added in the electric field later on the question? How did it get the value of -1.6x10^-19? Did you made it up or is there a solid solution to find the value of it? Thanks...
The value of the charge of an electron was discovered by Millikan with his famous oil drop experiment.
For the first part, why is the electric field pointing to the right of the positive charge? Where would the electric field point if the charge was negative?
The electric field is directed away from a positive charge and towards a negative charge. Therefore the direction of the electric field would be to the left (on the right side).
The acceleration magnitude found at the end is greater than the speed of light. How does that work?
Edit: ive seen from previous comments that despite the acceleration, electron doesnt exceed c. So i guess electron speed here reaches c in literally no time? I just cant make sense of an acceleration magnitude thats greater than c
The magnitude of the acceleration can be greater, just not the speed. (Note that the acceleration will diminish quickly as the charges move away from each other. )
Michel van Biezen oh.. so that basically means the timescales are very short, maybe in like nanoseconds or so?
That is correct.
You got me the highest grade in the class wrt mechanics and I am pretty sure the same will be said about E and M!! How did you guys get through Physics w/o great public access videos!
We remember much frustration trying to find resources where we could gain understanding. That is probably why we considered making these videos.
MATH LOVER thanks for all you do :)
why we use ExQ to find F instead of kQ1Q2/r^2? is there any difference in terms of question types? Thank you.
sir why you use Electric field value which is before you place the electron charge to calculate acceleration ? electron charge does not effect on electric field ?
Andrew,
The electric field can be defined in two ways:
1) E = (F/q) in vector form
and
2) E = kQ/R^2 due to a point charge (also in vector form)
This is very helpful! Thank you!!!
Sir when you rub glass with wool for example , how do you decide which of the materials gets negatively charged and which gets positively charged ?
It has to do with the atoms and molecules making up the material. If the atoms are more electronegative, they will have a greater tendency to pull electrons from another material when they are in contact.
sir
This Example Consider uniform of Electric field ariented in the x - direction ìn empty space. Acube od edge length L is placed in the field , find the net flux through the surface of the cube?
6:28 I like how you acted like you had to "try" to remember the mass of an electron lol
the acceleration is in the negative x-direction, right
"...and if you don't remember that, you can just divide the kilograms."
Ok, Mr. Van Biezen.
Sir, did the answer include the direction of the acceleration? It seems like there was only its magnitude.
Yes, only the magnitude. (The direction will be in the same direction as the force (to the left)).
thanks alot for these videos
why is the electron not negative and what is the direction of the acceleration?
could I have used columbs law ( F=k•Qq/r^2) to find the force. And if so what direction would it be in and why?
Sure, the coulomb force can be used. But you find the direction of the force by knowing the direction of the electric field and the sign of the charge.
Sure, you can use Coulomb's law to find the force on the charge. But to find the direction of the force it is easier to use the direction of the electric field and the sign of the test charge.
At 3:45 when you placed the negative electron, how did we know its value is equal to -1.6 x 10^-19c?
And thank you for your work.
That is the known charge for an electron (or a proton)
@@MichelvanBiezen Alright, thank you !
That’s one speedy electron?
Dear Michel, would you please tell me what you think of this?
PRECISELY WHY AND HOW THE BALANCED, TOP DOWN, COMMON SENSE, SIMPLE, EXTENSIVE, AND CLEAR MATHEMATICAL UNIFICATION OF PHYSICS/PHYSICAL EXPERIENCE IS PROVEN BY (AND CONSISTENT WITH) F=MA AND E=MC2:
The following also CLEARLY explains why the rotation of WHAT IS THE MOON matches it's revolution.
c squared represents a dimension of SPACE on balance WITH the fact that the stars AND PLANETS are POINTS in the night sky. Indeed, the sky is blue; AND what is THE EARTH/ground is ALSO BLUE (on balance) !! Consider what is the speed of light (c) ON BALANCE. A PHOTON may be placed at the center of what is THE SUN (as A POINT, of course), AS the reduction of SPACE is offset by (or BALANCED with) the speed of light (c) (ON BALANCE); AS E=mc2 IS F=ma; AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy is (CLEARLY AND necessarily) proven to be gravity (ON/IN BALANCE).
