I did know this.... was taught it 55 years ago and remember the feeling of amazement that relativity at such gentle speeds could so precisely explain electromagnetism. Thanks for bringing it all back.... it will help me fade away with a smile.
That was nuts... I was getting more confused but you set me up perfectly for it to click when you brought in the length contraction animation! I'd love to see a video on how this applies to permanent magnets and maybe even induced temporary magnetism.
I remember this explanation from school. I suppose given that E and M must function in all reference frames you could derive special (probably also general) relativity from the known results. The fact the E is M and M is E through relativistic transformations is so cool. Also it shows just how insanely charge dense normal matter is.
I've heard of this before, but your way of explaining it really clears things up. Now I can say that I know, rather than having heard of this effect. Thanks.
This is actually insane. So relativistic effects of magnetism happen at such low speeds too? I should probably read the math behind it but one observer's magnetism is another one's electricity? Truly mind blowing!
It's pretty wild that the generation of magnetic fields by currents is an everyday relativistic phenomena (tiny charge density imbalance), and ferromagnetism is an everyday quantum phenomenon (tiny atomic current loops).
The relativistic effects being so tiny and the strength of electromagnetic effects in lab frame or charged particle frame of reference is simply a testimony to the strength of electromagnetism and the very large number of particles involved in a length of wire. Gravity by contrast is orders of magnitude much weaker.
This is a good start. I would also note that the Coulomb force is so strong that even a small change in charge density produces a noticeable effect. Also the mass of proton charged nuclei is much greater than electrons and that makes them move slower giving rise to the greater special relativistic contraction of the flow of electrons in the frame of the outside charge observer. It would be fun to look at the difference between AC and DC currents.
Albert Einstein invented Special Relativity to explain Magnetism in his 1905 paper "On the Electrodynamics of moving bodies", where his starting point was the apparent asymmetry of a moving wire and a stationary magnet vs. a stationary wire and a moving magnet.
@@danieloberhofer9035 Die Arbeit heißt im Original "Zur Elektrodynamik bewegter Körper" und erschien in den "Annalen der Physik" 1905. In dieser Arbeit leitet Albert Einstein die Gleichungen der Speziellen Relativitätstheorie her: "Man denke z. B. an die elektrodynamische Wechselwirkung zwischen einem Magneten und einem Leiter. Das beobachtbare Phanomen hängt hier nur ab von der Relativbewegung von Leiter und Magnet, während nach der üblichen Auffassung die beiden Fälle, daß der eine oder der andere dieser Körper der bewegte sei, streng voneinander zu trennen sind." (Womit auch klar ist, wo der Begriff Relativitätstheorie ursprünglich herkommt.)
@@danieloberhofer9035 Actually Einstein didn't invent it, he just used the work of myriads other scientists before him. Which is why none of the special relativity concepts bear his name other than "Einstein's special relativity theory", which is but a summary of everything other scientist already found. His genius was making sense of all the things other geniuses found 💁♂
@@Ebani Lol. The same can be said of every scientists. It isn't for no reason that Newton wrote "If I have seen further it is by standing on the shoulders of Giants". Note that even that metaphor is way older than Newton.
Thanks for sheding light on (mysterious) magnetism and for providing source with more info. I would absolutely love to see an explanation of why inductors and transformers work the way they do using only this phenomenon!
Regarding the note about the polarity naming of current flow, I recall an old (older than me) book describing an electrolytic solution. It could and indeed had been used as a rectifier. And because the "material" - positive ions flow was chemically more evident than any flow of the electrons, that became the positive direction. So, the polarity was established by wet chemistry instead of either solid state or gaseous state observations. Such a funny thought!
That was great. I remember asking the science teacher in high school why the textbook said it the charge moved in a direction that seemed to be completely the opposite of how he had explained that electricity worked. "It just is the way it is" was his response. I knew I was right !
ปีที่แล้ว +4
I had to study the Berkley Physics Course books in the 70´s at the Groningen University so I got familiar then with the idea that magnetism comes from a special relativistic effect. As far as I can remember the explanation was set up differently in the book, but the idea is the same and at the time I was really excited by explanation.
Well, Einstein's original paper on special relativity was called "On the Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies." He starts right away by pointing out the bothersome asymmetry in the usual description of induced emf in a stationary loop with a moving magnet inserted, versus the magnetic force on the charges in a moving loop surrounding a stationary magnet. He then discusses the lack of reference frame inherent in Maxwell's equations, with which Newton's laws don't jibe. The paper is remarkably easy to read for anyone with limited mathematical background. In special relativity, the math is surprisingly simple, although the ideas are not so easy. (This is in contrast to most other topics in physics, like generaly relativity or quantum field theory, where the math is definitely _not_ simple - nor are the ideas.)
A good reason for that is as I have understod it Albert Einstein wasn't all that good at mathematics. He had a very good mind to find new ideas. This is why I can't understand that todays Physicians demand that an idea is calculated through before they even want to consider it.
wow, this is amazing. Relativistic effects at 1mm/s, magnetism explained without those weird right hand rules, exactly what I missed in the high school. May be I would become some magnet engineer if I saw this video at my 16 :)
Hi Don, I imagine these very tiny relativistic effects on the moving electrons do matter in the macroscopic world because there are trillions and trillions of them and they add up to a macroscopically measurable force. But what happens if only two of them pass each other along their way? They interact by exchanging a virtual photon, so how does quantum mechanics fit into this picture? Do those exchanged virtual photons between the wires also add up to make that electric force? Should be, but for me that makes it even wilder to imagine... thanks for your amazing video! And: if you look at many comments below it's amazing how easy it is to get dozens of nobel prize winners to pop up by just mentioning SRT. THAT is Einsteins most magical force it seems.
For this explanation to be valid it is required that the electric current in the wire be made from positive and negative charges which move in opposite direction, with equal speed. This assumption is used in the mathematical demonstration made by E. M. Purcell in which the exact value of the magnetic force is deduced (which only depends on the external particle speed and the current intensity, regardless of how small and non-uniform is the speed of the charges in the wire). If we consider only + charges moving inside the wire, then when the external particle speed is 0, then the + charge density inside the wire will have a relativistic contraction, but the - charge density will not be affected, as it is not moving in the external charge reference frame. This will be seen as a magnetic field by the stationary external charge, which is impossible.
In reality the magnetic force is far more complex than I've ever seen anyone talk about. All atoms are made of neutrons, protons, and electrons. Science has found that all 3 components (neutrons, protons, and electrons) produce a magnetic moment. Each particle, just like a magnet has a positive and a negative pole. As the particles move relative to each other due to heat, they are not only actively pushing and pulling on all the other neutrons, protons, and electrons within their sphere of influence. But the are also causing them to rotate from the positive and negative charged poles of each particle. This is an incredibly complex dynamics problem to model. Which is why the general equations may not exactly fit reality, but they are good enough. Interestingly magnetic materials are simply materials where some of the electrons, protons, and neutrons align enough to result in a small total force in a single direction. All such materials can be trained to align the magnetic force in any direction. Meaning there is something in the way the atomic structure is organized that allows some of the poles to point in a certain direction and stay in that direction. But only part of the particles are aligned in the same direction. The rest are still spinning freely in reaction to one another. We know this because if 2, 5 gallon buckets of water placed 1 foot apart and all the electrons were aligned to attract to each other, the resulting force would roughly the same as the mass of the moon (or the force of gravity between the earth and the moon). These tiny particles have a small force, but all together working in unison would have immense amount of force. Magnets only have a small force so the logical conclusion is that only a few of the particles are aligned in magnetic materials. But why don't magnets effect non-magnetic materials? They all have the same particles with the same strength. Non-magnetic materials simply react to the magnetic force in a way that nullifies the force without adding or subtracting to that force. One thing to note is that we are used to the term "electricity" in which we are told is caused by moving magnetic fields which then moves electrons in some materials. But there is also a form of "electricity" that uses protons. In biology, single celled organisms use proton motors to rotate hair like structures. I honestly think that we know very little about what actually occurs at the sub atomic level.
If this happens to be a rebuttal of sorts against a snarky and some what rude attack on your channel that just happened to be based on misunderstanding this exact phenomenon, then you sir, are truly a mastor teacher. While it takes alot of smarts to be able to teach this as well as you do it takes profound wisdom to respond like this.
The concentration of charge due to length contraction causes electrical repulsion thus resulting in what is called the magnetic force. But how does that work for two point charged particles?
Then why doesn’t a stationary charge feel the relativistic force from a current? From a stationary charge POV, the + and - charges in the wire are running at different speed and hence have different density.
