Hi, small error. Between 17:50 to 18:15 , I think the "q" on the outside of the main brackets was not properly distributed over all the terms inside the brackets when multiplying out.
Hi, thank you very much for this awesome lecture tutorial. It was excellent and superbly delivered. Would really appreciate so much if you can suggest a textbook on STR at the same level of difficulty as your video to supplement understanding further. Is there a textbook that also shows clearly step-by-step the non-invariance of Maxwell's Equations as you have shown here? Thank you.
In the nearfield, the speed of light is infinity (see my post at the top of the comments) So inserting c=infinity into the argument presented in this video shows that Maxwells equations are invariant under Galilean transformations in the nearfield, where the speed of light is infinite.
This is bloody amazing. If all university lectures preceeded themselves with an explanation like yours, with an explanation of what we are trying to do and the meaning of things, things would make a hell of a lot more sense.
2:13 Galilean Transformations 5:07 Newton's Laws are invariant under Galilean Transformations 7:40 Maxwell''s Equations 14:03 Maxwell's Equations are NOT invariant under GT (Proof) 24:35 Final Thoughts
All thanks to your videos, I passed a course on Special relativity and Reimann Geometry, in Applied Mathematics. Your simple and systematic approach to teaching the subject was of great help to my understanding. Keep up the good work
Most books on special relativity, even the very best ones, give only a qualitative description of everything you have just said. Not only do you give a quantitative exegesis, you do so without leaving anything out! A complete explanation that totally satisfies ! You deserve the highest of commendation possible !
This work is really a great opportunity to physics lovers, to polish/nurture etc.the subject. Sincere thanks to u and If all ends meet to justice to this chain to carry forward then u have option here!
I have to admit, it is not always easy to understand lectures of professors with Hindi accent, but I would like to say that I appreciate the effort you took on diction and pacing. Made it very comfortable to listen to, which is great for learning. Also your explanations are awesomely clear and easy to follow, without skipping anything important. I could follow the lecture very well, even though it is the first time I'm looking at this topic of the inconsistency of Maxwell equations and Galilean transformations. The algorithm did a great job, because I was looking exactly for this lecture and yours was the first thing to come up and it is well deserved. Thanks for the great content.
Yeah this dude's a rare breed among the vast space of Indian educators on TH-cam. Most are rushed and unhelpful and merely outline the bare minimum, but this channel actually approaches things with a good amount of passion and background.
Amazing derivation of the wave equation for E-M waves! MIT lecturers took board space after board space to do it in only one dimension! I am really impressed!
Sir, you really talented teacher among the others teacher . Everyday I am looking for best teacher for b.sec physics on you tube but I never find teacher like you. You are really a great master and as well as a great physicist. Sir you long live. Jai baharat jai India. 🙏🙏🙏🙏🙏🙏❤❤❤❤❤
@@FortheLoveofPhysics In the nearfield, the speed of light is infinity (see my post at the top of these comments) So inserting c=infinity into the argument presented in this video shows that Maxwells equations are invariant under Galilean transformations in the nearfield, where the speed of light is infinite.
I have become a fan of your teaching style.Your videos give an opportunity to revisit what I have learnt during my college days. Would love to see you teach mathematical physics as well.
you have really great way of describing difficult concepts, I benefited a lot from your video .. Can you do one more video to show that magnetic field is a relativistic effect from moving reference frame. So that electricity and magnetism are two sides of the same coin.
I suggest checking Shankar's Yale physics 201 lectures. More precisely, his second lecture on EM waves towards the end. The question you asked is discussed there. You can also consult David Griffiths book on EM.
Thank you giving a great understanding of how things worked in reality. This enhances my curiosity in Physics. Thank you for your hardwork and you explain really in a extremely good manner.
In the nearfield, the speed of light is infinity (see below) So inserting c=infinity into the argument presented in this video shows that Maxwells equations are invariant under Galilean transformations in the nearfield, where the speed of light is infinite.
Love you sir, great explain everything make more videos 🤩 I am fist year engineering physics student pls sir launch course for gate physics it great help
Well done, I so much enjoyed most of your videos in most of the topics you explained. I would want you to do me a favour by making videos on electromagnetism and problems in respects to this concept. I would be very glad if you do this for me and for other Physics scholars. Thanks!