General Relativity is directly taken from Special Relativity. E=mc2 is taken directly from F=ma. CLEARLY, gravity AND ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy are linked AND BALANCED opposites (ON BALANCE); as the stars AND PLANETS are POINTS in the night sky. Consider TIME (AND time dilation) ON BALANCE. I have exposed Einstein. Beautiful.
Note: Consider what is THE EYE ON BALANCE. Think carefully about the black “space” AS WELL. Great. It ALL CLEARLY makes perfect sense, as BALANCE AND completeness go hand in hand. THE EYE represents a two dimensional surface OR SPACE (ON BALANCE) that is consistent with F=ma AND E=mc2. This NECESSARILY represents, INVOLVES, AND DESCRIBES what is possible/potential AND actual IN/ON BALANCE. Consider what is necessarily, CLEARLY, logically, and by definition the MIDDLE DISTANCE in/of SPACE ON/IN BALANCE. GREAT !!! Think about what is true/real QUANTUM GRAVITY !!! Great.
Consider what is THE SUN. The sky is blue, and THE EARTH/ground is ALSO BLUE. Again, the stars AND PLANETS are POINTS in the night sky. GREAT. E=mc2 IS F=ma. This explains the fourth dimension AND the term c4 from Einstein's field equations. BALANCED inertia/INERTIAL RESISTANCE is fundamental.
The gravitational “field” is E=mc2 as F=ma. Consider what is THE EARTH/ground ON BALANCE. The stars AND PLANETS are POINTS in the night sky. Consider TIME (AND time dilation) on balance. Consider what is THE SUN ON BALANCE. I have explained why the rotation of WHAT IS THE MOON matches it's revolution. The sky is blue, and THE EARTH/ground is ALSO BLUE. Carefully consider what is THE EYE ON BALANCE. Consider what is the balanced MIDDLE DISTANCE in/of SPACE. E=mc2 IS F=ma ON BALANCE. That's the answer. ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy is CLEARLY and necessarily proven to be gravity (ON/IN BALANCE).
Get a good LOOK at what are the fully illuminated (AND setting) Moon AND the orange AND setting Sun. Consider what is the blue sky ON BALANCE. Lava is orange, and it is even blood red. THINK !!! SO, ON BALANCE, consider what are the tides !!! Excellent. E=mc2 IS F=ma. Accordingly, it ALL CLEARLY makes perfect sense; as BALANCE AND completeness go hand in hand. Again, the stars AND PLANETS are POINTS in the night sky. Consider what is THE SUN ON BALANCE. Think about what is the BALANCED MIDDLE DISTANCE in/of SPACE, AND consider what is the speed of light (c) ON BALANCE !!! GREAT !!! Consider TIME (AND time dilation) ON BALANCE !!! Wonderful. The sky is blue, AND THE EARTH is ALSO BLUE. The tides are CLEARLY and necessarily proven to be ELECTROMAGNETIC/gravitational ON/IN BALANCE, as E=mc2 IS F=ma (ON/IN BALANCE).
By Frank DiMeglio
Frank. We appreciate your comments. But in order to respond, the questions need to be paired down to one step, question at a time. For example: PRECISELY WHY AND HOW THE BALANCED, TOP DOWN, COMMON SENSE, SIMPLE, EXTENSIVE, AND CLEAR MATHEMATICAL UNIFICATION OF PHYSICS/PHYSICAL EXPERIENCE IS PROVEN BY (AND CONSISTENT WITH) F=MA AND E=MC2: contains so many words, that grammatically I couldn't figure out what you are asking.