I've done the calculations long time ago, it works great, but if B is entirely a relativistic effect of moving E, how would one describe an EM wave? I've been searching for that, but I cannot find it.
Wouldn't an EM wave be the exact same phenomena just oscillating? Instead of charge moving uniformly in one direction, it changes direction. Acceleration is required to create electromagnetic waves and the change in direction is the acceleration. We describe the oscillation by its relationship to time as frequency and its relationship to the speed of light by wavelength.
What I don't understand is, why would the space between each electron contract? Shouldn't each individual electron contract in length while the distance between particles remains the same, and thus the effective charge density for a given length of wire remain the same?
Yeah, well... there are more caveats than that. For one, E^2-B^2 is a lorentz invariant. This means that a pure magnetic field (like in the case of that generated by the current in the wire) simply CANNOT become a pure electrostatic field (the invariant is negative), no matter what reference frame you swap to. So no, magnetism is not "just" electricity seen from the "wrong" reference frame. Another caveat is, electrons and protons are NOT billiard balls with charge. They are quantum objects. The wavefunction of electrons in metals (and thus in the wire) is effectively spread over the whole surface. Also it doesn't explain how permanent magnets work, since that involves spin (which is a source of INTRINSIC magnetic moment). Finally, this explanation makes it sound like magnetism is less fundamental than electricity, while the reality is that they are on equal footing. Two sides of the same coin, the EM field. I feel like these kind of explanations do more harm than good, I'd stick with maxwell.
The explanation doesn't say the magnetic field became an electrostatic field; it says that the magnetic force becomes an electrostatic force. The force is the _gradient_ of the field -- the magnetic field doesn't disappear, only its gradient does.
How does the shortening of the charges themselves equate to a shortening of the spaces between them? The space between them isn't moving and wouldn't contract, I'd think. Why doesn't the external charge just see bigger-than-normal gaps between smaller-than-normal charges?
Quick hopefully useful rake: If two charges are moving past you at some speed relative to your rest frame then they are in a different frame - one moving at their speed relative to you. >Everything< in that reference frame looks shortened in that direction to you including the space between the particles. Think of them as ticks on a ruler. The ruler shrinks so the ticks look closer together to you. The fact that there is no material ruler there, doesn't mean there isn't the "frame ruler".
On top of that, the length contraction does not depend on the direction of current flow. The effect should be the same in either direction. Switching the charges you look at when you "change" current flow direction does not make physical sense.
Hi Dr. Don! Can you do a video on the difference between magnetism and electromagnetism? I'm having trouble understand why like poles on a magnet repel, while like charges on an electromagnet attract.
It's more complicated than the video here, but it's the same thing. For like poles, the electric field is similar to like charges, while for opposite poles, the contraction is more like concentrating opposite charges. It's >>much
I also would like to see if relativistic effects can explain the permanent magnets. Permanent magnets attract or repel each other without presence of moving charges, right?
Dr. Don Lincoln with the classic hits, taking us all the way back to 1905, baby! Albert Einstein featuring James... Clerk... Maxwell for this mix, you know it, get your right hand in the air for On the Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies! ⚡
I knew this already, but it's always good to see it explained again. It illustrates several important concepts in physics. First the full meaning of relativity in physical laws - two observers should agree on the general laws, but they may not, indeed often will not agree on the exact explanation for a specific observation, not even on which forces are involved. Second, it illustrates length contraction as a phenomenon that has observable effects in everyday life! And third, the electromagnetic force is mindbogglingly strong - even the vanishingly small length contraction of the electron spacings in a wire suffices to generate a charge imbalance large enough to lift objects against the gravitational pull of the Earth.
You forget that according to Einstein there is no gravitadional pull of the earth. It is space time that is bend. Personally I am yet to be convinced that the Physicians current explanation is correct. In my oppinion it is only one way of looking at it.
It's pretty wild that the generation of magnetic fields by currents is an everyday relativistic phenomena, and ferromagnetism is an everyday quantum phenomenon.
What’s not wild at all is that you put that exact same comment, word for word on more than one video. Doug, it got old before you even did it, time dilation in reverse!
Classical/Newtonian physics appears to also explain magnetism. It goes like this: Particles are being bombarded by bosons (or by some other forms of energy) at the same rate from all sides equally. At the same time, they shoot out bosons to all other the place also at some steady rate. Since no other changes, space around is “flat”, I.e. boson pressure if equal in all points of space, thus Newton’s 3rd law “keeps” everything at rest. Then electricity begin to flow. Electrons start slow march from - to +. Despite the very slow pace, moving electrons generate disturbance in boson field. Sort of like a passing vehicle create air wave. Particles now experience unequal boson pressure (which we call magnetism) that forces stuff to move. Since particles physically move now, they create even more distortion but grabbing bosons that otherwise would hit other particles, and at the same time bombard others with own bosons at different rate. That new disturbance in turn creates additional difference in electric potentials and thus secondary electric field. And this goes on and on until all particles finally find themselves in a condition of equal forces from all other the place at exactly the same time. That would also explain electromagnetic wave: like a pendulum, particles try to compensate, overshoot (because bosons have limited speed and arrive with delay), move to opposite direction, start compensating again, overshoot again, and on and on. Also, would explain why no magnetic monopole was ever found. Or rather every single particle is such a “monopole” and they all equally compensate each other and stay in state of rest until something introduces initial disturbance.
@@nanovoidalt metatron's Matrix smoking hot light is fire light is water light is wind light is Earth... Quantum Light is TIME SPACE SPACE TIME LIVEING IAMO IN ALL IAM LIGHT The Reciprocal Value of Rest Mass Energy = TIME (Rest). The Infinite Arithmetic Progression (‘Infinite Sum’ = (1+2+3+4+5+…..-1/12) AND the Infinite Multiplicative Progression (‘Infinite Product’/Factorial) = (1x2x3x4x5x…..τ^1/4; where τ = 2π). The Infinite Sum and the Infinite Product inform the Universal ‘Infinite’ Right Triangle possessing a Hypotenuse ((Infinite Sum/2) value of 4.166666 (=1/.24); Height (Infinite Product^1/2) value of 3.85415 (=1/.259); and Base of 1.583233 (1/.631618); Rest Mass Energy is defined by a Right Triangle’s Height, whereas its Total Mass Energy is defined as Rest Mass Energy + Momentum (Kinetic Energy); its Hypotenuse defines the Infinite Sum/2. The modular configuration is due to θ° forming Mod1/.62; The Hypotenuse/Height defines the Logarithmic Base value (1.08 and its powers at each successive interval). The Inverse reciprocal (1/x) equations of the above define the Precessional Period both at Rest Time (1/.259 x 10^5) and at Total Time (1/.24 x 10^5); this differential accounts for additional momentum/velocity that occurs when the Solar System approaches its Binary Partner Star: Sirius A, contracting the time (Mass-Time Dilation) on the short arc of the cycle to only 21,600 years; versus the long end of the cycle being 25,920 years, the mean value being therefore approx 24,000 years-. These relationships yield a NEW UNIVERSAL EQUATION for 1/TIME (Rest) = ((Infinite Sum/2 - Infinite Product ^1/2)*((Infinite Sum/2) + ((Infinite Sum/2 + Infinite Product)^1/2)…..finding the solution to the Sum-Product as Right Triangles was a serious breakthrough that has now led our Research Team toward entirely new understandings in Physics. Using our recent discovery of Pythagorean Factorization: Factor 1 = 2.583433 (which is also equal to the Square Root of the Gravitational Constant 6.674 x 10^-11 (N*m^2)/kg^2. Interestingly, 258.3433 ≈ e*(360°). The other factor in the equation is 1/(2.4)^2….. and ALL of the above found in a single ‘Infinite’ Right Triangle derived from the ‘Infinite Sum’ and the ‘Infinite Product’ Arithmetic Progression values of Integers……MeTAtron's MAtriX3x3 OM'E... "The All is Mind; the Universe is Mental." "As above, so below; as below, so above.” "Nothing rests; everything moves; everything vibrates." Everything is ALLMIND369 OVEONE IAM=O=QuantuM⚖️ ALLMIND IN 3in1MINDS Body Spirit OVE light*3÷7 color*3÷7 sound*3÷7.. 7SUMS CREATION ALLMIND frequency vibration in THOUGHTS charge ●■☆MC² in WAVES OVE 3SOUNDs7 1Frequency. ... Amplitude. ... 2Timbre. ... Envelope. ... ***3Velocity. ... Wavelength. ... Phase =SUM.7 🎯3 ⚡Lights7: 1 radio waves,÷ microwaves, 2infrared (IR)÷ visible light, ***3ultraviolet ÷ X-rays Sum Gamma rays SUM7x 🎯6 🌈COLORs 7 1 Red÷ Orange 2Yellow÷ Green ***3. Blue÷ Indigo SUM Violet SUM7 🎯9 In seven colors seven notes seven lights in infinite divisions ALL TOGETHER Creating all living systems, Creating All living bodies, Creating all gravity, Creating all matter.. IN ElectroMAGnetic geometrical symmetrical fractal order HerMEs TrisMAjistus THOTH TimesFaceInEnergy.com Light Never Dies death is our illusion through the terrible twos of childhood in Mercy Mercy Me and our promise rest is real.. Prisoners law in three power three sets all captives free 3Consciousness says I see you Mirror Mirror I see me wisdoms wisdom's wisdoms unconditional love and forgiveness is key
It might be an odd tangent, but I think people shouldn't have mocked "F###ing Magnets, how do they work?" Precisely because if this. People think they understand middle school level physics, but they don't realize that their understanding of physics is basically 100 years outdated.