Einstein's theory of Special Relativity is based on 2 premises 1) Galilean Relativity: the laws of physics are the same in all inertial frames of reference 2) the speed of light is the same in all inertial frames of reference. I claim that the 2nd premise is already included in the 1st premise. This is because the speed of light c is a law of physics, and according to the 1st premise it must be the same in all inertial frames of reference. Another way of stating the 1st postulate, is that there is no experiment that can be done to determine the speed of an inertial moving body. So the 2nd postulate must be included in the 1st postulate, otherwise one could do an experiment based on the speed of light to determine the velocity of a moving inertial observer (like the Michelson Morley experiment). The 1st postulate predicts the Michelson Morley experimental outcome, and it can not measure the effects of the Ether! So if the 2 premises of Special Relativity are just the premise of Galilean Relativity, then according to logic, it is impossible to get different transformations (Lorentz transformations) than one gets for Galilean Relativity (Galilean transformations). Consequently Galilean Relativity must be the correct theory of Relativity. So if the effects of Relativity are observed in experiments, then the effects of Relativity must be an optical illusion. Another outcome of this argument is that Galilean Relativity assumes the speed of light is the same in all inertial frames of reference, which includes the instantaneous nearfield and speed of light farfield. In other words Maxwells equations, which predicts both, is invariant under Galilean transformations.
Sir, your videos are amazing, can you please also post the DUAL VECTORS? I have exam in ten days, would be very grateful! I cannot understand anyone who is describing it here, I really need your explanations. Thanks in advance!
One of the most difficult unit in physics when i was doing B.SC was statistical thermodynamics...I hope i will see a playlist on that unit in future by you sir...
You write E=E(x,t) along the y axis, but if "E" is a function of x and t then the electric field movies along the x axis or time axis instead of y axis.similarly for the magnetic field . I get confused here.
do any physicists ever have an urge to ask what transformation makes maxwell's eq invariant. it was the Voigt who tried 1st, and came with voigt transformation which was similar to that of lorentz but backward. experts said voigt was still correct in his own right or something. but i dont have math skills to follow the proof, maybe someone can show me easy way.
me bhi einstein ne jo theory diya h usme kam karna chahta hu ,12th ke bad mujhe kya krna chahiye ,astrophysicist bnna sahi hoga na ,astrophysicist bnne k liye 12 th ke bad kaumsa course kru
Scientists use the Galilean transformation equations incorrectly. If there is a clock in S'(x',y',z',t') that is slower than a clock in S(x,y,z,t), the Galilean transformation equations as seen from frame of reference say nothing about a slower clock. x'=x-vt y'=y z'=z t'=t If t is the time of a GPS clock on the surface of the earth, then t' is also the time of a GPS clock on earth, not a faster or slower clock in S'. If you want to show the time of a clock in S' that is different from the time of a clock in S because it is the time of a clock with a different rate from the clock that shows t, then you have to use a different set of Galilean transformation equations with different variables for velocity and time. x = x' - (-vt/n')n' y = y' z = z' n = n' n' is the time of the faster or slower clock in S'(x',y',z',n'). (-vt/n') is the velocity of frame of reference S(x,y,z,n). The equation n=n' shows that the time of the clock in S' is being used in both frames of reference. If you want to show light to be traveling at c in both frames of reference according to the times of the clocks in those frames of reference, then you just say, x=ct and x'=cn'. But you have to keep in mind that a second in S' is a shorter or longer amount of time than a second in S, depending on whether the clock in S' is faster or slower than a clock in S'
Michelson Morley Experiment ► th-cam.com/video/FQGGSNIWm3o/w-d-xo.html
Hi, small error.
Between 17:50 to 18:15 , I think the "q" on the outside of the main brackets was not properly distributed over all the terms inside the brackets when multiplying out.
Hi, thank you very much for this awesome lecture tutorial. It was excellent and superbly delivered.
Would really appreciate so much if you can suggest a textbook on STR at the same level of difficulty as your video to supplement understanding further. Is there a textbook that also shows clearly step-by-step the non-invariance of Maxwell's Equations as you have shown here?
Thank you.