@@MichelvanBiezen This simplifies the matter:
E=MC2 AS F=MA CLEARLY PROVES (ON BALANCE) WHY AND HOW THE PROPER AND FULL UNDERSTANDING OF TIME (AND TIME DILATION) UNIVERSALLY ESTABLISHES THE FACT THAT ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS GRAVITY:
A PHOTON may be placed at the center of what is THE SUN (as A POINT, of course), AS the reduction of SPACE is offset by (or BALANCED with) the speed of light; AS E=mc2 IS F=ma; AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy is gravity. Indeed, the stars AND PLANETS are POINTS in the night sky. E=mc2 IS F=ma. Gravity IS ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy. Time DILATION ULTIMATELY proves ON BALANCE that ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy is GRAVITY, AS E=mc2 IS F=ma. Indeed, TIME is NECESSARILY possible/potential AND actual IN BALANCE; AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS GRAVITY; AS E=MC2 IS F=MA. Great. "Mass"/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. E=mc2 IS F=ma. (Very importantly, outer "space" involves full inertia; AND it is fully invisible AND black.) BALANCE and completeness go hand in hand. It ALL CLEARLY makes perfect sense. I have mathematically unified physics/physical experience, as I have CLEARLY proven that E=mc2 IS F=ma in what is a truly universal and BALANCED fashion.
By Frank DiMeglio
@@MichelvanBiezen THE MATHEMATICAL AND PHYSICAL PROOF THAT E=MC2 IS DIMENSIONALLY CONSISTENT WITH ONE AND WHAT IS A TWO DIMENSIONAL SURFACE OR SPACE ON BALANCE, THEREBY PROVING THAT ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS CLEARLY AND NECESSARILY PROVEN TO BE GRAVITY (ON/IN BALANCE):
This also clearly proves ON balance that E=mc2 is directly taken from F=ma. Magnificent.
Gravity is a property of SPACE ON BALANCE. It involves adherence or cohesion. So, BALANCED inertia/INERTIAL RESISTANCE is fundamental ON BALANCE. Accordingly, ON BALANCE, TIME is NECESSARILY possible/potential AND actual ON/IN BALANCE. Consider what is the man who IS standing on what is THE EARTH/ground (ON BALANCE). What is the blue sky ON BALANCE? This IS the blue EARTH AS this is expressed on balance WITH (or equivalently by) what is the eye. The translucent AND blue sky is consistent with what is BALANCED BODILY/VISUAL (AND electromagnetic/gravitational) EXPERIENCE ON BALANCE, as touch AND feeling BLEND; as ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy is CLEARLY (AND necessarily) proven to be gravity (ON/IN BALANCE). GREAT. The stars AND PLANETS are POINTS in the night sky ON BALANCE, AND consider what is the speed of light (c) ON BALANCE !! Consider TIME (AND time dilation) ON BALANCE. E=mc2 IS F=ma ON BALANCE, AS the rotation of WHAT IS THE MOON matches it's revolution; as ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy is CLEARLY (AND necessarily) proven to be gravity (ON/IN BALANCE). The tides are CLEARLY and necessarily proven to be electroMAGNETIC/gravitational ON BALANCE. I have also CLEARLY explained (ON BALANCE) why THE PLANETS move away very, very, very, very slightly in relation to WHAT IS THE SUN !! I have explained why WHAT IS THE EYE beholds what is then (ON BALANCE) WHAT IS THE BLUE EARTH. Notice the associated black “space” AND DOME regarding what is the eye. Again, the stars AND PLANETS are POINTS in the night sky ON BALANCE. ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy is CLEARLY AND NECESSARILY proven to be gravity (ON/IN BALANCE). Very carefully consider what is THE SUN ON BALANCE !! E=mc2 IS F=ma. Again, I have proven AND explained why the rotation of WHAT IS THE MOON matches it's revolution.
Gravity cannot be shielded (or blocked) ON BALANCE. What is quantum gravity is CLEARLY fundamental ON BALANCE. Gravity is CLEARLY fundamental ON BALANCE. BALANCED inertia/INERTIAL RESISTANCE is fundamental ON BALANCE.