Haha, the lyrics had nothing to do with the complexity of the subject and how many people get it wrong. It was about mystifying the topic and science denial. Just read the very next lines of the song.* They absolutely deserved every bit of the mockery they got. *Violent J rolled back the 'liars' claim made in those lyrics and said it was more about scientific explanations destroying the wonder of things, which personally I think is also daft and wrong, but then how would he know? Hes never actually listened to any of them...
@@xtieburn I don't claim to have any insight into what these literal clowns were thinking, and I frankly don't care. What I do know is that the memes overwhelmingly focussed on that one specific part of the lyrics and did not include the lines that followed. I also know that tons of people felt prompted to provide explanations that overwhelmingly did not rise above middle school level physics. My point is simply that that even among people who have reached what would be considered a respectable level of education, the percentage of people who can properly explain how magnets work is vanishingly small.
My take is that the electromagnetic field generates forces on charges that appear as the classical electric (coulomb) or classical magnetic force depending on the frame of reference, and the difference shows when motion of charges exist. The confusion arises when we mix special relativity with the classical concepts.
The confusion doesn't only arise when we mix SR with pre SR electromagnetism. The confusion arises from the lack of reference frame in Maxwell's Equations. The confusion is what _leads_ to Special Relativity. Read Einstein's original paper "on the electrodynamics of moving bodies". It is not too difficult.
When I was I kid I wanted to better understand how the electric guitar worked. That led me to electromagnetism and an interest in physics. Thanks for the video. All this brings us to Jimi Hendrix and then our minds really get blown.
The fact that electrons move so slowly and create such a substantial force due to relativistic length contraction shows just how powerful the electrical force is.
@Veritasium explained that electrons move at inches per second, and that it's the EM field that moves at near the speed of light. OK, need to do a followup video cause this hurts.
Thanks for this solid review of the basics. So the relative motion of the charges contracts them, effectively concentrating their potency. There is fertile soil here.
When I first learned about Magnetism and was told it was a related phenomenon to electricity, I concluded that "magnetic forces" were fake forces, and that what we call magnetism must just be a side effect of moving charges, but I never could figure out how it actually worked. I even learned the basics of relativity from other sources, and they didn't specifically mention the connection with electromagnetism, most likely because they focused on measurable length contraction and not the ridiculously tiny amount that's the source of magentism. It wasn't until much, much later, when I was graduated from college and just learning for fun that I came across the connection as this video describe. It still seems mysterious to me, so I try to keep refreshed on how exactly it works.
I first learnt this theory in Veritasium's channel, feel quite skeptical about it, so I did a rough calculation: Assuming 1A current flow through φ8mm wire --> electron drift speed ~10^-5m/s order--> Length contraction about 1/10^13 order, for 1m wire moving electrons are packed in (1 - 10^-13)m less Electron density in conducting metal 10^28/m^3 order --> In φ8mm wire there are 5x10^23 free electrons / m Which means positive charges in 10^-12m contribute to the "magnetic field" In 10^-12m distance, positive charge number equal to electron number if there is no current, so there is 5x10^10 difference between positive and negative charges in 1m wire That's 1.6x10^-19 x 5x10^10 = 9 x 10^-9 C electric field built because of the 1A current flow, if we can really apply specific relativity into this equation Could someone please try to verify if 9x10^09C electric field does equal to the magnetic field of a φ8mm wire with 1A current?
I've heard this explanation before. Thanks for the links to other sources (I haven't checked these out yet) but two significant unanswered questions stick out for me: 1. special relativity has extremely non-linear properties but we learn even in high school physics that magnetic field strength is directly proportional to current; how can a highly non-linear phenomenon give rise to a linear one?. 2. How does this relate to magnetic materials with aligned electron spins?
Replication of Ampere's Law using Special Relativiy: The magnetic field is a pseudo electric force field created by moving charges as explained in the video. Charged particles move PERPENDICULAR to the magnetic field lines of force: f = qV x B. That's why B points orthogonally to both the electric field and the current in the wire. Illustrating how the B field around a wire carrying a current is formed: Using the right-hand rule for E, B and v, if you place vector B at the end of vector E, as you rotate 360 degrees the E vector radiating from the wire, B will form a circle centered on the wire, where E is the pseudo electric field formed by moving charges. This is Ampere's Law.
You started by showing it works in the wire's reference frame. Then you introduced the problem of "how can it work w/ relativity from the charge's reference frame?". Then you solved it. That isn't special relativity saving magnetism because you're just solving the problem you introduced. To illustrate the importance of SR, you'd need to demonstrate the problem using only absolute coordinates first and then solve it with SR.
That's fair criticism, though in all fairness the problem only requires relativity in the sense that physics stays the same in all non-accelerating reference frames to be described (pretty sure that kind of relativity has a name that comes from some Greek physicist who described it but I can't find the name), but requires length contraction to be solved, which is a completely different beast
Wow, the Lorentz contraction of the "moving" opposite electric charge is a super weird way to get an electric charge effect. It's almost like the opposite of camera perspective distortion, but also not, cause it's about change in position over time, so it's 4D perspective, and cameras produce 2D images...
Those ideas might not be as rigorous as they should be the explanation is the length contracted negative charge is matching the positive charge but in a rest frame that contracted wire expands back that reduces the charge density and the wire is no more neutral
This makes perfect sense. I even made my own video about it. However, I have one problem. A straight solenoid with a changing current will create a field with a force that tends to cause electrons to move in a circle around the solenoid. How can this circular force be explained in the context of this video?
Do this mean that there is no detectable difference between a magnetic field and an electric field? If there were a difference in any way, then you could build a detector to tell you the electric field strength and magnetic field strength at a given point, but that answer would only be valid in the reference frame of the detector.
If the charges are moving faster and contract (become closer together), but the wire they are in is not moving (or at least is not moving differently for the positive and negatives contained within) and thus is not contracted (or at least contracted the same for both pos and neg charges), would that not mean that you need more of one charge or the other in the wire? Where did the extra charge come from?
That is amazing to consider that the super advanced modern concepts of Einstein and Special Relativity can shed light on something we basically cracked a couple hundred years ago in magnets. So fun to see there are constantly new details of the world to probe, even the parts we thought were "finished". The work of science is never done, and as this video shows, is not just a case of "ever more precision" like some detractors say.
I remember the physics prof going through the argument dispassionately in the lecture while my mind was thoroughly blown. Perhaps he wanted us to forget it so we would be awed by the slow-speed relativistic effect in his field of study (Mössbauer)
f one looks into the details of an electron ( or an atom) and sees it as a charged " spinning egg shaped " item , then those conditions will make the electron, in additional to the standard charge effect, behave as both an electric dipole and a magnetic dipole, hence it can line up with an externally applied electric field or a magnetic field. There will be a close and far electric and magnetic field to consider If there are no external fields, the electron can take different orientations and so the electrical and magnetic overall effect can disappear or appear. It is the external eclectic charge that stays as the magnetism is due to the dynamics of the electron, Under those conditions the electron can face an electrical/ magnetic "Magnus effect" as a spinning ball moving ahead or in the wind which make it traverse at right angles to the moving path, If the electron is assumed to be a charged particle spinning around where it behaves normally and also as an electric and a magnetic dipole, which can line up with externally applied Electric or Magnetic fields then the MAGNUS effect explains all there is to explain in electrical and magnetic fields. Permanent magnets may be looked upon as atoms where the orbiting electrons are moving in a flat disc rather than random movements on a sphere or an elliptical surfaces. The Magnus effect on a spinning electron makes it all so very simple. It explains Curl B= dE/dt and also Curl E=- dB/dt hence how the Voltage builds up in an open circuited generator where no current flows and then what happens in a loaded generator when current flows. Knowing the rate of change of electric fields in isolated conductors, current conductors, resistors capacitors, inductors will fit the Magnus effect in them all. A spinning football moving forwards or in a wind shows it all very clearly. th-cam.com/video/rAKKW_Y1HxE/w-d-xo.htmlsi=8-C9Z5U9z34Qk6Aq One can also see it as the wind moving a set of turbine blades or a set of turbine blades turbine making wind. The reality of it all depends on the electron being unsymmetrical to a blowing wind which is the same as an unsymmetrical airfoil section lifting or the Magnus rotating cylinder lifting when the wind blows or making the wind when an airfoil or rotating cylinder is made to move,
"for magnetism, both charges need to be moving": if you bring in relativity then as soon as one charge is moving there will always be an observer to whom both are moving. how does that add up?