In the nearfield, the speed of light is infinity (see my post at the top of the comments) So inserting c=infinity into the argument presented in this video shows that Maxwells equations are invariant under Galilean transformations in the nearfield, where the speed of light is infinite.
Awesome work going into the details of how Newton's laws and Galilean Transforms work together.
You both are extremely hard working and making my love affair with Einsteing much much more ! Kudos and what great channels !
This is bloody amazing. If all university lectures preceeded themselves with an explanation like yours, with an explanation of what we are trying to do and the meaning of things, things would make a hell of a lot more sense.
Noted ( i am a professor in govt state college)
2:13 Galilean Transformations
5:07 Newton's Laws are invariant under Galilean Transformations
7:40 Maxwell''s Equations
14:03 Maxwell's Equations are NOT invariant under GT (Proof)
24:35 Final Thoughts
Hey I want to talk with you sir who we can
The general D'Alembert wave equation is not invariant under GT, why just matter when we talk about Maxwell Equations and not with material waves?
You wrote that divergence of electric field is 0
All thanks to your videos, I passed a course on Special relativity and Reimann Geometry, in Applied Mathematics. Your simple and systematic approach to teaching the subject was of great help to my understanding. Keep up the good work
an under-subscribed channel
Lovely explanation...😘. This channel is true for the lover of physics.. 😘
Most books on special relativity, even the very best ones, give only a qualitative description of everything you have just said. Not only do you give a quantitative exegesis, you do so without leaving anything out! A complete explanation that totally satisfies ! You deserve the highest of commendation possible !
Other Physics lecturers must watch this young man to see how Physics lectures should be taken. Great work.
This work is really a great opportunity to physics lovers, to polish/nurture etc.the subject.
Sincere thanks to u and If all ends meet to justice to this chain to carry forward then u have option here!
I have to admit, it is not always easy to understand lectures of professors with Hindi accent, but I would like to say that I appreciate the effort you took on diction and pacing. Made it very comfortable to listen to, which is great for learning. Also your explanations are awesomely clear and easy to follow, without skipping anything important. I could follow the lecture very well, even though it is the first time I'm looking at this topic of the inconsistency of Maxwell equations and Galilean transformations.
The algorithm did a great job, because I was looking exactly for this lecture and yours was the first thing to come up and it is well deserved.
Thanks for the great content.
Yeah this dude's a rare breed among the vast space of Indian educators on TH-cam. Most are rushed and unhelpful and merely outline the bare minimum, but this channel actually approaches things with a good amount of passion and background.
This was outstanding. Thank you. Brought back wonderful memories of my early days of physics as a freshman at Caltech in 1969. Wonderful!!!!
A caltech legacy alum!?
Damn sir!
Well explainaion..your way of explainaion are excellent sir..ji
Amazing derivation of the wave equation for E-M waves! MIT lecturers took board space after board space to do it in only one dimension! I am really impressed!
Sir, you really talented teacher among the others teacher . Everyday I am looking for best teacher for b.sec physics on you tube but I never find teacher like you. You are really a great master and as well as a great physicist. Sir you long live. Jai baharat jai India. 🙏🙏🙏🙏🙏🙏❤❤❤❤❤
After wandering through several different videos on relativity i finally found the one that clearly explained the need of the ether concept!
Great lecture explaining a very complex subject in a simple, cleat way. Bravo
You are physics itself sir. i love the clear explanations
Sir according to me ur teaching n ur way teaching both r so unique n very best.
I would like 2 say that ur the best sir
👍Great!
Thank you so much Shubham :)
@@FortheLoveofPhysics In the nearfield, the speed of light is infinity (see my post at the top of these comments) So inserting c=infinity into the argument presented in this video shows that Maxwells equations are invariant under Galilean transformations in the nearfield, where the speed of light is infinite.
I have become a fan of your teaching style.Your videos give an opportunity to revisit what I have learnt during my college days.
Would love to see you teach mathematical physics as well.
again a flawless lecture...to the point and very well presented ..for me you are the best teacher
Sir, want just to thank you for your excellent presentation on SR...thank you so much...
you have really great way of describing difficult concepts, I benefited a lot from your video ..