Define “mass". You cannot. BALANCED inertia/INERTIAL RESISTANCE is fundamental.
E=mc2 is taken directly from F=ma. CLEARLY, gravity AND ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy are linked AND BALANCED opposites (ON BALANCE); as the stars AND PLANETS are POINTS in the night sky !! Consider TIME (AND time dilation) ON BALANCE. GREAT.
You have to CLEARLY AND fully understand what E=mc2 means and represents ON BALANCE.
We want to understand the dimensions in a seamless (or balanced) fashion in relation to gravity AND ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy (including what is E=mc2). Consider one AND three dimensional SPACE ON BALANCE. Consider what is the fourth dimension ON BALANCE. NOW, consider all of the following.
Consider what is E=mc2. CLEARLY, you have to understand what is a TWO dimensional surface OR SPACE ON BALANCE. c squared CLEARLY represents BALANCED acceleration in conjunction WITH what is NECESSARILY a dimension of SPACE ON BALANCE. The stars AND PLANETS are POINTS in the night sky ON BALANCE, AND consider what is the speed of light (c) ON BALANCE. This CLEARLY AND NECESSARILY represents, INVOLVES, AND DESCRIBES what is possible/potential AND actual ON/IN BALANCE. Carefully consider what is THE EYE ON BALANCE. Great. Consider what is gravity AND E=mc2 ON BALANCE.
TIME dilation ULTIMATELY proves (ON BALANCE) that ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy is gravity, AS E=MC2 is CLEARLY F=ma ON BALANCE. Gravity/acceleration involves BALANCED inertia/INERTIAL RESISTANCE, AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy is gravity; AS E=MC2 is CLEARLY F=ma ON BALANCE; AS the stars AND PLANETS are POINTS in the night sky. Accordingly, ON BALANCE, the rotation of WHAT IS THE MOON matches it's revolution. TIME is NECESSARILY possible/potential AND actual IN BALANCE, AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy is gravity; AS E=MC2 is CLEARLY F=ma ON BALANCE. The stars AND PLANETS are POINTS in the night sky. Accordingly, ON BALANCE, it makes perfect sense that THE PLANETS (including WHAT IS THE EARTH) will move away very, very, very slightly in relation to what is THE SUN !!! ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy is gravity, AS E=MC2 is CLEARLY F=ma ON BALANCE. Inertia/INERTIAL RESISTANCE is proportional to (or BALANCED with/as) GRAVITATIONAL force/ENERGY, as this balances gravity AND inertia; AS E=MC2 is CLEARLY F=ma ON BALANCE; AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy is gravity. GREAT.
By Frank DiMeglio
@@MichelvanBiezen Thanks. Please comment dear Sir. Consider what is the man (AND THE EYE ON BALANCE) who IS standing on what is THE EARTH/ground. Touch AND feeling BLEND, AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy is CLEARLY (AND NECESSARILY) proven to be gravity (ON IN BALANCE). Great !!!!
I have mathematically unified physics. What is E=MC2 is taken directly from F=ma. CLEARLY, gravity AND ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy are linked AND BALANCED opposites (ON BALANCE); as the stars AND PLANETS are POINTS in the night sky. Consider TIME (AND time dilation) ON BALANCE. c squared CLEARLY represents a dimension of SPACE ON BALANCE !! TIME is NECESSARILY possible/potential AND actual ON/IN BALANCE. ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy is CLEARLY (AND NECESSARILY) proven to be gravity (ON/IN BALANCE). Now, consider what is THE EYE ON BALANCE !!!! GREAT. It is CLEARLY proven (ON BALANCE). Indeed, the rotation of WHAT IS THE MOON matches it's revolution. Fantastic!!