It is my understanding that if you extend the same logic to two differently moving observers, they will not agree on the measurable electric/magnetic ratios of the same objects measured. But they can agree on the same universal outcomes of those differing measurements to a very high degree of accuracy by using Einstein's equations.
Fascinating topic, that I am sad I hadn't heard about sooner. It does bring a question to mind though. Wouldn't this make the existence of a magnetic monopole even more unlikely? Also since the magnetism is defined by spatial contraction, what would that mean to magnetism on the scale of a single set of charges, such as a single proton and electron?
I am amazed. By the Lorentz contraction equation, the relative lengths would be or the order of 1 part in 1,000,000 or less. It is amazing that such a difference could result in a significant magnetic force between the wires. Amazed.
some minor problems. The same effect can be seen with electron beams. and in a transformer you can place a metal foil between the windings and ground it as long as the foil does not connect all the way around. It's a nice way to think about it, but one way to visualize a transformer is with two rolls of water filled tubes. pulses of water in the one tube will make the rolls turn on a shaft and that would turn the second roll.
Great video. A good companion to this is describing gravity in terms of time dilation. I don't remember the exact explanation but The Science Asylum did a great video on it. Something about time running slower on one end of a solid object means it feels a force in that direction, aka gravity.
I watched a S. A. Video where Nick Lucid explained the same as this video, but I think he put a squirrel there to be the observer for the different reference frames you have there.
I designed magnetics; transformers, inductors and baluns for my power supply designs. I never understood magnetism, I just used the formulas for B, H, current density, and temperature.
Oh, now that one blew my mind. I’m not sure we atmospheric physics students were taught that one! It’s been 40 plus years though, so maybe! Thnx for teaching me something new!
Yes, I've read and seen vids on this relativistic explanation but they always only explain it using two parallel wires. I don't understand exactly how orbiting electrons in atoms / molecules form a permanent magnetic field. Sure, atomic poles / spin aligns but there appears to be a circulatory force. Permanent magnet materials are work even when not charged is my main concern.
Electrons are a bundle of dynamic charge, so they have a magnetic dipole. This is why they couple into pairs and form covalent bonds. It's almost easier to think of an electron as a magnet, and solididified magnets work because they align unpaired electron dipoles across the entirety of the solid. Electrons are never sitting still, even with no current. What the voltage does is make the electrons jump from atom to atom, which is like perpetually creating a band of unpaired electrons. The current is like a highway of unpaired dipoles, so it mimics the effect of solid magnets with atoms who can support unpaired electrons. Remember, two electrons can be attracted to form bonds. This is two negative charges overcoming their repulsive forces, and it happens in every atom above Hydrogen and in all covalent bonds. So the real question is, how does the dynamism of electrons lead to their attraction in spite of their like-charge? Or, why does the Pauli Exclusion Principle exist?
@@MichelleHell .. Yes, but a) electrons have a dipole, what is this and where does it come from? Spin... But you are talking about electro-magnets and charge flow. Where is this is in a neutral permanent magnet?
@@PrivateSi Creating one magnet involves using another magnet, forcing the unpaired electrons to spin in the same direction while it's molten, which later solidifies into a uniform arrangement. Quantum field theory might be what you're looking for. Protons can also be aligned with a magnet, so there's basically a lot of spinning charges and they arrange themselves to balance according to their relativistic experience to each other.
@@MichelleHell .. QFT is exactly the kind of fudge I'm sick of. Invent a different particle field for each particle type. It will work in a useful way but it will obscure what's really going on just as much. Yes, magnetic materials align 'spin direction' in a magnetic field, some permanently, some temporarily in the case of ferrous materials. So what is aligned? You've got to explain the left and right hand rules too. What is this EM field and what aligns in a vacuum to form a magnetic circuit? These are ore the questions I'm interested in. -- I prefer to have SOMETHING flowing towards the centre of each particle and all the positrons and electrons that they're composed of (the only proper permanent elementary massive particles that the universe would not waste 1/2 of).. Inflows collide at the centre of each and bounce out at 90' in one plane, spiralling out in another in all directions (spin 0) or with some bias... When charge particles move there's spin bias with spin at 90' to the direction of movement. This spin interacts with magnetic fields in the form of the LH and RH rules. -- These in and out flows also form toroidal loops within loops, squashed into a spherical magnetic dipole. When spins align many of these loops flow to the next spin-aligned particle instead, and as their energy is conserved circuits are amplified outside the object, into the 'vacuum of space' (that's a load of old balls - kick a +ve base quanta ball free with 'Full Escape Energy' and you have a POSITRON, with the excess -ve electro-gas forming an ELECTRON... They are immediately repelled into field warp(ing) balls by the far more balanced, close-packed electro-positronic field around.. These turn into (pulsating, 'spinning') -ve electro-gas pumps as they try to find their balance but never can as the relatively balanced surrounding field will not let them.
Wow I guess this also explains why high voltage transmission lines want to snap together if in proximity to one another and so are kept widely separated on towers.
I heard this in passing about 45 years ago. It stuck with me but I never managed to chase down the details. Thank you.
I did know this.... was taught it 55 years ago and remember the feeling of amazement that relativity at such gentle speeds could so precisely explain electromagnetism. Thanks for bringing it all back.... it will help me fade away with a smile.
there once was a fencer named Fisk
whose action was exceedingly brisk
so fast was his action
the Lorentz contraction
reduced his rapier to a disk.
If you pass by the Earth fast enough, then the Earth is flat.
@@romanski5811 nah . . . that only happens if the Earth passes by you.
Both scenarios are same.
This can only be observed by one being perpendicular to the sword.
There once was a man called Don
Who was ever so easy to con
He made a great hash
Of physics' worst trash
And all that he said was wrong.
That was nuts... I was getting more confused but you set me up perfectly for it to click when you brought in the length contraction animation! I'd love to see a video on how this applies to permanent magnets and maybe even induced temporary magnetism.
I remember this explanation from school. I suppose given that E and M must function in all reference frames you could derive special (probably also general) relativity from the known results. The fact the E is M and M is E through relativistic transformations is so cool. Also it shows just how insanely charge dense normal matter is.
I've heard of this before, but your way of explaining it really clears things up. Now I can say that I know, rather than having heard of this effect. Thanks.
This is actually insane. So relativistic effects of magnetism happen at such low speeds too? I should probably read the math behind it but one observer's magnetism is another one's electricity? Truly mind blowing!
Depending on the observer's motion, it could be a sum of both magnetism and the electric force that explains the total force on the charged particle.
This must be where ICP gets their name. :V
It's pretty wild that the generation of magnetic fields by currents is an everyday relativistic phenomena (tiny charge density imbalance), and ferromagnetism is an everyday quantum phenomenon (tiny atomic current loops).
The relativistic effects being so tiny and the strength of electromagnetic effects in lab frame or charged particle frame of reference is simply a testimony to the strength of electromagnetism and the very large number of particles involved in a length of wire. Gravity by contrast is orders of magnitude much weaker.
Electric forces are really strong compared to gravity, so it's not at all surprising that low speeds are already have tremendous effects.
Always a pleasure to learn from these videos. Thank you to everyone involved with these presentations!
if you’re capable of thought, this is a terrible piece.
This is a good start. I would also note that the Coulomb force is so strong that even a small change in charge density produces a noticeable effect. Also the mass of proton charged nuclei is much greater than electrons and that makes them move slower giving rise to the greater special relativistic contraction of the flow of electrons in the frame of the outside charge observer. It would be fun to look at the difference between AC and DC currents.
what about the random root square speed? and also how about the fact that electrons are Bloch waves inside?
@@mrtienphysics666 It does get fun really quickly!
Well, let's modulate those with laser and we'll obtain some FOCK photon states
I wish he would quantify the cause and the effect, wish he'd show the math
I'm sure it's not too hard.