Can you do one more video to show that magnetic field is a relativistic effect from moving reference frame. So that electricity and magnetism are two sides of the same coin.
I suggest checking Shankar's Yale physics 201 lectures. More precisely, his second lecture on EM waves towards the end. The question you asked is discussed there. You can also consult David Griffiths book on EM.
Fantastic explanation !!
Thank you giving a great understanding of how things worked in reality. This enhances my curiosity in Physics. Thank you for your hardwork and you explain really in a extremely good manner.
Beautifully taught! Everything is perfect.
Brilliant explanation! Thank you so much.
You are a great teacher! Thank you for your videos!
A lot of hard work is put in this video, outstanding performance with a taste of simplicity...... enjoyed learning.👏👏
😢😢no word to thank this person.i would love to give credit of my success in physics to this gentleman
Clear explanation eventhough it uses vector calculus. After all it's awesome
Sir love you from Bangladesh. It's really helping us a lot. Please continue to make such amazing videos.
In the nearfield, the speed of light is infinity (see below) So inserting c=infinity into the argument presented in this video shows that Maxwells equations are invariant under Galilean transformations in the nearfield, where the speed of light is infinite.
Clear and upto the point, just loved it 😍
Nicely done. That wasn't easy. Tricky thing to explain.
thank you so much sir that helped me beside you are really good at explaning
This video was very helpful. Thank you very much!
Awesome explanation for physics lovers...
oh my god… you’re just amazing 😂❤
M glad I show your channel... Thank u so much for this explanation ❤
just splendid🔥 ..tysm Sr for this Amazing explanation ❤️
Nice one.
Love you sir, great explain everything make more videos 🤩
I am fist year engineering physics student pls sir launch course for gate physics it great help
Sir please upload video on general relativity plz
This is what I wanted thank you
Great explanation...!!
Great explaining power sir....
Well done, I so much enjoyed most of your videos in most of the topics you explained. I would want you to do me a favour by making videos on electromagnetism and problems in respects to this concept. I would be very glad if you do this for me and for other Physics scholars.
Thanks!
Thank you my fellow human
Sir please bring the general theory of relativity as soon as possible.
Sir, can you make a separate lecture on General relativity
Thanks!
Thank u very much sir,
l eagerly wait of general relativity field equations derivation from u.
superb
Brilliant
Sir you are doing a great job. Your understanding of physics is deep and very clear. Please make a series on general relativity also :) :)
That's what I was looking for, ty :)
+Luffy Houssam You're welcome!
Sir, your lectures are amazing but please create the playlist of your vedios....to help us find the vedios separately and easily
Will do
Ok sir..thanks
you are doing great work sir
hats off
Thanks :)
Deserve more subscriber
Flawless lecture lots of love dear
Einstein's theory of Special Relativity is based on 2 premises 1) Galilean Relativity: the laws of physics are the same in all inertial frames of reference 2) the speed of light is the same in all inertial frames of reference. I claim that the 2nd premise is already included in the 1st premise. This is because the speed of light c is a law of physics, and according to the 1st premise it must be the same in all inertial frames of reference. Another way of stating the 1st postulate, is that there is no experiment that can be done to determine the speed of an inertial moving body. So the 2nd postulate must be included in the 1st postulate, otherwise one could do an experiment based on the speed of light to determine the velocity of a moving inertial observer (like the Michelson Morley experiment). The 1st postulate predicts the Michelson Morley experimental outcome, and it can not measure the effects of the Ether! So if the 2 premises of Special Relativity are just the premise of Galilean Relativity, then according to logic, it is impossible to get different transformations (Lorentz transformations) than one gets for Galilean Relativity (Galilean transformations). Consequently Galilean Relativity must be the correct theory of Relativity. So if the effects of Relativity are observed in experiments, then the effects of Relativity must be an optical illusion.
Another outcome of this argument is that Galilean Relativity assumes the speed of light is the same in all inertial frames of reference, which includes the instantaneous nearfield and speed of light farfield. In other words Maxwells equations, which predicts both, is invariant under Galilean transformations.
Sir, your videos are amazing, can you please also post the DUAL VECTORS? I have exam in ten days, would be very grateful! I cannot understand anyone who is describing it here, I really need your explanations. Thanks in advance!