By Frank DiMeglio
The stars AND PLANETS are POINTS in the night sky. TIME dilation CLEARLY proves that ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy is gravity. TIME is NECESSARILY possible/potential AND actual ON/IN BALANCE. E=MC2 CLEARLY proves that ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy is gravity ON/IN BALANCE. (Consider what is the TRANSLUCENT AND BLUE sky ON BALANCE.) WHAT IS E=MC2 is taken directly from F=ma. c squared CLEARLY represents a dimension of SPACE ON BALANCE. Consider what is THE EYE ON BALANCE. Indeed, consider what is the orange (AND setting) Sun. I have mathematically proven why the rotation of WHAT IS THE MOON matches it's revolution. Great.
By Frank DiMeglio
Static electricity, lightning, AND E=MC2 are FUNDAMENTALLY related. Great ❤️.
By Frank DiMeglio
@@MichelvanBiezen I'm number one now. Newton ranks second.
Greetings, I find your videos very helpful. I was wondering why Q1= 12 X 10^-6 and not 12 x 10^-5 . This may seem like a silly question but I would just like the clarification. Thank you in advance.
any value of micro coulomb (uC), when converted to coulomb is N x 10^-6. For example, Q1= 5.0 uC, when converted to Coulomb, it will be 5.0 x 10^-6 C.
Could you alternatively use Coulomb's Law to find the force between the electron and original charge?
Yes, see the examples in the playlist: PHYSICS 35 COULOMB'S LAW
Acceleration=Force/charge ...
its -2.445x10^-18
what did you do to turn it into
i didn get it. did you do a magic to turn it into 7.6x10^14 m/sec^2???
Sir, Why is the negatively charged electron the one whos experiencing a force? Shouldnt the positive electron also experience a force due to the presence of the negatively charged electron? I can imagine the positive electron moving at a much lower speed, but not completely still. 🤔🤔
That is correct. We could also ask the question: "what is the force experienced by the positive charge due to the presence of the negative charge?"
Will the acceleration be towards the negative x direction in this case?
Yes, that is correct.
Michel van Biezen okay thanks. And really appreciate these videos. They're of great help. Thank you😎😉
sir, is there any equation for calculating the speed of electric field?
and if there is do you have video on it?
The electric field of stationary charges is static. However, when the charges begin to accelerate or vibrate, then they will cause electromagnetic radiation that moves at the speed of light. See this playlist: PHYSICS 50 ELECTROMAGNETIC RADIATION
I can't find this lkesture on the site
seems like good educational videos its a pity there's no volume
why didnt you use 12*10^-6 when substituting for q...
For the second part of the problem we used a single electron.
05:55 we must calculate the electric field of electron no??
The size of the electric field of the electron is insignificant compared to the electric field of the positive charge. There is no need to calculate the electric field of the electrons in order to determine the force on and the acceleration of the electron.
@@MichelvanBiezen I understand
Thank you sir you're the best
Thank you.
You're welcome!
prof what if the charge is negative charge (-12x10^-6. if it is negative the final answer will become 4320 n/c along -x-axis?
If the charge was negative, then the electric field would be towards the charge (to the left at the location of the other charge), and the force on the force on the electron would be repulsive and directed to the right.
+Michel van Biezen hmmm. okay okay, thanks prof. hehe
Isn't the mass of an electron = 9.11*10^-34?
So the speed of the electron is 7.6*10^14 m/sec²? But isn't that faster than the speed of light?
The answer is not the speed of the electron, but the acceleration of the electron (note the units). As you mentioned, the speed of the electron can never exceed the speed of light.
is small q strictly charge of an electron ... 1.6*10^-19
Not necessarily. q simply means a "small" charge. Typically the charge of a single electron is written e- (or simply e)
Why isn't the force negative if its direction is to the left?
+OneFish TwoFish
Since force is a vector, it cannot be negative. A vector has magnitude and direction and the magnitude of a vector can only be positive. However, that said, a force can act in a negative direction. Thus a vector is defined by giving its magnitude (always positive) and its direction.
Thanks sir...
Glad you liked the video.
Hi prof, first i would like to thank you for this lecture. second , can you tell me where is this (q)= 1.6x10^(-19) come from please ... thanks in advance .