Albert Einstein invented Special Relativity to explain Magnetism in his 1905 paper "On the Electrodynamics of moving bodies", where his starting point was the apparent asymmetry of a moving wire and a stationary magnet vs. a stationary wire and a moving magnet.
And here I was, thinking it was really about trains, because of all the train examples and whatnot...
@@danieloberhofer9035 Die Arbeit heißt im Original "Zur Elektrodynamik bewegter Körper" und erschien in den "Annalen der Physik" 1905. In dieser Arbeit leitet Albert Einstein die Gleichungen der Speziellen Relativitätstheorie her: "Man denke z. B. an die elektrodynamische Wechselwirkung zwischen einem Magneten und einem Leiter. Das beobachtbare Phanomen hängt hier nur ab von der Relativbewegung von Leiter und Magnet, während nach der üblichen Auffassung die beiden Fälle, daß der eine oder der andere dieser Körper der bewegte sei, streng voneinander zu trennen sind." (Womit auch klar ist, wo der Begriff Relativitätstheorie ursprünglich herkommt.)
@@danieloberhofer9035 Actually Einstein didn't invent it, he just used the work of myriads other scientists before him. Which is why none of the special relativity concepts bear his name other than "Einstein's special relativity theory", which is but a summary of everything other scientist already found. His genius was making sense of all the things other geniuses found 💁♂
@@Ebani Lol. The same can be said of every scientists. It isn't for no reason that Newton wrote "If I have seen further it is by standing on the shoulders of Giants". Note that even that metaphor is way older than Newton.
@@estranhokonsta newton said the standing on giants thing in response to someone who was very small, implying he would not contribute at all.
Thanks for sheding light on (mysterious) magnetism and for providing source with more info. I would absolutely love to see an explanation of why inductors and transformers work the way they do using only this phenomenon!
3:56 The physicist: "Everything I just told you is right"
Me who's not a physicist: "Welp, that's good enough for me"
Regarding the note about the polarity naming of current flow, I recall an old (older than me) book describing an electrolytic solution. It could and indeed had been used as a rectifier. And because the "material" - positive ions flow was chemically more evident than any flow of the electrons, that became the positive direction. So, the polarity was established by wet chemistry instead of either solid state or gaseous state observations. Such a funny thought!
That was great. I remember asking the science teacher in high school why the textbook said it the charge moved in a direction that seemed to be completely the opposite of how he had explained that electricity worked. "It just is the way it is" was his response. I knew I was right !
I had to study the Berkley Physics Course books in the 70´s at the Groningen University so I got familiar then with the idea that magnetism comes from a special relativistic effect. As far as I can remember the explanation was set up differently in the book, but the idea is the same and at the time I was really excited by explanation.
Well, Einstein's original paper on special relativity was called "On the Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies." He starts right away by pointing out the bothersome asymmetry in the usual description of induced emf in a stationary loop with a moving magnet inserted, versus the magnetic force on the charges in a moving loop surrounding a stationary magnet. He then discusses the lack of reference frame inherent in Maxwell's equations, with which Newton's laws don't jibe. The paper is remarkably easy to read for anyone with limited mathematical background. In special relativity, the math is surprisingly simple, although the ideas are not so easy. (This is in contrast to most other topics in physics, like generaly relativity or quantum field theory, where the math is definitely _not_ simple - nor are the ideas.)
A good reason for that is as I have understod it Albert Einstein wasn't all that good at mathematics. He had a very good mind to find new ideas. This is why I can't understand that todays Physicians demand that an idea is calculated through before they even want to consider it.
wow, this is amazing. Relativistic effects at 1mm/s, magnetism explained without those weird right hand rules, exactly what I missed in the high school. May be I would become some magnet engineer if I saw this video at my 16 :)
Phenomenally clear explanation. Congratulations
Hi Don, I imagine these very tiny relativistic effects on the moving electrons do matter in the macroscopic world because there are trillions and trillions of them and they add up to a macroscopically measurable force. But what happens if only two of them pass each other along their way? They interact by exchanging a virtual photon, so how does quantum mechanics fit into this picture? Do those exchanged virtual photons between the wires also add up to make that electric force? Should be, but for me that makes it even wilder to imagine... thanks for your amazing video!
And: if you look at many comments below it's amazing how easy it is to get dozens of nobel prize winners to pop up by just mentioning SRT. THAT is Einsteins most magical force it seems.
Hey what about stationary permanent magnets, how can they be explained with the wire theory?
For this explanation to be valid it is required that the electric current in the wire be made from positive and negative charges which move in opposite direction, with equal speed. This assumption is used in the mathematical demonstration made by E. M. Purcell in which the exact value of the magnetic force is deduced (which only depends on the external particle speed and the current intensity, regardless of how small and non-uniform is the speed of the charges in the wire). If we consider only + charges moving inside the wire, then when the external particle speed is 0, then the + charge density inside the wire will have a relativistic contraction, but the - charge density will not be affected, as it is not moving in the external charge reference frame. This will be seen as a magnetic field by the stationary external charge, which is impossible.
As always, I truly enjoyed your videos. Thank you, to make the effort to outreach the community.
In reality the magnetic force is far more complex than I've ever seen anyone talk about. All atoms are made of neutrons, protons, and electrons. Science has found that all 3 components (neutrons, protons, and electrons) produce a magnetic moment. Each particle, just like a magnet has a positive and a negative pole. As the particles move relative to each other due to heat, they are not only actively pushing and pulling on all the other neutrons, protons, and electrons within their sphere of influence. But the are also causing them to rotate from the positive and negative charged poles of each particle. This is an incredibly complex dynamics problem to model. Which is why the general equations may not exactly fit reality, but they are good enough.
Interestingly magnetic materials are simply materials where some of the electrons, protons, and neutrons align enough to result in a small total force in a single direction. All such materials can be trained to align the magnetic force in any direction. Meaning there is something in the way the atomic structure is organized that allows some of the poles to point in a certain direction and stay in that direction. But only part of the particles are aligned in the same direction. The rest are still spinning freely in reaction to one another. We know this because if 2, 5 gallon buckets of water placed 1 foot apart and all the electrons were aligned to attract to each other, the resulting force would roughly the same as the mass of the moon (or the force of gravity between the earth and the moon). These tiny particles have a small force, but all together working in unison would have immense amount of force. Magnets only have a small force so the logical conclusion is that only a few of the particles are aligned in magnetic materials.
But why don't magnets effect non-magnetic materials? They all have the same particles with the same strength. Non-magnetic materials simply react to the magnetic force in a way that nullifies the force without adding or subtracting to that force.
One thing to note is that we are used to the term "electricity" in which we are told is caused by moving magnetic fields which then moves electrons in some materials. But there is also a form of "electricity" that uses protons. In biology, single celled organisms use proton motors to rotate hair like structures.
I honestly think that we know very little about what actually occurs at the sub atomic level.
How does all of that work for freely moving charges in a vacuum without the presence of the opposite charge as in the wire?
Yeah, did you find an answer? ( is it sth like complementary particle stuff? )
If this happens to be a rebuttal of sorts against a snarky and some what rude attack on your channel that just happened to be based on misunderstanding this exact phenomenon, then you sir, are truly a mastor teacher. While it takes alot of smarts to be able to teach this as well as you do it takes profound wisdom to respond like this.
The concentration of charge due to length contraction causes electrical repulsion thus resulting in what is called the magnetic force. But how does that work for two point charged particles?
This is the best channel for science.
Jesse Pinkman saved magnet theory
Then why doesn’t a stationary charge feel the relativistic force from a current? From a stationary charge POV, the + and - charges in the wire are running at different speed and hence have different density.
I've done the calculations long time ago, it works great, but if B is entirely a relativistic effect of moving E, how would one describe an EM wave? I've been searching for that, but I cannot find it.
Wouldn't an EM wave be the exact same phenomena just oscillating? Instead of charge moving uniformly in one direction, it changes direction. Acceleration is required to create electromagnetic waves and the change in direction is the acceleration. We describe the oscillation by its relationship to time as frequency and its relationship to the speed of light by wavelength.
You have to derive a 4-vector field. In that case, relativistic effects looks like a 4-rotation of the vectors.
Oh my god I love Sir Don’s
Explanations, he made me love physics
Remember: It's OK to be a little crazy!
What I don't understand is, why would the space between each electron contract?
Shouldn't each individual electron contract in length while the distance between particles remains the same, and thus the effective charge density for a given length of wire remain the same?
You seriously rock! Physics is the most noble science there is.
It’s everything!
Yeah, well... there are more caveats than that.