Super sir...
Sir i am inspired by you and i want to be like you🙏🙏
Wow lots of love
Sir if you don't mind can you explain 17:50... The comparison and how we get B=B'
I think the "q" on the outside of the main brackets was not properly distributed when multiplying out.
Sir next topic btaiye
18:00 The "q" is missing in some of the terms in the equation.
I can't myself keep thinking where the fuck I was for three years
Amazing explanation ☺☺☺☺
One of the most difficult unit in physics when i was doing B.SC was statistical thermodynamics...I hope i will see a playlist on that unit in future by you sir...
My apologise. Actually I didn’t understand the steps :q(E-VqB)=q(E'-Vq'B') =>qE-VqB=qE'-VqB'+VB'
Dear Sir,
When you will made vedios on GTR with each and every detail. Have you any further plans for it or not?
You write E=E(x,t) along the y axis, but if "E" is a function of x and t then the electric field movies along the x axis or time axis instead of y axis.similarly for the magnetic field .
I get confused here.
Sir plzzz make a series of quantum physics plzz sir
absolute FOR kia hota ha?
do any physicists ever have an urge to ask what transformation makes maxwell's eq invariant. it was the Voigt who tried 1st, and came with voigt transformation which was similar to that of lorentz but backward. experts said voigt was still correct in his own right or something. but i dont have math skills to follow the proof, maybe someone can show me easy way.
Comparison ????? How you have done
Nice video sir
😊👍
+Sonal Thank you..
Sir I want to learn about twin paradox in special theory of relativity
Sir when u give general theory of relativity
Gem❤❤😊😊
Time is not absolute if go more faster to the nearly speed of light ,the time is slower for you
R these videos apt for Bsc? or its based for engeenering syllabus
sir plz tell me how to understand theory of realtivity from origin
This law is wrong according to the findings of Mike McCulloch?
No one have taught the beginning of STR in this way
for the algorithm :)
It’s mass increases
me bhi einstein ne jo theory diya h usme kam karna chahta hu ,12th ke bad mujhe kya krna chahiye ,astrophysicist bnna sahi hoga na ,astrophysicist bnne k liye 12 th ke bad kaumsa course kru
To go into astrophysics you need to do graduation in Physics. So a BSc Hons in Physics of a 5 yr Msc from an IIT are good options
sir at 10:00 you have written Del.E=0 but its not true its=p/epsilon
plz answer
Its true in vacuum where there are no charges, so p=0
Thankyou sir
Can you please tell me reference books
I like it
Sir how law of angular momentum is invariant in galalian transformation
7:33 why you did not multiply d/dt with -v?
Same question bro. Did you find any logical explanation to it?
At,17:58 can anyone explain how the comparison results in such results?
I think the "q" on the outside of the main brackets was not properly distributed when multiplying out.
Sheldon Cooper
Scientists use the Galilean transformation equations incorrectly. If there is a clock in S'(x',y',z',t') that is slower than a clock in S(x,y,z,t), the Galilean transformation equations as seen from frame of reference say nothing about a slower clock.
x'=x-vt
y'=y
z'=z
t'=t
If t is the time of a GPS clock on the surface of the earth, then t' is also the time of a GPS clock on earth, not a faster or slower clock in S'. If you want to show the time of a clock in S' that is different from the time of a clock in S because it is the time of a clock with a different rate from the clock that shows t, then you have to use a different set of Galilean transformation equations with different variables for velocity and time.
x = x' - (-vt/n')n'
y = y'
z = z'
n = n'
n' is the time of the faster or slower clock in S'(x',y',z',n'). (-vt/n') is the velocity of frame of reference S(x,y,z,n). The equation n=n' shows that the time of the clock in S' is being used in both frames of reference. If you want to show light to be traveling at c in both frames of reference according to the times of the clocks in those frames of reference, then you just say, x=ct and x'=cn'. But you have to keep in mind that a second in S' is a shorter or longer amount of time than a second in S, depending on whether the clock in S' is faster or slower than a clock in S'
Please sir make vedio in Hindi also sir
Shouldn't q also be multipled to vqB? 18:09
That's right! I think the "q" on the outside of the main brackets was not properly distributed when multiplying out.