Nawar
Nawar alqadhy Thats the electron's charge and it's a constant number.
Hey, thanks for this video, wouldn't the acceleration take a negative sign to display that the direction is in the -X^ direction? Thanks
That depends on how the answer is expressed. Here in this video it is expressed as the magnitude of a vector (which cannot be negative). If you also want to express the direction, then the answer needs to be written in the vector format.
@@MichelvanBiezen but it says in the question, what is the magnitude and direction of the acceleration. i also have the same thoughts with Antxinez
thanks teacher but wheres the main lessons?
+Mohammad Mahmoud
This whole channel is a compilation of thousands of videos covering all topics of physics and other topics in the order in which they are taught.
How do you know that the force is going to be positive, not negative?
violinsheetmusicblog
The magnitude of all vectors are positive. Thus the magnitude of the force and the magnitude of the velocity of the electron are positive.
However, that said, if I wrote the answer in vector notation, since the direction of both the force and the velocity is in the negative direction, I would have to put a negative sign in front of these two values and the unit vector behind them.
violinsheetmusicblog,
Don't think about the force being positive or negative.
The magnitude of a vector quantity (force) can never be negative, but it can be directed in a positive or negative direction.
In this problem you have a 6.9 x 10^-16 N force acting in a negative direction.
A positive charge placed in an electric field will experience a force in the same direction as the field.
A negative charge placed in an electric field will experience a force in the opposite direction as the field.
Hmm... @5:40, how come it's not -1.6*10^-19 but it's positive instead? Since was initially negative, wouldn't F be negative as well in the end or no?
We are calculating the magnitude of the force. (The magnitude of a vector can not be negative) Then you add a negative if the direction is negative.
Sir, isn't the acceleration of the proton negative, since the electric field is pulling it left in the x direction?
+Nestor Montejo The magnitude of a vector is always positive. The direction of the acceleration of the electron is to the left. (negative x-direction).
Thanks for these great videos :)
acceleration beeing biggerthan speed of light is posible?
Acceleration and speed are not the same thing. It is possible to have very large acceletations, as long as the final speed is less than the speed of light.
My right ear doesnt hear this lesson, i wish i am not deaf, btw good explanation thanks
Glad it was helpful!
Why is it that the electron is going towards the direction of the proton instead of the same direction of the electric field?
Jennifer,
Think about it this way:
The electric field starts from a positive charge and ends at a negative charge. So when you place an electron (which is a small negative charge) in an electric field, it will feel a force of attraction towards the positive charge (which is in the opposite direction compared to the direction of the electric field). Now if you place a proton in an electric field, it will feel a force away from the positive charge creating the electric field and therefore move in the same direction as the electric field.
What is electric field made of?
Good question. At this time, there is no answer to that questions.
@@MichelvanBiezen Since electric field appears in space it must be part of space rather than the charge.
I have a question considering the (m) mass
How can we find it?
You need to look it up. Any physics text book will contain that information.
Hello Professor, I thought test charges were always positive. Why are you using an electron here?
+Samuel Souto
There is no restriction on how you want to set up a problem. You only use a "positive test charge" if you want to determine the convention of the direction for the electric field and associated forces.
ممكن تشرح ب العربي الله يوفقك 👑
thanks a lot
mate do you have any teorics videos about electrics fields and circuits
sorry for my bad english
There are hundreds (both in the physics section and the electrical engineering section). Take a look at the home page of the channel where the videos are all organized by chapter.
Michel van Biezen thank you very much!
Hi Mr. I have a lil confusion here . where did the electron's charge -1.6X10^-19 C came from ? I just can't stop thinking about that . May you help me Mr ?
+Fatihah Syaifudin
That is something no one can answer.
But if electrons did not have that charge the universe wouldn't exist.
+Michel van Biezen oh ,means it is a constant ? okay Mr .I get that .thanks Mr ..I understand now :)
Is the charge of an electron always negative?
Always