For one, E^2-B^2 is a lorentz invariant. This means that a pure magnetic field (like in the case of that generated by the current in the wire) simply CANNOT become a pure electrostatic field (the invariant is negative), no matter what reference frame you swap to. So no, magnetism is not "just" electricity seen from the "wrong" reference frame.
Another caveat is, electrons and protons are NOT billiard balls with charge. They are quantum objects. The wavefunction of electrons in metals (and thus in the wire) is effectively spread over the whole surface. Also it doesn't explain how permanent magnets work, since that involves spin (which is a source of INTRINSIC magnetic moment).
Finally, this explanation makes it sound like magnetism is less fundamental than electricity, while the reality is that they are on equal footing. Two sides of the same coin, the EM field. I feel like these kind of explanations do more harm than good, I'd stick with maxwell.
The explanation doesn't say the magnetic field became an electrostatic field; it says that the magnetic force becomes an electrostatic force. The force is the _gradient_ of the field -- the magnetic field doesn't disappear, only its gradient does.
@@BrooksMoses force is the gradient of potential, not field... Force is directly proportional to field strength...
@@FunkyDexter: Doh! Of course, you're right. I was thinking that the field was the potential field, not the force field.
How does the shortening of the charges themselves equate to a shortening of the spaces between them? The space between them isn't moving and wouldn't contract, I'd think. Why doesn't the external charge just see bigger-than-normal gaps between smaller-than-normal charges?
My question as well.
Quick hopefully useful rake: If two charges are moving past you at some speed relative to your rest frame then they are in a different frame - one moving at their speed relative to you. >Everything< in that reference frame looks shortened in that direction to you including the space between the particles. Think of them as ticks on a ruler. The ruler shrinks so the ticks look closer together to you. The fact that there is no material ruler there, doesn't mean there isn't the "frame ruler".
On top of that, the length contraction does not depend on the direction of current flow. The effect should be the same in either direction.
Switching the charges you look at when you "change" current flow direction does not make physical sense.
I'm TOTALLY blown, never thought a "very simple" concept to a middle schooler actually goes SO deep into the rabbit hole. Thank you, Dr. Lincoln.
Hi Dr. Don! Can you do a video on the difference between magnetism and electromagnetism? I'm having trouble understand why like poles on a magnet repel, while like charges on an electromagnet attract.
It's more complicated than the video here, but it's the same thing. For like poles, the electric field is similar to like charges, while for opposite poles, the contraction is more like concentrating opposite charges.
It's >>much
I also would like to see if relativistic effects can explain the permanent magnets. Permanent magnets attract or repel each other without presence of moving charges, right?
@@stefanyankov3801 No. Remember that electrons both move and spin within atoms.
Dr. Don Lincoln with the classic hits, taking us all the way back to 1905, baby! Albert Einstein featuring James... Clerk... Maxwell for this mix, you know it, get your right hand in the air for On the Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies! ⚡
If Insane Clown Posse don't understand magnets, then I have no chance
I knew this already, but it's always good to see it explained again. It illustrates several important concepts in physics.
First the full meaning of relativity in physical laws - two observers should agree on the general laws, but they may not, indeed often will not agree on the exact explanation for a specific observation, not even on which forces are involved.
Second, it illustrates length contraction as a phenomenon that has observable effects in everyday life!
And third, the electromagnetic force is mindbogglingly strong - even the vanishingly small length contraction of the electron spacings in a wire suffices to generate a charge imbalance large enough to lift objects against the gravitational pull of the Earth.
You forget that according to Einstein there is no gravitadional pull of the earth. It is space time that is bend.
Personally I am yet to be convinced that the Physicians current explanation is correct. In my oppinion it is only one way of looking at it.
It's pretty wild that the generation of magnetic fields by currents is an everyday relativistic phenomena, and ferromagnetism is an everyday quantum phenomenon.
Light is both
What’s not wild at all is that you put that exact same comment, word for word on more than one video. Doug, it got old before you even did it, time dilation in reverse!
Classical/Newtonian physics appears to also explain magnetism. It goes like this:
Particles are being bombarded by bosons (or by some other forms of energy) at the same rate from all sides equally. At the same time, they shoot out bosons to all other the place also at some steady rate. Since no other changes, space around is “flat”, I.e. boson pressure if equal in all points of space, thus Newton’s 3rd law “keeps” everything at rest.
Then electricity begin to flow. Electrons start slow march from - to +. Despite the very slow pace, moving electrons generate disturbance in boson field. Sort of like a passing vehicle create air wave. Particles now experience unequal boson pressure (which we call magnetism) that forces stuff to move.
Since particles physically move now, they create even more distortion but grabbing bosons that otherwise would hit other particles, and at the same time bombard others with own bosons at different rate. That new disturbance in turn creates additional difference in electric potentials and thus secondary electric field. And this goes on and on until all particles finally find themselves in a condition of equal forces from all other the place at exactly the same time.
That would also explain electromagnetic wave: like a pendulum, particles try to compensate, overshoot (because bosons have limited speed and arrive with delay), move to opposite direction, start compensating again, overshoot again, and on and on.
Also, would explain why no magnetic monopole was ever found. Or rather every single particle is such a “monopole” and they all equally compensate each other and stay in state of rest until something introduces initial disturbance.
My puny mammal brain can barely handle these ideas. Great video!
Consciousness power three sets all captives free no longer at the mercy of the child mind mammalian Beast mind rule of Self in our world
@@brendabeamerford4555What are you smoking?
Yepper, lost me.
I can usually keep up.
@@brendabeamerford4555Get help.
@@nanovoidalt metatron's Matrix smoking hot light is fire light is water light is wind light is Earth... Quantum Light is TIME SPACE SPACE TIME LIVEING IAMO IN ALL IAM LIGHT
The Reciprocal Value of Rest Mass Energy = TIME (Rest). The Infinite Arithmetic Progression (‘Infinite Sum’ = (1+2+3+4+5+…..-1/12) AND the Infinite Multiplicative Progression (‘Infinite Product’/Factorial) = (1x2x3x4x5x…..τ^1/4; where τ = 2π).
The Infinite Sum and the Infinite Product inform the Universal ‘Infinite’ Right Triangle possessing a Hypotenuse ((Infinite Sum/2) value of 4.166666 (=1/.24); Height (Infinite Product^1/2) value of 3.85415 (=1/.259); and Base of 1.583233 (1/.631618); Rest Mass Energy is defined by a Right Triangle’s Height, whereas its Total Mass Energy is defined as Rest Mass Energy + Momentum (Kinetic Energy); its Hypotenuse defines the Infinite Sum/2. The modular configuration is due to θ° forming Mod1/.62; The Hypotenuse/Height defines the Logarithmic Base value (1.08 and its powers at each successive interval). The Inverse reciprocal (1/x) equations of the above define the Precessional Period both at Rest Time (1/.259 x 10^5) and at Total Time (1/.24 x 10^5); this differential accounts for additional momentum/velocity that occurs when the Solar System approaches its Binary Partner Star: Sirius A, contracting the time (Mass-Time Dilation) on the short arc of the cycle to only 21,600 years; versus the long end of the cycle being 25,920 years, the mean value being therefore approx 24,000 years-.
These relationships yield a NEW UNIVERSAL EQUATION for 1/TIME (Rest) = ((Infinite Sum/2 - Infinite Product ^1/2)*((Infinite Sum/2) + ((Infinite Sum/2 + Infinite Product)^1/2)…..finding the solution to the Sum-Product as Right Triangles was a serious breakthrough that has now led our Research Team toward entirely new understandings in Physics. Using our recent discovery of Pythagorean Factorization: Factor 1 = 2.583433 (which is also equal to the Square Root of the Gravitational Constant 6.674 x 10^-11 (N*m^2)/kg^2. Interestingly, 258.3433 ≈ e*(360°). The other factor in the equation is 1/(2.4)^2….. and ALL of the above found in a single ‘Infinite’ Right Triangle derived from the ‘Infinite Sum’ and the ‘Infinite Product’ Arithmetic Progression values of Integers……MeTAtron's MAtriX3x3 OM'E...
"The All is Mind; the Universe is Mental." "As above, so below; as below, so above.”
"Nothing rests; everything moves; everything vibrates."
Everything is ALLMIND369 OVEONE IAM=O=QuantuM⚖️ ALLMIND IN 3in1MINDS Body Spirit OVE
light*3÷7 color*3÷7 sound*3÷7..
7SUMS CREATION ALLMIND frequency vibration in THOUGHTS charge
●■☆MC² in
WAVES OVE
3SOUNDs7
1Frequency. ...
Amplitude. ...
2Timbre. ...
Envelope. ...
***3Velocity. ...
Wavelength. ...
Phase =SUM.7
🎯3
⚡Lights7:
1 radio waves,÷
microwaves,
2infrared (IR)÷
visible light,
***3ultraviolet ÷
X-rays
Sum Gamma rays SUM7x
🎯6
🌈COLORs 7
1 Red÷
Orange
2Yellow÷
Green
***3. Blue÷
Indigo
SUM Violet
SUM7
🎯9
In seven colors seven notes seven lights in infinite divisions ALL TOGETHER
Creating all living systems,
Creating All living bodies,
Creating all gravity,
Creating all matter.. IN
ElectroMAGnetic geometrical symmetrical fractal order
HerMEs TrisMAjistus
THOTH
TimesFaceInEnergy.com
Light Never Dies death is our illusion through the terrible twos of childhood in Mercy Mercy Me and our promise rest is real..
Prisoners law in three power three sets all captives free 3Consciousness says
I see you Mirror Mirror I see me wisdoms wisdom's wisdoms unconditional love and forgiveness is key
Fermilab videos .... are everything!
It might be an odd tangent, but I think people shouldn't have mocked "F###ing Magnets, how do they work?" Precisely because if this. People think they understand middle school level physics, but they don't realize that their understanding of physics is basically 100 years outdated.
???
As a former ICP fan, I had to defend that constantly.
@@mountfairweathersearch for insane clown posse and magnets
Haha, the lyrics had nothing to do with the complexity of the subject and how many people get it wrong. It was about mystifying the topic and science denial. Just read the very next lines of the song.*
They absolutely deserved every bit of the mockery they got.
*Violent J rolled back the 'liars' claim made in those lyrics and said it was more about scientific explanations destroying the wonder of things, which personally I think is also daft and wrong, but then how would he know? Hes never actually listened to any of them...
@@xtieburn I don't claim to have any insight into what these literal clowns were thinking, and I frankly don't care.
What I do know is that the memes overwhelmingly focussed on that one specific part of the lyrics and did not include the lines that followed. I also know that tons of people felt prompted to provide explanations that overwhelmingly did not rise above middle school level physics.
My point is simply that that even among people who have reached what would be considered a respectable level of education, the percentage of people who can properly explain how magnets work is vanishingly small.
My take is that the electromagnetic field generates forces on charges that appear as the classical electric (coulomb) or classical magnetic force depending on the frame of reference, and the difference shows when motion of charges exist. The confusion arises when we mix special relativity with the classical concepts.
The confusion doesn't only arise when we mix SR with pre SR electromagnetism. The confusion arises from the lack of reference frame in Maxwell's Equations. The confusion is what _leads_ to Special Relativity.
Read Einstein's original paper "on the electrodynamics of moving bodies". It is not too difficult.
When I was I kid I wanted to better understand how the electric guitar worked. That led me to electromagnetism and an interest in physics. Thanks for the video. All this brings us to Jimi Hendrix and then our minds really get blown.
The fact that electrons move so slowly and create such a substantial force due to relativistic length contraction shows just how powerful the electrical force is.
@Veritasium explained that electrons move at inches per second, and that it's the EM field that moves at near the speed of light. OK, need to do a followup video cause this hurts.
Thanks for this solid review of the basics. So the relative motion of the charges contracts them, effectively concentrating their potency. There is fertile soil here.
When I first learned about Magnetism and was told it was a related phenomenon to electricity, I concluded that "magnetic forces" were fake forces, and that what we call magnetism must just be a side effect of moving charges, but I never could figure out how it actually worked. I even learned the basics of relativity from other sources, and they didn't specifically mention the connection with electromagnetism, most likely because they focused on measurable length contraction and not the ridiculously tiny amount that's the source of magentism. It wasn't until much, much later, when I was graduated from college and just learning for fun that I came across the connection as this video describe. It still seems mysterious to me, so I try to keep refreshed on how exactly it works.
I first learnt this theory in Veritasium's channel, feel quite skeptical about it, so I did a rough calculation:
Assuming 1A current flow through φ8mm wire --> electron drift speed ~10^-5m/s order--> Length contraction about 1/10^13 order, for 1m wire moving electrons are packed in (1 - 10^-13)m less
Electron density in conducting metal 10^28/m^3 order --> In φ8mm wire there are 5x10^23 free electrons / m
Which means positive charges in 10^-12m contribute to the "magnetic field"
In 10^-12m distance, positive charge number equal to electron number if there is no current, so there is 5x10^10 difference between positive and negative charges in 1m wire
That's 1.6x10^-19 x 5x10^10 = 9 x 10^-9 C electric field built because of the 1A current flow, if we can really apply specific relativity into this equation
Could someone please try to verify if 9x10^09C electric field does equal to the magnetic field of a φ8mm wire with 1A current?
I've heard this explanation before. Thanks for the links to other sources (I haven't checked these out yet) but two significant unanswered questions stick out for me: 1. special relativity has extremely non-linear properties but we learn even in high school physics that magnetic field strength is directly proportional to current; how can a highly non-linear phenomenon give rise to a linear one?. 2. How does this relate to magnetic materials with aligned electron spins?
Thanks Don. Mission accomplished 🤯
The only person I am aware of that has some idea of what magnetism actually is is Theoria Apophasis.
Replication of Ampere's Law using Special Relativiy:
The magnetic field is a pseudo electric force field created by moving charges as explained in the video.
Charged particles move PERPENDICULAR to the magnetic field lines of force: f = qV x B.
That's why B points orthogonally to both the electric field and the current in the wire.
Illustrating how the B field around a wire carrying a current is formed:
Using the right-hand rule for E, B and v, if you place vector B at the end of vector E, as you rotate 360 degrees the E vector radiating from the wire, B will form a circle centered on the wire, where E is the pseudo electric field formed by moving charges. This is Ampere's Law.
Wow yes this concept never fully made sense to me until now, well done great explanings!
You started by showing it works in the wire's reference frame. Then you introduced the problem of "how can it work w/ relativity from the charge's reference frame?". Then you solved it. That isn't special relativity saving magnetism because you're just solving the problem you introduced. To illustrate the importance of SR, you'd need to demonstrate the problem using only absolute coordinates first and then solve it with SR.
That's fair criticism, though in all fairness the problem only requires relativity in the sense that physics stays the same in all non-accelerating reference frames to be described (pretty sure that kind of relativity has a name that comes from some Greek physicist who described it but I can't find the name), but requires length contraction to be solved, which is a completely different beast
I need to watch this again. Thank you Mr Lincoln.
Wow, the Lorentz contraction of the "moving" opposite electric charge is a super weird way to get an electric charge effect. It's almost like the opposite of camera perspective distortion, but also not, cause it's about change in position over time, so it's 4D perspective, and cameras produce 2D images...
Yet another magnetic example of Dr. Don's mind blowing video's! 👍👍💥💥
Those ideas might not be as rigorous as they should be the explanation is the length contracted negative charge is matching the positive charge but in a rest frame that contracted wire expands back that reduces the charge density and the wire is no more neutral
This makes perfect sense. I even made my own video about it. However, I have one problem. A straight solenoid with a changing current will create a field with a force that tends to cause electrons to move in a circle around the solenoid. How can this circular force be explained in the context of this video?
I see Dr. Don; I click!
WOW the world needs more teachers like this
But how do electromagnetic waves work?
So how does a electrostatic field differ from an electromagnetic field! The electron microscope uses both to focus the electron beam.
I absolutely love your content!! Keep making it!
Great finish! A little confusing to have that teaser in the middle though!
Do this mean that there is no detectable difference between a magnetic field and an electric field?
If there were a difference in any way, then you could build a detector to tell you the electric field strength and magnetic field strength at a given point, but that answer would only be valid in the reference frame of the detector.
Wow, that's cool. So obvious once explained, but takes a genius to discover.
But what about permanent magnets and ferromagnetism? Because "Iron/steel sticking to magnets" is the most common way most people experience magnetism.
If the charges are moving faster and contract (become closer together), but the wire they are in is not moving (or at least is not moving differently for the positive and negatives contained within) and thus is not contracted (or at least contracted the same for both pos and neg charges), would that not mean that you need more of one charge or the other in the wire? Where did the extra charge come from?
For current to flow the wire needs to form a loop. On the return leg the spacing of the opposite charge is contracted.
8:56 is the relativistic effect really due to the moving electrons or due to the difference of the electric potential which propagates at nearly c?
That is amazing to consider that the super advanced modern concepts of Einstein and Special Relativity can shed light on something we basically cracked a couple hundred years ago in magnets. So fun to see there are constantly new details of the world to probe, even the parts we thought were "finished". The work of science is never done, and as this video shows, is not just a case of "ever more precision" like some detractors say.
I am pretty sure Purcell was my textbook in my Physics understanding course in 1981! And this was in Brazil!
I remember the physics prof going through the argument dispassionately in the lecture while my mind was thoroughly blown. Perhaps he wanted us to forget it so we would be awed by the slow-speed relativistic effect in his field of study (Mössbauer)
f one looks into the details of an electron ( or an atom) and sees it as a charged " spinning egg shaped " item , then those conditions will make the electron, in additional to the standard charge effect, behave as both an electric dipole and a magnetic dipole, hence it can line up with an externally applied electric field or a magnetic field. There will be a close and far electric and magnetic field to consider
If there are no external fields, the electron can take different orientations and so the electrical and magnetic overall effect can disappear or appear. It is the external eclectic charge that stays as the magnetism is due to the dynamics of the electron,
Under those conditions the electron can face an electrical/ magnetic "Magnus effect" as a spinning ball moving ahead or in the wind which make it traverse at right angles to the moving path, If the electron is assumed to be a charged particle spinning around where it behaves normally and also as an electric and a magnetic dipole, which can line up with externally applied Electric or Magnetic fields then the MAGNUS effect explains all there is to explain in electrical and magnetic fields.
Permanent magnets may be looked upon as atoms where the orbiting electrons are moving in a flat disc rather than random movements on a sphere or an elliptical surfaces. The Magnus effect on a spinning electron makes it all so very simple. It explains Curl B= dE/dt and also Curl E=- dB/dt hence how the Voltage builds up in an open circuited generator where no current flows and then what happens in a loaded generator when current flows. Knowing the rate of change of electric fields in isolated conductors, current conductors, resistors capacitors, inductors will fit the Magnus effect in them all.
A spinning football moving forwards or in a wind shows it all very clearly.
th-cam.com/video/rAKKW_Y1HxE/w-d-xo.htmlsi=8-C9Z5U9z34Qk6Aq
One can also see it as the wind moving a set of turbine blades or a set of turbine blades turbine making wind. The reality of it all depends on the electron being unsymmetrical to a blowing wind which is the same as an unsymmetrical airfoil section lifting or the Magnus rotating cylinder lifting when the wind blows or making the wind when an airfoil or rotating cylinder is made to move,
Awesome stuff squeezed between nonpareil opening and closing cards!
So cool ! A new video from Don @ Fermilab and "PBS Space Time", on the same day !
"for magnetism, both charges need to be moving": if you bring in relativity then as soon as one charge is moving there will always be an observer to whom both are moving. how does that add up?
It is my understanding that if you extend the same logic to two differently moving observers, they will not agree on the measurable electric/magnetic ratios of the same objects measured. But they can agree on the same universal outcomes of those differing measurements to a very high degree of accuracy by using Einstein's equations.
Magnets work due to special relativity? How cool is that!
PS: I love your videos thank you sir
Veritasium and Minutephysics covered this in a connected pair of vids. Good to find about the Einstein link.
Please make a follow-up for permanent magnets
How is permanent magnets are explained, especially those super-magnets made with rare earth materials?
To me, the real mystery about magnetism is ferromagnetism, because it seemingly doesn't involve moving charges.
Electron around nucleus is not static.
Fascinating topic, that I am sad I hadn't heard about sooner.
It does bring a question to mind though.
Wouldn't this make the existence of a magnetic monopole even more unlikely?
Also since the magnetism is defined by spatial contraction, what would that mean to magnetism on the scale of a single set of charges, such as a single proton and electron?
I love these videos. Entertaining and informative. I so wish I had these when I was in school.
Nice wallpaper to enhance your geniality Herr Doktor.
I am amazed. By the Lorentz contraction equation, the relative lengths would be or the order of 1 part in 1,000,000 or less. It is amazing that such a difference could result in a significant magnetic force between the wires. Amazed.
Biggest gigachad of the 20th century, Einstein.
2:28 can this be the science gang sign
Thank You Don Lincoln and All the Team Who Make these Videos Reality, cause Physics is Everything 😉🙏
The video was quite Magni ficent
some minor problems. The same effect can be seen with electron beams. and in a transformer you can place a metal foil between the windings and ground it as long as the foil does not connect all the way around. It's a nice way to think about it, but one way to visualize a transformer is with two rolls of water filled tubes. pulses of water in the one tube will make the rolls turn on a shaft and that would turn the second roll.
Great video. A good companion to this is describing gravity in terms of time dilation. I don't remember the exact explanation but The Science Asylum did a great video on it. Something about time running slower on one end of a solid object means it feels a force in that direction, aka gravity.
I watched a S. A. Video where Nick Lucid explained the same as this video, but I think he put a squirrel there to be the observer for the different reference frames you have there.
I designed magnetics; transformers, inductors and baluns for my power supply designs. I never understood magnetism, I just used the formulas for B, H, current density, and temperature.
Oh, now that one blew my mind. I’m not sure we atmospheric physics students were taught that one! It’s been 40 plus years though, so maybe! Thnx for teaching me something new!
Yes, I've read and seen vids on this relativistic explanation but they always only explain it using two parallel wires. I don't understand exactly how orbiting electrons in atoms / molecules form a permanent magnetic field. Sure, atomic poles / spin aligns but there appears to be a circulatory force. Permanent magnet materials are work even when not charged is my main concern.
Electrons are a bundle of dynamic charge, so they have a magnetic dipole. This is why they couple into pairs and form covalent bonds. It's almost easier to think of an electron as a magnet, and solididified magnets work because they align unpaired electron dipoles across the entirety of the solid. Electrons are never sitting still, even with no current. What the voltage does is make the electrons jump from atom to atom, which is like perpetually creating a band of unpaired electrons. The current is like a highway of unpaired dipoles, so it mimics the effect of solid magnets with atoms who can support unpaired electrons.
Remember, two electrons can be attracted to form bonds. This is two negative charges overcoming their repulsive forces, and it happens in every atom above Hydrogen and in all covalent bonds. So the real question is, how does the dynamism of electrons lead to their attraction in spite of their like-charge? Or, why does the Pauli Exclusion Principle exist?
@@MichelleHell .. Yes, but a) electrons have a dipole, what is this and where does it come from? Spin... But you are talking about electro-magnets and charge flow. Where is this is in a neutral permanent magnet?
@@PrivateSi Creating one magnet involves using another magnet, forcing the unpaired electrons to spin in the same direction while it's molten, which later solidifies into a uniform arrangement. Quantum field theory might be what you're looking for. Protons can also be aligned with a magnet, so there's basically a lot of spinning charges and they arrange themselves to balance according to their relativistic experience to each other.
@@MichelleHell .. QFT is exactly the kind of fudge I'm sick of. Invent a different particle field for each particle type. It will work in a useful way but it will obscure what's really going on just as much. Yes, magnetic materials align 'spin direction' in a magnetic field, some permanently, some temporarily in the case of ferrous materials. So what is aligned? You've got to explain the left and right hand rules too. What is this EM field and what aligns in a vacuum to form a magnetic circuit? These are ore the questions I'm interested in.
--
I prefer to have SOMETHING flowing towards the centre of each particle and all the positrons and electrons that they're composed of (the only proper permanent elementary massive particles that the universe would not waste 1/2 of).. Inflows collide at the centre of each and bounce out at 90' in one plane, spiralling out in another in all directions (spin 0) or with some bias... When charge particles move there's spin bias with spin at 90' to the direction of movement. This spin interacts with magnetic fields in the form of the LH and RH rules.
--
These in and out flows also form toroidal loops within loops, squashed into a spherical magnetic dipole. When spins align many of these loops flow to the next spin-aligned particle instead, and as their energy is conserved circuits are amplified outside the object, into the 'vacuum of space' (that's a load of old balls - kick a +ve base quanta ball free with 'Full Escape Energy' and you have a POSITRON, with the excess -ve electro-gas forming an ELECTRON... They are immediately repelled into field warp(ing) balls by the far more balanced, close-packed electro-positronic field around.. These turn into (pulsating, 'spinning') -ve electro-gas pumps as they try to find their balance but never can as the relatively balanced surrounding field will not let them.
Well done and clear video on this matter. I learned something new.
Wow I guess this also explains why high voltage transmission lines want to snap together if in proximity to one another and so are kept widely separated on towers.
Well, except most of them are alternating current, which raises the complexity by quite a bit.
I think those lines are 3-phase, and I also think they are far apart because they are at huge voltages, not because they want to attract each other.